THE TRIPLE CORD OR A TREATISE PROVING THE Truth of the Roman Religion, By Sacred Scriptures Taken in the Literal Sense. Expounded by Ancient Fathers. Interpreted by Protestant Writers. WITH A Discovery of sundry subtle Sleights used by Protestants, for evading the force of strongest Arguments, taken from clearest Texts of the foresaid Scriptures. Si quispiam praevaluerit contra unum, duo resistunt el: Funiculus triplex difficilè rumpitur. Eccles. 4. 12. If a man prevail against one, two resist him: A triple Cord is hardly broken. Permissu Superiorum, M.DC.XXXIIII. THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY, TO THE PROTESTANT NOBILITY OF GREAT BRITAIN. RIGHT HONOURABLE LORDS, The Conceits of Men are so various, & the Gifts of Nature so unlike, with the qualities of Climates so different, as that we may by our Understandings observe, as great Variety in Wits and Manners, as with our Eyes we see in Faces, and Favours. For some, as I may say, are so unfortunately borne, as having no regard to true Honour and Nobility, which is ever founded upon true Virtue; they wholly dedicated themselves and their daily endeavours, to the only gaining and enjoying of such pleasures & profits, as may best please the Corporal Senses, or otherwise comply with the advantage of Temporal Fortunes: nothing fearing any blemishes of Honour, whilst they may obtain the foresaid Ends. Yet others rising under a more prosperous planet, are so greatly taken with the desire and love of true Honour and Renown, as that for the gaining or increase thereof, all corporal Contents and temporal Commodities with greatest scorn they trample & contemn; and their dearest Lyves they joyfully expose to greatest hazards. It is true Honour, and celebrity of Name which these men seek to purchase; Honour by Wisdom, Learning Fortitude, Magnanimity, Magnificence, and other such like Heroical Virtues, which as so many Potent Princes, created men truly noble. These are They, that gave splendour to your right Honourable progenitors, from whom by direct line you draw your Nobility: and these are they who give to yourselves a plentiful increase of all Honour, through your own most worthy, and memorable deserts. It were true Rusticity to say, that Children are not honourable in the Honour of their Parents. Do not the (1) Mat. 3.1. Luc. 3.23. Luc. 1.5. Evangelists describe at large the Genealogy of Christ our Lord and his B. Virgin-Mother, as also of S. john Baptist, thereby to prove that these greatest Heröes, were truly noble in their Progenitors? Doth not from the same root S. Hierome derive the praises of noble Paula, affirming that she was noble in birth, as being the issue of the Gracchis, the offspring of Scipions, & the heir of Paul? Doth not S. Gregory (3) Orat. de S. Cypr. & orat. de S. Basil. Nazianzen for splendour of their Stems, highly extol S. Cyprian and S. Basil, though otherwise most renowned for their learning and sanctity? Yea those (4) Sallust. famous Heathen Nobles P. Scipio & Qu. Fabius, when they heard, or read the glorious gests of their Ancestors, or beheld their Statues, they were greatly inflamed with the love of their Virtues. julius Caesar, but looking upon the Image of Alexander the Great, was thereby excited to the undertaking and performance of things truly great. And Alexander himself, remembering the Triumphs of his Father, they served to him as the sharpest spurs to prick him forward to the gaining an Immortality of his own Name? Wherhfore my Honourable Lords, make right accounted that saying of Plato to be most true, and truly Yours, The virtues of Fathers are the Treasures of Children, in which you may truly glory, and desire to imitate. Yet must I humby make bold, to intimate this further unto your Honours, that when your Father's worths are increased and enriched with your own Merits, than your Nobility is more complete, & more truly free from all malevolous Exceptions. The (5) Jo. 8.39. jews gloryed that their Father was Abraham, but Christ bade them if they be the Children of Abraham, to do the works of Abraham. Yea they raised their Pedigree so high, as that they avouched they had, but one (6) Io. 8.41. Father God himself; But jesus therefore said to them, If God were your Father, verily you would love me, for from God I proceeded and came. So that to make your Nobility, Firm and Immortal, you must adjoin your own virtues: for no more can it subsist without These, than Man without Reason. What did it avail profane and sensual Esau, that his Father was holy Isaac? or rebellious Absalon, that he was Son to the most valorous King David? Or foolish Roboam, that he had wisest Solomon for his Father? nothing did this profit, but to augment their shameful Infamy in this world, and their Eternal misery and punishment in the next, by so foully degenerating from so Noble progenitors. But so powerful is Virtue, for the Creation of Nobility, as that many borne in a gross air, of obscure parentage, through the Glory of their merits and worthiest Acts have shined to the whole world, as so many stars, leaving Honour to their Posterity, which their Fathers wanted. Tin is extracted from Silver, yet is not Silver; and Gold proceedeth from the base matter of Earth, and yet is not Earth, but precious Gold. It is much better, of an ignoble Race, through virtuous Actions to become Noble, then of a Noble Stock, by base vices, to become contemptible. There, Abraham's Father was an Idolater, and yet the Son for his admirable worth had the Honour to be styled, (7) Rom. 4.11. The Father of the Faithful, and him, in whose Seed, all Nations should be blessed, the Messiah of the world being to rise from thence. (8) Ex. 3.1. Moses & (9) 1. Reg. 9 psal. 77.71. David, were by condition Shepherds, but through their noble Acts became renowned Princes. Profane Histories are plentiful in these Examples, but I hasten to that which giveth life and lustre, yea the last perfection to all Nobility. This is Christian Nobility (worthy Peers) which will make you to be men truly borne of God, to have him for your Noblest Father; and through the Influences of his Grace, to imitate, & in some, though imperfect, sort, to express in yourselves, his Purity, Sanctity, Innocency, Wisdom, justice, Mercy, & the like; by these no less representing his Divine Image, than Sons do the faces and conditions of their carnal Parents. These are those true Nobles, which the Princely Eagle S. john (10) Jo. 1.13 describeth to be borne of God; not of Blood. These are they whom the Sacred (11) Io. 1.12 Rom. 8.14.17. 2. Pet. 1.4. 1. Pet. 2.9. Io. 10.34 Scriptures do honour, with those glorious titles of being the Sons of God, the friends of God, Heirs of God, and Coheires of Christ, partakers of his divine Nature, Kings, Gods. Now to be linked with this kindred, and so to be exalted to the highest Nobility, our heavenly Father requireth in his Children that by sacred virtues they seek to glorify, and magnify his holy Name, for so himself promised, when he said, (12) 1. Reg. 2.30. Whosoever shall glorify me, I will glorify him: and they that contemn me, shallbe ignoble. The Virtues whereby God is chief glorified, and whereby Men upon Earth do derive their Nobility from the King of heaven, are according to the beloved Apostle, divine Faith: for (13) 1. john 5.1.4. Whosoever believeth that jesus is Christ, is borne of God. And, All that is borne of God, overcometh the world, and this is the victory which overcometh the world, our Faith. But besides Faith, is likewise required Charity, for (14) 1. john 4.7. Every one that loveth is borne of God. As also justice, for (15) 1. john 2.29. Every one which doth justice is borne of him. And lastly, filial Obedience, and conformity to the will of our heavenly father, whose eldest Son assureth us all, that, (16) Mat. 12 50. whosoever shall do the will of my Father that is in heaven, he is my Brother, Sister, and Mother. O admirable Honour! O incredible power of virtue! How many good Mothers, Brothers, and Sisters, would have thought themselves most highly honoured, if they might have been linked with Christ in these degrees of carnal propinquity. And yet, as S. Chrisostome truly teacheth, (17) Hom. 45. in Mat. They are nearer of kin to God, who do his will, than those who are joined with greatest alliance of Blood. So that for a man to contract affinity with God, and thereby to be made of the Blood Royal, and to attain to the highest degree of Nobility, he must of necessity have his Soul adorned with those heavenly Graces of Faith, Charity, justice, Obedience, and the like. His Country must be the supernal Jerusalem; his highest Honour the preservation of God's Image, and conformity to his Pattern, which by Reason, and Virtue are only caused, and whereof at God's Tribunal he must give account. If he shall viciously defile that sacred Image of greatest Nobility, cut by the hand of God himself, and thereby introduce another form, to wit, of the Serpent; then, must he rank himself to his everlasting dishonour, amongst the spurious & ignoble. Christian Nobility doth not accept Persons, and Conditions of men, but looketh into their Minds: From the manners she judgeth a man to be servile or noble. The only freedom with God, is not to serve Sin: & the greatest Nobility with him, is to be eminent in virtues. Who amongst men in the sight of God was more noble than Peter, a poor Fisherman? And who amongst women more illustious than blessed Mary the wife of a Carpenter? And yet to that Fisherman the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given: and to that poor wife it was granted to be the Mother of him, who gave the keys. Wherhfore Christian virtues are they that must raise a man to the height of Honour. Now, if he that is borne of a Regal Stock, may justly glory in Princely Nobility; much more he who truly deriveth himself from the King of Kings and Creator of all things. With this dignity all the Just upon Earth are honoured, being borne of God by a new Nativity; and the Saints in heaven do thereby reign, as puissant Princes in Eternal glory. It is not unworthy your remembrance, Noble Lords, that (18) Hier. in Quaest Hebraic. in Gen. ad Cap. 22. & in ep. 27. ad Eustoch. Genebrard. in psal. 68 Mount Zion having two tops or Heads, upon one was built a Temple for the Service of God, and upon the other a Palace for the service of the King: thereby to show, that these two Honours must ever cohabitate, and not be separated, each one giving a peculiar Grace, and Splendour to the other. The Romans also, as S. (19) De ciu. Dei l. 5. c. 12. Austin recordeth, erected two Temples near adjoining together; the one they dedicated to Honour, the other to Virtue: thereby signifying that in what place there is splendour of Honour, in the same must be the exercise of Virtue. Wherefore whosoever desireth to shine with Christian Nobility, and to derive his Pedigree from the King of Heaven & Earth, a Father Almighty, he must ground his Honour upon divine faith, and raise it to the Height, by the exercise of Charity, and true Religion. But when I mention Religion, it putteth me in mind, that this King your Father espoused himself to (20) Ephes. 5.27. a glorious Queen, one so beautiful, that she had neither spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, but was Holy, and Unspotted: and this was his Beloved (21) Eph. 5.25. Church, whom he affected so dear, that he delivered himself for it, & (22) Act. 20.28. purchased it with his own Blood. This then being the Spouse of God, the Children of God, must needs be the Children of the Church, and she their Holy, and Unspotted Mother. A truth so certain, that the glorious Martyr and Bishop S. Cyprian, doubted not to avouch, that (23) De Ecl. unitate c. 5. August. tom. de Symb. l. 4. cap. 10. He cannot have God for his Father, that hath not the Church for his Mother. Now, that this Mother-Church, is only the Catholic Roman Church, I shall prove at large in this subsequent Treatise: only be pleased in the mean to remember, what a good old Bishop and Martyr said of this point: (24) Lucius Ep. 1. ad Episc. Hisp. & Cal. The Roman Church is Apostolical, and the Mother of all Churches, which is never proved to have Erred from the path of Apostolical Tradition, nor depraved with Heretical Novelties to have failed, according to the promise of our Lord himself saying: I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not. This Mother-Church it was, and only this, that had all your Forefathers for her loving and dutiful Children. It was She, that brought them forth Christians by the Laver of Baptism, & afterwards gave them growth, strength and increase by her other Sacraments. In her bosom they sucked Sanctity during this life, and by her they were advanced to the Court of Heaven, reigning there, truly Noble in immortal Glory. Peruse your Genealogies, look into the Chests of your Evidences, view the Records of all Courts, behold the ancient Monuments in your Churches, read all Chronicles and Histories, they will all depose unto You, that your Noble Ancestors, all of them before King Henry the eight his Reign, and infamous Relapse, were all of them Catholics truly Roman: The Sect of Protestancy, or the very Name thereof as than not being in Rerum Natura, & so never heard, or dreamt of by any of your Ancient Blood. And not only this, but many most noble Lords and Ladies, your glorious Predecessors, duly considering the vanity of things transitory, the uncertainty of this present Life, the innumerable dangers that therein occur, the dreadful judgement they were to undergo, and the final Sentence of joy, or Misery Eternal, which they were to receive: these important points, I say, they seriously and prudently pondering, with bravest Resolutions abandoned the present pleasures, profits, or Honours this world could afford them, and betook themselves to the safest Port of Monastical, and Religious life, therein to give themselves to the Exercise of Penance for expiation of sins, to the Contemplation of their Heavenly Father's infinite and unspeakable Perfections, for their imitation of his virtues, & to the needful Preparation, and due Disposition for the gaining, and enjoying Nobility and Honour, ever permanent & immortal. But if it were not to abuse your Honour's greatest Patience with longer Discourse, in a matter so evident, I should easily present unto your worthy views, many Kings and Queens of our own Country, for their singular virtues admired and honoured by all posterity, upon the former Considerations, to have cast by their Crowns, to have dethroned themselves of all civil Government and Command, to have resigned their Sceptres into the hands of others, and to have given the farewell to all Earthly contents, and all this to retire themselves the better in Religious life for the exercise of Virtue and the gaining of the Kingdom of Heaven. These, Noble Lords, are the bright Stars you must delight to behold; these are the choice patterns you must endeavour to imitate: Your worthy Spirits may, with much honour, emulate, their rarest Virtues, and thereby propagate to your own Posterity the name and Honour, which Kings and Kindred have bequeathed unto you. In these glory as your most Noble Progenitors; in yourselves rejoice, when as lively Images, you represent their Goodness. To degenerate from these would be greatest dishonour. His fall is fouler who hath happily stood, and the same more dangerous from the greater height it happeneth. What doth it avail a cowardly Son, that his Father was valiant? Or a vicious Child that his Parents were virtuous? Certainly no other, but more clearly, to blaze his greater shame, and most hateful Ignominy. Your Noble Hearts would not brook the lest aspersion to be laid upon the Honour of your most renowned Predecessors, by any man whatsoever, but with your wisdoms you would clear, and with Valour you would punish all offenders in that kind, as justly thinking the Dishonour would rebound upon your own persons, if you should suffer such Indignity to pass without Controwle. Much more will your Lordships be truly careful and precise, that the lest stain, or blemish do not fall from yourselves, whereby your Ancients splendour should by any ways, be obscured. O what unsufferable disgrace is it, for men ignoble and illiterate, not only to appeach your Noble Progenitors of ignorance, blindness, and stupidity; but further to brand them with those black marks of being men Superstitious, Idolatrous, Antichristian; and so undoubtedly for ever damned. And yet these are the ordinary detractions which come from the fowl mouths, and pens of ignorant, and impudent Ministers. But who, not a wretched Atheist, can possibly endure to have his Heavenly Father most blasphemously censured, as a cruel Tyrant, imposing Laws upon his Children, and Subjects, which are impossible to be observed, and yet the keeping of them to be necessary to their Salvation? To destiny and reprobate men from all Eternity, before their Creation, without all respect of their free works, to certain Damnation? To make the fountain of all Goodness (all ears do abhor to hear it) the Author, Cause, counsellor, Commander, & Compeller to all Sinne. To make the Son of God, Christ our Saviour, to have been borne with ignorance, to have died with despair, & to have suffered the very pains of the damned. And yet these are Tenets, holden for good by your learnedst Protestant Doctors. And what Child legitimate can with Patience brook, that his Mother most Honourable, , & Faithful to her Spouse, should be accused and judged for an Infamous Adultress? Not very Minister so ignorant, but will acknowledge, that the Roman Church was the most chaste & faithful Spouse of Christ, when S. Paul proclaimed that (25) Rom. 1.8. her Faith was renowned in the whole world: And (26) Rom. 16.19. her obedience published into every place: and the Romans highly commended, for that they had (27) Rom. 6.17. obeyed from the hart, unto that form of doctrine which had been delivered unto them. And yet now our viperous brood of Ministers, will needs have her to be the very whore of Babylon; (28) Apoc. 17 a harlot etc. with whom the Kings of the Earth have fornicated: An Apostata from Christ her Spouse; a profaner of God's word and Sacraments and in brief, wholly Antichristian. And I must not forbear to put your Honours in mind, of the dishonourable disgraces that these newborn Sectaries, would put upon yourselves, not only as you are Nobles, but as you are Men, endowed with reasonable Souls, whose principal Powers are Understanding, and Freewill, the most Essential differences between men and Beasts. Do not your New Masters generally teach, that God hath given to man only freewill to sin, but not to do good? When they do good, they are necessitated thereunto, for as without God's grace they cannot do it, so the same being offered, they cannot resist. O how dangerously doth this Eclipse the shining splendour of your own, and your Ancestors most commendable Acts! what can be praisworthy, that includeth necessity? Or on the contrary blamable, that cannot be avoided? If it was not in the power and will of yourselves, and your Forefathers to do, or not to do those Heroical Deeds, but what you did, you were necessitated to do through the enforcing hand and Ordination of God; what cause or colour can be imagined for the raising of yourselves, without all desert, to such highest Honours, and to grace even your Successors with such titles of Dignity? Be pleased to hear what Malleus Haereticorum, the learnedst S. Austin thinketh of this brutish Paradox: (29) L. de duabus Animabus c. 11. Neither here (saith he, speaking of Frewill) am I to search obscure books, from whence to learn, that no man deserveth Dispraise, or Punishment, who either willeth that which justice doth not prohibit, or doth not that which he cannot do. Do not the Shepherds sing these things in the Mountains, the Poets upon the Stages, the unlearned at their meetings, the learned in their Studies, Masters in the Schools, Bishops in Churches, and Mankind all over the world? So that Shepherds, Poets, Rustics etc. do exhibit that Honour unto you, whereof your own chaplains would willingly deprive you. Neither is Envy thus satisfied but with greatest malignity pursueth even your most laudable virtues, affirming that your best Deeds done for the Honour of God, his Church, your Country, or yourselves, are of all them, in themselves, & in the sight of God, Sin's abominable, mortal or deadly, which deprive a man of God's grace, & thereby of all Spiritual life, which degrade him of that chiefest Nobility to be the adopted Son of God, & heir of Eternal Kingdom, & finally make him the very slave of the Devil, and a most wretched Caitiff, condemned to eternal Misery. To what end should you expose your dearest lives in the service of your King and Country to imminent dangers? To what end should you make your daily prayers, and use other Exercises of Devotion, to the Honour of your supreme King, and your own Souls good? Or give your Charitable Alms to the Relief of the needy, if these deeds, payers, and Alms be all of them stained with Sin, offensive to the Majesty of God, and exceeding prejudicial, being all of them sinful to your own Souls? And yet these, and sundry other such nasty principles, the pretended reformed Protestancy doth project unto you. Awake then, Noble Lords, and let your eyes of Truth sand forth their clearest Rays, whereby to dispel those darkest Clouds of Error, which so dangerously obscure the brightness of your Names & Nobilities. If these unfortunate times do threaten, or object any danger of losing some temporal Honour, your Lo ps. may rest assured, that as the losing of your lives for Loialty and Fidelity to your King and Country, doth nothing diminish, but greatly augment your former Renowns: So the loss of all transitory Glory for your Loyalty to God, for Obedience to his Church, for profession of the Catholic Faith, for the gaining of a Heaven, is not to lose the lest title of Honour, but with plentiful increase to enrich the same. To lose lands or goods in the same honourable quarrel, is a pious Usury, only lending them for a time upon securest Bands, of not receiving ten for the hundred, but a hundred for ten. And I cannot think so unworthily of so worthy Spirits, that voluptuousness, and freedom in sensual delights, which your new Divines do so loudly teach, & liberally allow, that these, I say, can any thing deter you from the chaste Embracements of pure Virtue, and Religion, these being the base baits, wherewith the vulgar and ignoble are only taken. Wherefore to conclude this my humble Suit unto your Lo ps. be pleased sometimes to reflect, that as you are truly careful, and therein most commendable, to continued in yourselves, & to propagate in your Children, the Ancient Nobility which your fathers have left you, lively representing their wisdom, Fortitude, Magnanimity, and other such most bright beams of true Nobility: so no less careful that you be, in expressing their Noble Christianity, which they, before many hundreds of years past, worthily purchased by profession of Catholic faith, by obedience to Christ's Church, by Communion with God's Saints, by participation of holy Sacraments, and by their other exercises of Religion and Charity. Whereas this last Century hath given the first, and ancientest Blood which Protestancy can challenge, or expect. And seeing that wherein your chiefest cares must ever be incumbent, is the labouring the Eternal Weal of your own Souls, which men devoid of divine faith, and floating out of the Ark of the Catholic Church, amongst the uncertain waves of Error and Heresy, can never attain; therefore it will most nearly concern you diligently to learn, wherein that divine Faith consisteth; how it is to be gained; what profession thereof necessary; which is that Church which is the Ark of safety, the Spouse of Christ, the Mother of the Faithful, the Pillar of Truth, and so infallible a judge of all Controversies in Religion, as whosoever shall refuse to obey her Sentence, is to be reputed by all men, as a Heathen, and Publican. This is the business that importeth; the neglect whereof is not loss of temporal liberty, and imprisonment for life, or of large Renews, and mines of Gold, or the favour and grace of Princes, & esteem in Court, or of Strength, Health, Beauty, and other such gifts of Nature; but it is the loss Eternal of all Heavenly joys, and the Soul and Bodies burning in unquenchable fire for all Eternity. O discuss with yourselves at leisure, that deep question proposed by a Prince, (30) Luc. 18.18. Mar. 10.17. What shall I do, that I may receive life everlasting? or in the words of another (31) Act. 16.31. What must I do, that I may be saved? Seek, Search, Study, Meditate, Confer, Read, never rest until you find a true Resolution of this weightiest Question. If you will take it from Christ our Saviour, he giveth it in these plain words (32) Mat. 19.17. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the Commandments. If you will have it from your own Doctor, the Doctor of the Gentiles S. Paul, his answer is, (33) Act. 16.31. Believe in our Lord jesus, & thou shalt be saved. If you will have then the full Resolution, given by those two greatest Doctors, it is Faith, and Keeping of the Commandments, that will save you. Whereupon the third & most renowned Doctor S. Austin giveth the whole decision in these words, (34) De fide & operibus c. 15. I see not why Christ should say, If thou wilt have life everlasting, keep the Commandments; if without observing of them, by only faith, one might be saved. join then these two for your obtaining of Eternal happiness: and have ever fresh in your memories that sacred sentence of the Son of God, (35) Mar. 8.36. What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world, and suffer damage of his Soul? And with this, I humbly kiss all your Lo ps. hands, and ever desire to remain, Your Honour's faithful, though unworthy Servant, N. N. THE PREFACE TO THE Protestant Reader. SEEING it was ever holden as a thing most worthy of greatest praise, for a man to excel in all, or any of the liberal Sciences, the knowledge thereof being not only to himself, but also to others most useful and commodious; much more than is he to be honoured, who shall wholly, or chief employ his pains and studies in the attaining of the Science of Sciences, sacred Divinity, true Wisdom, whose Object is God, and whose supreme end is the Omnipotent glory, and man's Beatitude. This Science it is, for the teaching whereof the best Master, Christ our Lord, came into this world, according to those his blessed words, (1) Io. 18.37. For this was I borne, and for this I came into the world, that I should give testimony to the truth: Which truth he (2) Io. 18.20. taught in the Synagogue, and the Temple: And (3) Mat. 9.35. went about all the Cities and Towns teaching in their Synagogues, and preaching the Gospel of the kingdom etc. And not content that this preaching of the Gospel should only be used by his own person, and for his own time, he gave also in chiefest charge to his Apostles, and their Successors, that they should (4) Mat. 28.19.20. Teach all Nations etc. Teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever he had commanded them. Now, for their encouragement, the better to perform this Charge imposed, he assureth them by his Apostle, that (5) 1. Tim. 4.16. Thus doing, they shall save both themselves, and them that hear them. By which last words it also appeareth, that the knowledge of this Truth, this Gospel, this Divinity is requisite and necessary for man's Salvation. This truth and Gospel we only learn aright by the virtue of Faith, through which we firmly assent to all such Doctrines as the prime Verity, God himself, doth reveal, and his holy Church doth propose unto us. A blessing so great, as that without it, (6) Heb. 11.6.1. It is impossible to please God, and attain Salvation, in being the foundation of all such things, as are to be hoped, or expected. This faith as it is only gained by the free Gift of God, so is it only lost by Infidelity and Heresy, these being the opposites which destroy faith, and with which possibly she cannot subsist. And if it be most true that every Heresy is a certain Infidelity, and a true denial of all faith; what shall we think of the Heresy of this unfortunate Age, by which the integrity of faith is not only violated in one or other Article, or those of less moment and necessity (which yet by no means were to be tolerated, but by all Christian hearts to be detested and accursed) but generally in all as it were by an universal deluge of Apostasy, even in the points of greatest weight concerning God, Christ, the Church, her Sacrifice and Sacraments, Man's justification, Grace, , the Commandments, & many other such like; All which with singular impiety are so depraved and impugned by the Sectaries of these days, as that their Endeavours may seem to aim, and to be wholly employed, instead of an Heresy, to introduce with g eatest boldness, Madness, and Malice, a general Apostasy or Atheism from the faith of Christ. The serious Consideration, and feeling Commiseration of this so great a mischief, I must confess (worthy Reader) was the main Motive for my undertaking and compyling this Treatise following: for whilst I remembered, that without entire divine Faith, and true worship and Religion towards God, no Salvation was to be expected: and withal saw such innumerable Souls (so dearly bought by the precious Blood and death of Christ our Lord, Souls also most dear to me in sundry other most just respects) so continually to perish through the Infection of Heresy; I could not forbear, but after my humble Prayers, add also my poor and unworthy labours, which if through God's blessing, they may prove so effectual, as to reduce any seduced Soul to the state of Salvation, I shall think them all most happily undertaken, and joyfully sustained, and myself plentifully rewarded at the holy Hand of God. Now, that my writings might prove more pleasing, and powerful with the Prot. Reader, whose Salvation I thirst▪ I have purposely restrained myself to that sole kind of Argument, which himself doth affect, and ever urge, which is the sacred Scriptures, or Written Word of God, to which he professeth in all Disputes to appeal, and in all Doctrines to subscribe; esteeming, and making it his sole Rule, and Square, whereby to be directed in all points of faith and Religion necessary to Salvation. To this also for the present I likewise appeal, making this the subject of my whole Discourse nothing doubting, but to make it appear, and that most clearly, that the Written Word, is our Catholic Word, speaking and teaching our (7) Rom. 1.8. Roman faith, so anciently renowned in the whole world. And that it may be rightly observed how different are the proceed of Catholics and Protestants, in the religious and sincere handling and using of this sacred Word, I desire briefly to give a just account, of the Method, and order which I have prescribed to myself, and is generally observed, throughout this whole Treatise. First then, seeing the true staring of the Matter in dispute, doth of itself often discover the weakness and falsehood of a bad Cause, and therefore all Heretics do fraudulently set down the state of the Question, changing and perverting the true meaning thereof, thereby the better to hide their own Errors, & to traduce their Adversaries; I have therefore in prevention hereof, in the first place ever stated the Controversy aright, showing what the Catholic Church doth teach and believe as matter of faith, and this from her sacred Counsels & approved Doctors: and what she permitteth her Schoolmen to dispute as points indifferent, not defined by her Decrees: for with these I find our modern Sectaries (8) D. Morton, White, Featley. greatly to delude their Vulgar Readers, urging these School differences, as though they were Differences in Articles, and Conclusions of faith, which to affirm, is a Grand Imposture, much frequented by D. Morton, who for want of better matter, storeth and stuffeth his writings with toys in this kind But not content with this, it is ordinary with Protestants in their Sermons and Writings, most foully to belly our Catholic Cause, ascribing unto us infinite gross, and most absurd opinions, which we utterly detest and deride: they intending by malicious untruths to disgrace that, which with sound Arguments they are not able to confute. I give plentiful Examples of this bad dealing throughout this whole Book. Having thus cleared our Catholic Doctrine, I next set down what Prot. teach concerning the point in Controversy. In which I find them often at deadly wars amongst themselves, and that not for Points disputable and indifferent, but for the Chiefest Articles, and Conclusions of Faith, the true belief whereof is necessary to Salvation. In these their differences, I ordinarily set down for Prot. Doctrine, that which is most commonly taught by the English Prot. Church; or by such others, as are most renowned amongst their Brethrens, for their supposed Wisdom, and Learning. But in thus searching what their opinions are, I still observe, and accordingly prove, that wherein they disagree from the Catholic faith, therein they do agreed with some Ancient Heretic, formerly confuted, and condemned by Counsels and Fathers. And not only this, but I find further, that they run themselves upon fundry gross Errors, which were not even dreamt on by any former Heretics, and which once admitted, would inevitably infer a general Apostasy from the Christian faith. This is the Course which I generally use for the true expression of the point in Controversy; which point thus cleared, I address myself in the nexte place to such proofs for the Catholic cause, as the sacred Scriptures do plentifully afford: from whence yet I only produce such texts, as being taken in their native, simple, and literal signification, do speak most plainly for the Catholic Truth. But because nothing can be spoken in terms so plain, but what the wit and malice of the Devil and his Ministers will in some sort deprave, inventing for that end some Evasion or other, thereby to weaken the force of the words being taken in their proper signification; I do therefore also take notice of these poor shifts, and do further show, that they are mere fancies, feigned and taught without all ground or colour of truth, wholly impertinent, often ridiculous, and ever such, as with the like liberty, any Heresy though never so forlorn may easily be defended, & any Article of our Christian faith, though never so necessary, be dangerously impugned. But neither is this detorting of the words of Scripture from their proper meaning, the greatest injury now adays offered to the word of God: For Sectaries further proceed, when all other means fail them, most accursedly to corrupt the sacred words and sentences of Gods divine word, adding words of their own stamping to the holy texts, omitting, or taking away some of the sacred-words themselves, mistranslating words, making them to speak things most different, and repugnant from their own proper signification. And if all this will not serve their turn, through the evidence & fullness of Scripture condemning their Errors, than they betake themselves to that last most desperate & damnable Refuge, of that Atheistical denying, or making Apocryphal whole entire Books of holy Writ: which impious freedom, if it might be admitted, would shortly discharge the whole Canon of Scripture from any Scripture at all. But because it is another usual shift used by Protestants, to fly from the words to the sense, that neither they, nor we, as partial judges, should give sentence thereof; I do therefore appeal for the finding out of the true sense of the Scriptures to the Interpretations, and Expositions made by the Ancient Fathers, who living in the purest times of the Church, neighbouring upon the Apostles, flourishing in learning, shining in sanctity, and ignorant of our present Contentions, may in all reason be thought, & accepted for judges most competent, uncorrupt, and impartial. Neither do I produce these as barely affirming what themselves thought or practised, or spoke in heat of disputation against their Adversaries, but what they dogmatically taught in their Commentaries, Expositions, and Interpretations of the sacred Scriptures: or what is acknowledged, confessed, and disliked in them by Prot. as making unanswerably for our Catholic faith, and strongly confuting, and condemning the Prot. Errors. Neither do I wholly rest in this manner of proof, though superabundant for my Cause: But I likewise in greatest surplusage adjoin herunto, the abundant Interpretations of Scriptures made by Prot. writers, most agreeable to the former made by Fathers, and wholly confirming our Catholic faith, and therein impugning their other Brethrens who oppose against it. Now, if the Texts of sacred Scriptures, taken in their proper and literal sense, and the answerable Expositions made by the holy Fathers, and sundry of the learnedst Prot. writers, do all of them conspire in making that sense of Scripture, which wholly agreeth with the doctrine and practice of the Catholic Roman Church; I do not see what more can be required by any indifferent, & understanding man, for the making it to appear clear, as the sun at Noon day, that the Written Word of God is that which teacheth us our Catholic faith, and confuteth and condemneth such Errors and heresies as arise against it. Lastly seeing, all this notwithstanding, Prot. do not desist to object some darker passages of Scripture against others most plain, and for such confessed by Fathers & Prot; I do therefore not forbear to take notice of them, but withal do plainly show, that the said texts taken in their literal sense, do nothing make against us, and so most impertinently urged; and being explained by other plainer places, do strongly make against themselves who urge them. And if not the words but the sense, must be regarded, than I frequently allege both Fathers and Prot. so expounding the same, as that their Expositions are full answers to what is objected by other Prot. So weakly, and not at all, is Heresy truly grounded upon the word of God. This, Christian Reader, is the course observed by me through this whole work, which whether I be judged duly to perform or not, I most willingly leave to the dispassionate Censure of the judicious: who will easily hereby perceive, that Prot. pretending to fly to the Scriptures, as their only refuge, do therein make flight to their mortal Enemy, who cutteth their throats. That which for my poor pains at the hands of the good Reader I shall only request, is, that all former prejudicate opinion against Catholic Religion set apart, and all base and unworthy fear of temporal losses in Honours, Estates, or Liberties courageously shaken off, that he firmly believe, and constantly profess that only Faith, and Religion which Gods divine Word doth teach, the holy Fathers do confirm, and sundry of the learnedst Prot do acknowledge for true: which doing, he shall gain that faith, without which, according to the Apostle, (9) Hebr. 11.6. It is impossible to please God. Which according to S. Ambrose, (10) In Ps. 40. Is the firm foundation of all virtues. According to S. chrysostom, (11) Ser. de fide, spe, & charit. The origine of justice, the head of Sanctity, the beginning of Devotion, the groundwork of Religion. And according to S. Austin, (12) Ser. de Temp. 38. The beginning of man's salvation, without which no man can come to the fellowship of the Sons of God: because without it, neither in this world can any man obtain the Grace of justification, nor in the world to come shall possess life Eternal A fearful Sentence, & much to be pondered by Infidels, and Heretics, who are certainly devoid of this divine Faith. A TABLE OF THE CONTENTS of the Chapters, and Sections contained in this Book. The Preparative to the Triple Cord. Wherein is proved the dignity and infallibility of the written word of God, or sacred Scriptures: as also the necessity of finding out the true Sense intended by the Holy Ghost: with certain infallible Rules for the finding out of the said sense. Section 1. The true state of the Question concerning the verity of the sacred Scriptures. Whether the Scriptures contained in the Bible be the word of God himself, truly divine & infallible, in every lest parcel, or Text thereof? And therefore for such are by all the faithful to be received, believed, and obeyed. pag. 1. Section 2. That the sacred Scriptures are the true Word, divine, and infallible, the Scriptures themselves do testify. p. 3. Section 3. That the Ancient Fathers do teach and believe the sacred Scriptures to be the true word of God, of divine and infallible authority. p. 5. Section 4. That sundry Prot. do acknowledge the sacred Scriptures to be the word of God, of divine and infallible Authority. p. 6. Section 5. That it is impious to corrupt, or reject any part of Canonical Scripture. p. 7. Section 6. The necessity of finding out the true sense of the Scriptures. p. 9 Section 7. That the sacred Scriptures do admit several, true, and different Senses but not contrary; as well Literal as Mystical: and of the force of such Arguments as are taken from any of the foresaid senses. p. 12. Section 8. Certain Rules prescribed for the discerning of the simple literal sense from the figurative: and for the finding out of the true sense intended by the Holy Ghost. p. 15. Section 9 An Examination of such Rules as Prot. ordinarily prescribe and observe for the finding out the true sense of the sacred Scriptures. p. 19 Section 10. That the Certain and Infallible Rule, for the finding out of the true sense of the Scriptures, is the Church of Christ. p. 21. Section 11. An Explanation of what we mean by the Church, when we say, that the true understanding of the Scriptures, and the final Decision of all Controversies in Religion, is to be taken from the Church. p. 23. CHAP. I Section 1. THe true state of the Question in Controversy between Catholics and Protestants concerning the judge of Controversies in Matter of Religion consisteth is this: Whether besides the sacred Scriptures, any other infallible Authority and judge is to be acknowledged, by which the divine faith, and the true sense of Scriptures may be proposed to the faithful, as revealed by God, and to be believed: And whether the said Authority and power of judging, be to be ascribed to the Church, to General Counsels, and to the Fathers of the Primitive Church? Or only to the sacred Scriptures themselves, or the Spirit of every particular Man p. 33. Section 2. The sacred Scriptures clearly teach, that we are to repair to the Church of Christ, for the final deciding of Controversies in Religion. p. 40. Section 3. That the Ancient Fathers expound the sacred Scriptures agreably with Catholics, in proof of the Church being the judge of Controversies. p. 50. Section 4. That Prot. expound the sacred Scriptures agreably with Catholics in proof of the Church being the judge of Controversies; And that sundry Protestants do teach, & defend the same Doctrine. p. 53. CHAP. II. Section 1. THe true State of the Question concerning the Church's Infallibility, or not Erring. Whether the universal Church of Christ can err in defyning matters of Faith, and Manners: Or rather, that such her Decrees are always most true and infallible, and for such are to be believed and observed by the faithful. p. 62. Section 2. It is proved by Scriptures, that the universal Church of Christ, cannot err in matters of Faith and Manners. p. 65. Section 3. That the Fathers do expound the Scriptures in proof, that the Church of Christ cannot err. p. 73. Section 4. Protestant Writers teach, that the Church of Christ cannot err in matters of faith. p. 75. Section 5. Objections from Scripture in proof, that the Church may err in matters of faith, answered. p. 77. CHAP. III. Section 1. THe true state of the Question concerning the difficulty in understanding the sacred Scriptures. Whether the sacred Scriptures be so easy and plain to be understood, as that without the Explication of the Church, they are sufficient to decide and end all Controversies of Faith: or rather in many places are very obscure, and difficult, even to the learned. p. 82. Section 2. That the Scriptures are obscure, and hard to be understood, it is proved by the Scriptures themselves. p. 83. Section 3. That the Ancient Fathers expound the sacred Scriptures agreably with Catholics, in proof of the Scriptures obscurity, and difficulty. p. 87. Section 4. That Protestants expound the sacred Scriptures agreably with Catholics in proof of the Scriptures obscurity: And that sundry Prot. de teach and defend the same Doctrine. p. 89. Section 5. That the Scriptures are obscure, it is further proved by sundry Reasons. p. 92. Section 6. That the conference of one place of Scripture with another, doth neither make the Scriptures to be our judge of all Controversies, nor always easy to be understood. p. 94. Section 7. An Examination of such Objections as are usually urged by Prot. against the Scriptures Obscurity. p. 101. CHAP. IU. Section 1. THe true state of the Question concerning the Interpretation of Scriptures and deciding Controversy by the Private spirit of every particular Man p. 105. Section 2. It is proved by Scriptures, that the said Scriptures are not made easy to be understood, or our judge of all Controversies, by the spirit revealing to every Private Man, the true sense, and determination thereof. p. 107. Section 3. It is proved by the Ancient Fathers that the Private spirit is not a judge sufficient for the deciding of Controversies, and interpreting the Scriptures. p. 111. Section 4. It is proved by Prot. that the Private Spirit is not our judge of Controversies. p. 112. Section 5. It is proved by Reason, that the Private spirit is not our judge of Controversies. p. 113. Section 6. Objections from Scripture for the Private spirit, answered. p. 115. CHAP. V Section 1. THe true state of the Question concerning the Books of Scripture Canonical or Apocryphal. Whether the Books of Toby, judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the first and second of Maccabees, be Scriptures truly Canonical, or Apocryphal. p. 121. Section 2. It is proved by sundry Reasons and Authorities, that the foresaid Books are truly Canonical. p. 126. Section 3. That the Primitive Church of Christ, and the Counsels therein celebrated, have admitted, and approved for Canonical, the foresaid Books of Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Toby, judith, Maccabees etc. p. 131. Section 4. That Protestants themselves do defend the foresaid Books. p. 134. Section 5. Sundry Octiections produced against the foresaid Books, answered. p. 135. CHAP. VI Section 1: THe true state of the Question, concerning the Translations of the Bible. Whether the Translation of the sacred Scriptures, ordinarily called the Old Vulgar Latin Translation, be to be used and preferred before all Translations made by Protestants. p. 141. Section 2. It is proved by sundry Arguments, that the Vulgar Latin Translation of the Bible, is to be preferred before all Translations made by Protestants. p. 144. Section 3. Objections against the Vulgar Translation, answered. p. 150. CHAP. VII. Section 1. THe true state of the Question, concerning Traditions. Whether, besides the sacred Scriptures, or written word of God, there be not another word of God, not written, which is called Traditions: And whether their Authority be certain and infallible, in deciding matters of Faith. p. 152. Section 2. It is proved by the sacred Scriptures, that besides themselves, or the written word, there are certain Traditions of the Church, or word of God, not written, which we are bound likewise to believe, and observe. p. 156. Section 3. That the Ancient Fathers do expound the sacred Scriptures in proof of unwritten Traditions. p. 169. Section 4. That the learnedst Protestants are enforced to acknowledge and believe our Catholic Doctrine of Traditions. p. 170. Section 5. Objections against Traditions taken from Scriptures, answered. p. 176. CHAP. VIII. Section 1. THe true state of the Question, concerning S. Peter's Primacy. Whether Christ our Saviour ordained S. Peter supreme Head or Pastor, not only of the Apostles, but of the universal Church. p. 181. Section 2. It is proved by Scriptures, that S. Peter was appointed by Christ the Supreme head, not only of the Apostles, but of the universal Church. p. 184. Section 3. That the Fathers expound the sacred Scriptures agreably with Catholics, in proof of S. Peter's Primacy. p. 198. Section 4. That Prot. also do agreed with Catholics in the Doctrine of S. Peter's Primacy. p. 204. Section 5. Objections from Scripture against S. Peter's Primacy, answered. p. 207 CHAP. IX. Section 1. THe true state of the Question, concerning the Bishop of Rome his Primacy in matters Ecclesiastical. Whether the Primacy given by Christ to S. Peter, was given also to his successors: And whether the Bishops of Rome be the said successors. p. 210. Section 2. It is proved from Scriptures and Reason, that the Primacy given to S. Peter was given also to his Successors: and that the Bishops of Rome are the said successors. p. 215. Section 3. That the Fathers expound the Scriptures in proof of the Bishop of Rome his succeeding S. Peter in the Primacy of the whole Church. p. 218. Section 4. That sundry of the learnedst Prot. do acknowledge, and teach the Primacy of the Roman Bishop. p. 220. Section 5. Objections taken from Scripture against the Pope's Primacy, answered. p. 223. CHAP. X. Section 1. THe true state of the Question, concerning Antichrist. Whether Antichrist be yet come; and whether the Bishop of Rome, can be said to be Antichrist. p. 225. Section 2. It is proved by the Scriptures that Antichrist is not yet come: and that the Bishop of Rome, cannot be said to be Antichrist. p. 228. Section 3. That the Fathers expound the Scriptures agreably with Catholics, in proof that the Pope cannot be Antichrist. p. 236. Section 4. That Prot. agreed with Catholics in the Doctrine of the Pope not being Antichrist. p. 239. Section 5. Objections from Scripture, that the Pope is Antichrist, answered. p. 241. CHAP. XI. Section 1. THe true state of the Question, concerning Euangelical Counsels, and the state of Perfection. Whether there be Evangelicall Counsels, or works of supererogation, which if they be observed or done, they are good and commendable; if omitted, not sinful: or whether all things that are good be commanded by God, and the omission of them be sinful. p. 244. Section 2. It is proved by Scriptures that there are Evangelicall Counsels, or works of supererogation, which if they be observed or done, they are commendable and meritorious, if omitted, not sinful. p. 247. Section 3. That the Fathers do expound the sacred Scriptures answerably with Catholics in proof of Evangelicall Counsatles, and works of Supererogation, and Perfection. p. 253. Section 4. That Prot. do agreed with Catholics in the Doctrine of Evangelicall Counsels, and works of Supererogation. p. 257. Section 5. Objections from Scripture, against Evangelicall Counsels, are answered. p. 260. CHAP. XII. Section 1. THe true state of the Question, concerning Vows proposed. Whether the Vows of works of Perfection, as Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience, be lawful, and commendable now in the law of Grace. p. 263. Section 2. It is proved from the Scriptures, that the foresaid vows of Perfection are lawful and commendable. p. 266. Section 3. That the Fathers do expound the foresaid Scriptures in proof of the vows of Poverty, Chastity and the like. p. 271. Section 4. That Prot. defend with Catholics the vows of Poverty Chastity, and the like: And that they confirm the same from the sacred Scriptures. p. 275. Section 5. Objections from Scripture against the vows of Poverty, Chastity, and the like, answered. p. 277. CHAP. XIII. Section 1. THe true state of the Question, concerning the Marriage of Priests. Whether the vow of Chastity be so annexed to holy Orders, that after Ordination they who are Consecrated, can neither marry, nor use their wives formerly married. p. 286. Section 2. It is gathered from the Scriptures, that the vow of Chastity is rightly annexed to holy Orders. p. 289. Section 3. The Fathers do gather from the Scriptures, that the vow of Chastity is rightly annexed to holy Orders. p. 290. Section 4. That Prot. teach the vow of Chastity to be rightly annexed to holy Orders. p. 292. Section 5. Objections from Scriptures against the vow of Chastity in Priests, answered. p. 293. CHAP. XIV. Section 1. THe true state of the Question, concerning Christ his descending into Hell Whether Christ our Saviour truly descended in Soul into Hell, and there redeemed those who were in Abraham's bosom, or Limbus: Or that by hell should only be understood his Grave, or his suffering the pains of Hell. p. 299. Section 2. It is proved by Scripture, that Christ our Saviour truly descended is soul into hell: And there redeemed those who were in Abraham's Bosom, or Limous. p. 303. Section 3. That the Ancient Fathers do agreably expound the Scriptures in proof of Christ's descending into hell, and his delivering of the Just in Captivity. p. 306. Section 4. That Prot. Writers do teach the descending of Christ into Hell, and the delivery from thence of the Just that were in Captivity. p. 309. Section 5. Objections from Scripture against Christ's descending into Hell. answered. p. 311. CHAP. XV. Section 1. THe true state of the Question, concerning Purgatory, and Prayer for the dead. Whether besides heaven and hell after this life there be a place of Purgatory wherein the souls of the faithful are temporally punished for their sins committed in their life time: and whether they may be relieved by the Sacrifices, prayers, and alms of their living friends: Or otherwise that instantly after death, every soul either immediately ascendeth into heaven, or descendeth into hell. p. 313. Section 2. It is proved by Scriptures, that after this life there is a place of Purgatory: and that therein the souls of the faithful may be relieved by the Sacrifices, Prayers, and other spiritual helps of their living friends. p. 317. Section 3. The ancient Fathers expound the foresaid Scriptures agreably with Catholics, in proof of Purgatory, and Prayer for the read. p. 327. Section 4. Purgatory, and Prayer for the dead taught, and believed by Prot. themselves. p. 331. Section 5. Objections from Scripture, against Purgatory, and Prayer for the dead, answered. p. 333. CHAP. XVI. Section 1. THe true state of the Question concerning the Intercession, and Invocation of Angels and Saintes. Whether the Angels and Saints in Heaven, do pray for men upon Earth. And whether we may lawfully pray to them as Intercissors to God for us: or whether the said Angels, and Saints do hear our Prayers or know things done upon Earth, and their Intercession be not a derogation from Christ's Mediation. p. 338. Section 2. It is proved by Scriptures, that the Angels and Saints in heaven, do know our Prayers upon Earth, and that they pray for us, and we may lawfully pray unto them, as Intercessors for us. p. 343. Section 3. Scriptures expounded by most Ancient Fathers, in proof of the Intercession of Angels and Saints, and that we may lawfully invocate them. p. 355. Section 4. That Prot. do agreably teach with Catholics, that the Angels and Saints in heaven do hear our prayers, do pray for us in particular: and that we may lawfully pray to them. p. 359. Section 5. Objections from Scripture, against Invocation of Angels & Saints, answered. p. 364. CHAP. XVII. Section 1. THe true state of the Question, concerning the use and reverence to be excited ●o Images of Christ and his Saints. Whether it be lawful to make the Images of Christ and his Saints, to place them in Churches and to exh●te any honour or reverence unto them: or that all ●his is Superstition and Idolatry, contraty to the Commandment of God. p. 372. Section 2. It is proved by Scriptures, that it is lawful to make the Images of Christ and his Saints, to place them in Churches, and to exhibit honour, or reverence unto them. p. 375. Section 3. That the Ancient Fathers expound the Scriptures for the lawful use of Images, and Religious Reverence done unto them, agreably with Catholics, p. 387. Section 4. That Protestant writers do acknowledge and allow the use of Images in Churches: and that due honour may be exhibited unto them. p. 390. Section 5. Objections from Scripture urged by Protestants against the lawful use of Images, answered. p. 393. CHAP. XVIII. Section 1. THe true state of the Question, concerning the Sacraments of the New law conferring grace. Whether the Sacraments of the New law do truly confer Grace to the worthy receiver, as Gods Instrumental Causes: or that they are only signs and remembrances of Grace received by faith. p. 396. Section 2. It is proved by Scriptures, that the Sacraments of the New law do truly confer grace to the worthy receiver. p. 403. Section 3. Reasons in proof that the Sacraments do confer Grace. p. 405. Section 4. That the Ancient Fathers do expound the Scriptures agreably with Catholics, in proof of the Sacraments conferring Grace. p. 408. Section 5. That the learnedst Prot. do agreably with Catholics teach, that the Sacraments of the New Law do confer Grace to the worthy receiver. p. 413. Section 6. Objections from Scripture, in proof that the Sacraments do not confer Grace, answered. p. 416. CHAP. XIX. Section 1. THe true state of the Question concerning the number of the Sacraments. Whether there be seven Sacraments Instituted by Christ our Saviour: to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, Euchariste, Pennance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony: or only two, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper. p. 418. Section 2. It is proved by Scriptures that there are seven Sacraments instituted by Christ our Saviour. p. 424. Section 3. That the Ancient Fathers agreably with Catholics believed and taught that there were seven Sacraments of the New law. p. 428. Section 4. Prot. Writers do teach, and confess the number of seven Sacraments agreably with Catholics. p. 432. Section 5. Containing certain Reasons, or congruences establishing the number of seven Sacraments. p. 435. Section 6. Containing certain Objections had from Scriptures against the number of seven Sacraments, with Answers thereto. p. 440. CHAP. XX. Section 1. THe true state of the Question concerning the necessity of Baptism. Whether the Sacrament of Baptism, or the desire thereof, be not absolutely necessary to Salvation, not only because it is commanded by Christ, but because it is a means necessary thereto: so that Children dying without Baptism, cannot be saved. p. 442. Section 2. It is proved by Scriptures, that Baptism is necessary to Salvation. p. 447. Section 3. That the Ancient Fathers do expound the sacred Scriptures in proof of the necessity of Baptism. p. 452. Section 4. That Protestant Writers do teach and defend the Catholic Doctrine of the Necessity of Baptism. p. 455. Section 5. Objections from Scripture, against the necessity of Baptism, answered. p. 457. CHAP. XXI. Section 1. THe true state of the Question, concerning the B. Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood. Whether in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, under the forms of Bread and wine, there be truly and really, and not only in sign, figure, or representation, contained the very Body and Blood of Christ our Saviour, which was borne of the B. Virgin Mary, and afterwards crucified. p. 462. Section 2. Wherein is inquired what Prot. understand by receiving spiritually, or by faith? p. 473. Section 3. The Real Presence of Christ's Body & Blood in the Sacrament, is proved by testimonies of Scripture taken from the Old Testament. p. 479 Section 4. That the Scriptures of the New Testament convince our foresaid Catholic Real Presence of Christ's Body, and Blood in the Eucharist. p. 482. Section 5. That the Ancient Fathers do expound the Scriptures in proof of our Catholic Doctrine of the Real Presence, and Transubstantiation. p. 498. Section 6. That Prot. Writers do teach and believe from Scriptures, the real Presence of Christ's Body, and Blood in the Eucharist. p. 511. Section 7. Objections taken from the Scriptures, in disproof of the real Presence, answered. p. 515. Section 8. Objections against the possibility of the Real Presence, answered. p. 521. Section 9 Objections against the real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist, in regard of certain pretended indignities thereupon ensuing, answered. p. 532. Section 10. The foresaid truth of the real Presence of Christ's Body, and Blood in the B. Sacrament, is further proved by clear and confessed miracles, wrought by God in testimony thereof. p. 534. CHAP. XXII. Section 1. THe true state of the Question, concerning the Communion of the Laity, under one, or both kinds. Whether under either kind of the Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Christ our Saviour are truly contained, and the true Essence of the Sacrament preserved; and consequently whether it be lawful to administer the Sacrament only under one kind to the Laity: or that Christ hath commanded both kinds to be administered unto them. p. 537. Section 2. That under either kind is contained whole Christ, to wit, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity: As also the true essence of the Sacrament. p. 542. Section 3. That Christ our Saviour gave no commend of receiving under both kinds, it is proved by the sacred Scriptures, and by his own, and his blessed Apostles examples. p. 544. Section 4. That Communion under one, or both kinds being a thing indifferent the Church might lawfully determine the same: And of the reasons that moved the Church in limitation thereof. p. 547. Section 5. That the Ancient Fathers do expound the Scriptures in confirmation of the lawfulness of the Administration of the B. Sacrament under one kind. p. 552. Section 6. That Prot. Writers do believe and teach the lawful use of Administering the Eucharist under one kind to the Laity. p. 553. Section 7. Objections from Scripture, against Communion of the Eucharist under one kind by the Laity, answered. p. 554. CHAP. XXIII. Section 1. THe true state of the Question, concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass. Whether Christ our Saviour did institute a true, proper, and external Sacrifice of his Body and Blood, to be offered up in his Church, in Commemoration of his death and Passion. p. 562. Section 2. It is proved by Scriptures that our Saviour instituted a true, proper, and external Sacrifice of his Body and Blood, to be offered up in his Church to God in Commemoration of his death and Passion. p. 567. Section 3. That the Ancient Fathers expound the Scriptures agreably with Catholics, in confirmation of the Sacrifice of the Mass. p. 579. Section 4. That sundry Prot. do teach and allow a true and external Sacrifice in the time of the New Testament, even the Sacrifice of the Mass. pag 587. Section 5. Objections from Scripture against the Sacrifice of the Mass, answered. p. 590. CHAP. XXIV. Section 1. THe true state of the Question, concerning the Power given by Christ to Priests for the forgiveness of sins: and the necessity of Confession. Whether Christ our Saviour gave to his Apostles, and in them to Bishops, and Priests, true authority to forgive and retain Sins in the Sacrament of Penance: or only to declare Sins to be forgiven to those that do believe: and whether Confession of Sins in the said Sacrament, be necessary. p. 595. Section 2. It is proved by Scriptures that Christ gave to his Apostles and in them to Bishops and Priests, true authority to forgive, and retain Sins in the Sacrament of Penance: And that Confession of sins is necessary. p. 601. Section 3. That the ancient Fathers do expound the Scriptures for the authority of Priests to forgive sins; and the necessity of Confession. And that Penance is truly a Sacrament. p. 606. S●ction 4. That Protestant writers do teach, that Priests have authority to retain or to forgive Sins: and that Confession of Sins in particular, is to be made to Priests: And that Penance is truly a Sacrament. p. 610. Section 5. Objections from Sripture against the Power given by Christ to Priest, for the remitting of sins, answered. p. 614. CHAP. XXV. Section 1. THe true State of the Question, concerning punishment to be suffered after Remission of the fault. Whether the fault of Sin being pardoned by the Sacrament of Penance, the Punishment due to Sin is also always pardoned therewith: or whether the said punishment is not afterwards to be paid, or satisfied by Prayer, fasting, and Alms, and the pains in Purgatory. p. 616. Section 2. It is proved by Scriptures, that temporal punishment often remaineth to be paid after the fault is remitted: and that the said punishment may be taken away by the good works of prayer, fasting, Alms, and the like. p. 620. Section 3. That the Fathers do expound the Scriptures in proof of Punishment remaining after the fault pardoned: And that the said Punishment is paid by works of Pennace. p. 624. Section 4. That Protestants do agreed with Catholics in teaching that Punishment after remaineth to be paid for Sin, the fault being remitted: and that the same Punishment may be satisfied by good works. p. 626. Section 5. Objections from Scripture to prove that the punishment is always remitted with the fault, answered. p. 628. CHAP. XXVI. Section 1. THe true state of the Question concerning Indulgences. Whether the Church of Christ hath authority to grant Indulgences, or Pardons for the temporal punishment due to sin, the fault being formerly pardoned by the Sacrament of Penance. p. 630. Section 2. It is proved by Scriptures, that the Church hath authority to grant Indulgences, or Pardons for the temporal Punishment due to sin, after the fault is forgiven. p. 635. Section 3. That the ancient Fathers do agreed with Catholics in the Doctrine of Indulgences. p. 640. Section 4. Protestant writers teaching Indulgences. p. 641. Section 5. Objections against Indulgences, answered. p. 642. CHAP. XXVII. Section 1. THe true state of the Question concerning prescribed days for fasting and Abstinence from certain meats. Whether certain days prescribed by the Church for Fasting: As also Abstinence at some times from certain meats, be things lawful, and to be observed under sin: or rather that they are to be left free according to every man's Devotion, and liking. p. 645. Section 2. It is proved by the Scriptures, that days prescribed by the Church for fasting: As also Abstinence at some times from certain meats be things lawful, and to be observed. p. 648. Section 3. That the Fathers do expound the Scriptures in proof of the lawful Abstinence from certain meats, and the appointed days for Fasting. p. 650. Section 4. That sundry Prot. writers do teach our Catholic Doctrine of Abstinence from certain meats upon prescribed days. p. 652. Section 5. Objections from Scripture against Abstinence from certain meats, and Prescript fasting days, answered. p. 635. CHAP. XXVIII. Section 1. THe true state of the Question, concerning Concupiscence. Whether Concupiscence, remaining after Baptism, is truly and properly sin, though not imputed to the faithful: or only that it is an Effect of Original sin: and corruption of nature inclining men to sin. p. 657. Section 2. It is proved by Scriptures, that Concupiscence remaining after Baptism, is not truly and properly sin. p. 659. Section 3. That the Fathers do expound the Scriptures in proof that Concupiscence remaining after Baptism is not properly sin. p. 661. Section 4. That Prot. writers do teach that Concupiscence without consent is not properly sin. p. 663. Section 5. Objections taken from Scripture in proof that Concupiscence it properly sin, answered. p. 663. CHAP. XXIX. Section 1. THe true state of the Question, concerning the distinction of sin into Mortal and Venial. Whether all sins be of their own nature mortal and damnable; and only venial in the Elect by Gods not imputation: or rather that there be some Mortal others Venial, which of their own nature do not deserve Eternal Punishment, even in the wicked, and Reprobate. p. 666. Section 2. It is proved by Scripture, that all sins are not of their own nature Mortal, but some Mortal, some Venial. p. 669. Section 3. That the Fathers do expound the Scriptures in proof of the difference between Mortal and Venial sins, p. 672. Section 4. That Protestants teach the true difference of Mortal, and Venial sins. p. 674. Section 5. Objections from Scripture against the difference of Mortal and Venial sin, are answered. p. 676. CHAP. XXX. Section 1. THe true state of the Question concerning the Author and Cause of sin. Whether God doth, will decree, predestinate counsel, or compel men to sin, & to be damned, or only permitteth the same; and that man himself is Cause of his own sin and damnation: and whether Christ died for all men, or only for the Predestinate. p. 678. Section 2. It is proved by Scriptures, that God doth not Predestinate, will, decree, counsel, or compel men to sin or to be damned, but only permitteth the same: And that Christ died not only for the Predestinate, but for all men whatsoever. p. 683. Section 3. That the Fathers expound the Scriptures in proof, that God doth not will, or command sin: And that Christ died for all. p. 687. Section 4. That Prot. writers do teach the same doctrine with Catholics, against God being the Author of sin, or damnation. p. 689. Section 5. Reasons to prove that God doth not will, command, or enforce men to sin, or to be damned but that he only permitteth the same. p. 692. Section 6. Objections from Scripture in proof that God is the Author of sin, and decreeth the sin or damnation of man, answered. p. 696. CHAP. XXXI. Section 1. THe true state of the Question, concerning Freewill. Whether man after Adam's fall hath Freewill with God's Grace, to do such things as belong to Salvation, and not to do them: or whether the will concurreth only as a natural Instrument of God, and not as a free Cause. p. 705. Section 2. It is proved by Scriptures, that man after Adam's fall, hath freewill with God's Grace, to do good, and eschew evil. p. 709. Section 3. That the Fathers do expound the Scriptures agreably with Catholics, in proof of Freewill. p. 714. Section 4. That sundry Prot. Writers do teach, and defend our Catholic doctrine of Freewill. p 717. Section 5. Objections from Scripture against Freewill, answered. p. 718. CHAP. XXXII. Section 1. THe true state of the Question, concerning the possibility of keeping Gods Commandments. Whether the Commandments of God, through his holy Grace, though not by the only power of freewill, are possible to be kept by just men in this life: or rather that they are so impossible, that in every work that men do, they transgress them. p. 721. Section 2. It is proved by Scriptures that the Commandments of God through his holy Grace are possible to be kept by man in this life. p. 726. Section 3. The Fathers do expound the Scriptures in proof that the Commandments are possible to be kept. p. 729. Section 4. Protestants teach, that the Commandments of God are possible to be kept. p. 731. Section 5. Objections from Scripture in proof, that it is impossible to keep God's Commandments, answered. p. 732. CHAP. XXXIII. Section 1. THe true state of the Question, concerning the best works of the Just being Sinne. Whether all the works of the Just, even the best, are in themselves and of their own nature truly sins, and deserving damnation: Or rather, that they are truly and properly just and good. p. 733. Section 2. It is proved by Scriptures that all the works of the Just are not sin, nor deserving damnation. p. 735. Section 3. That the Ancient Fathers do expound the Scriptures in proof that the works of the just are truly good, and not sin. p. 737. Section 4. That Prot. Writers do teach that the works of the just are truly good, and not sin. p. 738. Section 5. Objections from Scripture, in proof that the works of the just are truly sin, answered. p. 739. CHAP. XXXIV. Section 1. THe true state of the Question, concerning the infallible knowledge of our Predestination and Salvation. Whether man in this world without special Revelation from God, can have Infallible knowledge of his present justification, Predestination, and Eternal Salvation: In so much, that every one is bound as firmly to believe his own Salvation as he doth the Articles of his Creed: Or only that in this world a moral certainty can be had thereof: And whether true Faith and justice once had, may be lost. p. 741. Section 2. It is proved by Scripture, that man in this world without special Revelation from God cannot have infallible knowledge of his present justification, Predestination, and eternal Salvation: And that true faith and justice once had, may be lost. p. 745. Section 3. The sacred Scriptures expounded by the Fathers agreably with Catholics in proof of our uncertainty of our Predestination and Salvation: as also in proof that faith & justice once had, may be lost. p. 751. Section 4. That sundry Prot. do teach from the sacred Scriptures the uncertainty of our Predestination and Salvation: and that faith and justice once had, may be lost. p. 753. Section 5. Objections from Scripture in proof of our certainty of Predestination, and Salvation, and that faith and justice cannot be lost, answered. p. 755. CHAP. XXXV. Section 1. THe true state of the Question, concerning the formal Cause of justification. Whether the formal cause of Man's justification is any virtue or grace infused by God, and inherent in the soul. Or that it consisteth only in Christ's not imputation of sin; or in the only remission of sin, without any infusion of grace. p. 762. Section 2. It is proved by Scriptures that the formal cause of man's justification is true virtue and Grace inherent: and that it doth not consist only in Christ's not imputation of sin, or in the only remission of sin. p. 766. Section 3. That the Fathers do expound the Scriptures in proof of inherent justice. p. 768. Section 4. That Prot. Writers do teach the doctrine of inherent justice. p. 769. Section 5. Objections from Scripture against inherent justice, answered. p. 770. CHAP. XXXVI. Section 1. THe true state of the Question, concerning justification by Faith and Works. Whether man is truly justified by faith only, or that Hope, Charity, and good works, are likewise causes of justification. p. 772. Section 2. It is proved by the sacred Scriptures, that not only faith, but likewise Hope, Charity, and other good Works do truly justify, and cause remission of sin. p. 775. Section 3. The Fathers expound the sacred Scriptures in proof of justification not only by faith, but likewise by works: As also that true faith may be without works. p. 781. Section 4. That sundry Prot. do teach our doctrine of justification by works, and not only by faith. p. 783. Section 5. Objections taken from Scripture in proof of justification by only faith, and not by works, answered. p. 784. CHAP. XXXVII. Section 1. THe true state of the Question, concerning Merit of Works. Whether Works proceeding from Faith and Charity, do truly merit increase of Grace and Glory. p. 788. Section 2. It is proved by Scriptures, that works proceeding from Faith and Charity, do truly merit increase of Grace and Glory. p. 792. Section 3. The Fathers do expound the Scriptures in proof of merit of works. p. 793. Section 4. That Protestant writers teach our Catholic Doctrine of merit of works. p. 797. Section 5. Objections from Scriptures against merit of Works, answered, p. 798. A PREPARATIVE TO THE TRIPLE CORD. WHEREIN Is proved the Dignity & Infallibility of the written Word of God, or Sacred Scriptures: As also the necessity of finding out their true sense intended by the Holy Ghost: With certain infallible Rules for the finding out of the said Sense. SECT. I. The true State of the Question, concerning the verity of the Sacred Scriptures. Whether the Scriptures contained in the Bible be the word of God himself truly Divine and Infallible in every lest parcel or text thereof? And therefore for such are by all the faithful to be received, believed, and obeyed. Catholic Doctrine. SACRED Scripture being a principal ground of Christian faith and Religion, the dignity and infallible truth thereof must necessarily be acknowledged; and therefore the Catholic Church (1) Conc Tried sess. 4. Decret. de Canonicis Scriptures. Receaveth and honoureth with affectiō of Piety and reverence all the books as well of the Old as New Testament, seeing one God is Author of both etc. The Council Senonense decreeth, that (2) Decret. 4. Great hath been & ever is to be the Authority of sacred Scripture, in which nothing can be false, nothing idle. Our Catholic Doctors teach, that (3) Rhem. Test. in Gal. 6. The Scriptures which are indeed wholly of the holy Ghosts enditing, being put to the Church's trial, are found proved, and testified unto the world to be such, and not made true, altered, and amended by the same. Without which attestation of the Church, the holy Scriptures in themselves, were always true before, but not so known to be to all Christians, nor they so bound to take them. Cardinal Bellarmine proveth several ways, that the (4) De verbo Dei l. 1. c. 2. Canonical Books of Scripture are the word of God. So that according to Catholics, there is not any one Sentence or text of Scripture which we are not bound to believe for most true & divine. Protestant Doctrine. Some Prot. (5) Harm. of Confess. p. 1. believe & confess the Canonical Scriptures of the holy Prophets, and Apostles of both Testaments, to be the very true word of God etc. And they (6) Ibid. pag. 3 detest all the heresies of Artemon, the Manichees, Valentinians, of Cerdon, and the Marcionistes, who denied that the Scriptures proceeded from the holy Ghost, or else received not, or &c. corrupted some of them. Others of more sublimated spirits do so little esteem of the written Word, that they affirm the (7) See hereafter Chap. 1. Sect. 1. fig 53. Old Testament and the New to be contrary and to fight altogether. Others utterly reject (8) Luth. tom. 3. Wittemb. in Psalm. 45. f. 423. 422. & tom. 3. Ger. f. 40. 41. Moses and his writings, as being (as they conceit) in the sight of God either Idolatry, or Hypocritical wisdom. Others (9) Swingl. tom. 2. cont. Anabap. f. 10. charge the Anabaptistes with ignorance, for that they think the Commentaries of the Evangelists, and the Epistles of the Apostles, to have been then in Authority, when Paul did writ these things, as though Paul did attribute so much to his Epistles, that whatsoever was contained in them was sacred etc. Which thing (saith Swinglius) were to attribute immoderate arrogancy to the Apostle. (10) Whitak. de Eccl. cont. Bel. Controu. 2. q 4. pag. 213. Fulke ag. the Rhem. Test. in Gal. 2. f. 322. Others condemn S. Peter to have erred in matters of faith, even after the Holy Ghosts descending upon the Apostles. But these things once admitted, how then can we be secure that the Evangelists and Apostles were the Scribes of the holy Ghost, and erred not also in their writings? And if it be true which D. Fulke saith, (11) In Confut. of Purgat. p. 214. Whosoever denieth the authority of the holy Scriptures, thereby bewrayeth himself to be an heretic; what is then to be thought of Luther, Whitaker, Swinglius, Fulke himself, and sundry other Protestants, who thus impudently detract from the authority of Moses, the Evangelists, the Apostles, and their writings. SECT. II. That the sacred Scriptures are the true word of God, divine & infallible, the Scriptures themselves do testify. I Do not intent these proofs from Scriptures with any expectation that they should be approved by such as reject their authority, relying only upon their private Spirits, but only in this regard, that the world may know, that we Catholics do so highly esteem them for divine and infallible, as whatsoever is spoken, taught, or to be read therein, we in all Disputes and Controversies of Religion, do humbly submit ourselves to the doctrine thereof. First then we believe that the Author of the Scriptures, is only God himself, dictating them to his Prophets, Evangelists, and Apostles, as his Scribes; of whom S. Peter affirmeth that, (1) 2. Pet. 1.21. The holy men of God spoke, inspired with the Holy Ghost. And S. Paul affirmeth that, (2) 2. Tim. 3.16. All Scripture inspired by God is profitable to teach etc. Agreably to which the Prophets were said to be the mouth of our Lord: (3) Isa. 1.20. The mouth of our Lord hath Spoken. (4) Luc. 1.70. As he spoke by the mouth of his holy Prophets, that are from the beginning. (5) Heb. 1.1. In times past God speaking to the Fathers in the Prophets, last of all in these days hath spoken to us in his Son. This speech whether uttered by the Prophets, or by Christ himself, is here said to proceed from God, as the first Author. And so God is said to speak by the mouth of man, & the Prophets and other sacred writers by the mouth of God. And whereas Moses writeth that (6) Exod. 9.16. God said to Pharaoh, S. Paul ●elating the same thing writeth that, The (7) Rom. 9.17. Scripture saith to pharaoh: so m●king Gods speaking and the Scriptures spea●ing all one. And to the same purpose speaketh S. Paul of himself, (8) 2. Cor. 13.3. Seek you an experiment of him, that speaketh in me, Christ? Yea the self same writings are said to be written by God, & by Moses. So God said to Moses. (9) Exod. 34.1. Deut. 10.1.2.4. Cut thee two tables of stone like unto the former, and I will writ upon them the words which the tables had, which thou hast broken. (10) Deut 10.4. And he wrote in the tables according as he had written before, the 10. words. And yet (11) Exod. 34.27.28. our Lord said to Moses, writ thou these words etc. And he wrote in the Tables the words of the Covenant, ten. Now how could the Tables of the law be said to be written by God & by Moses, but that Moses as a scholar did hold the pen, and God as master did direct, that so all that writing might be ascribed to Moses as the Instrument, and to God as the chief author. A further proof here of may be taken from the frequent practice of the holy men of God, who usually confirmed their callings, as also the Doctrine which they wrote or preached by testimonies of the Scripture. So S. john baptist alleged the Prophet I say as a witness of his Embassage, for being asked who he was, he answered, (12) Io. 1.23. Esa. 40.3. I am the voice of one crying in the desert, make strait the way of our Lord, as I say the Prophet said. The Apostles Peter, Paul, john, james, jude, in all their Epistles do frequently allege the testimonies of the law and Prophets. Yea Christ himself first of all confirmed his own Embassage by testimony of the Prophet Esay saying, (13) Luc. 4.18. Esa. 61.1. The spirit of the Lord upon me, for which he anointed me etc. He confuteth the Saducees out of the Scriptures, when he said, (14) Mar. 12.24.26. Do you not therefore err, not knowing the Scriptures? And a little after, As concerning the dead that they do rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses & c? Finally he (15) Mat. 22.43. Psal 109.1. confuteth the Pharisees by the testimony of David, and directeth them thus, (16) Io. 5.39. Search the Scriptures for you think in them to have life Everlasting, and the same are they that give testimony of me. This alleging of the Scriptures by the Prophets, Apostles, and Christ himself in proof of their Callings and Doctrine, doth clearly suppose their divine infallibility. SECT. III. That the Ancient Fathers do teach and believe the Sacred Scriptures to be the true word of God, of divine, and infallible Authority. THE Ancient Fathers teach, that the sacred Scriptures are Letters, or Epistles sent from God to man. So S. Chrisostome, (1) H●m. 2. in Gen. God from the beginning spoke with man by himself for so he came to Adam so he blamed Cain, so he spoke with Noë, so he lodged with Abraham. But after all mankind had degenerated into great malice, neither then did the maker of all withdraw himself wholly from mankind but willing to renew his friendship with them, he sent letters as to men absent, to reconcile unto him all men, and these Letters God gave, but Moses brought them. S. Austin affirmeth that, (2) In Ps. 90. Letters came to us from that City (to wit Heaven) where we are Strangers: they are the Scriptures, which do exhort us to live well. And again, (3) Ser. 16. ad frat. in Eremo. The divine Scriptures, are as Letters sent to us from our Country. Because our King more pious and merciful then can be thought or spoken, hath vouchsafed to sand unto us by patriarchs and Prophets the divine inviting Scriptures by which he would invite us to our eternal Country. (4) L 4. Epist. Ep. 84. What is sacred Scripture (saith S. Gregory) but a certain Epistle of Almighty God to his Creature? S. Austin teacheth, that Christ God and man (5) De civet. Dei. l. 11. c 3. Spoke first by the Prophets, then by himself, after by the Apostles as much as he judged sufficient: yea he made a writing (or Scripture) which is called Canonical, of most eminent Authority which we believe of these things, which it is not expedient to be ignorant of, nor are able of ourselves to know. And writing to S. Hierome, (6) Ep. 19 I acknowledge (saith he) to thy Charity that I have learned to give that fear and honour to those books only of the Scriptures, which are now called Canonical, that I most firmly believe no Author of them to have erred any thing in writing. And if I shall found any thing in those writings, which seemeth contrary to truth, I will nothing doubt, but that either the Book● is corrupted, or that the Interpreter hath not conceived what is spoken, or that myself doth not understand it. So Religious a respect did S. Austin bear to the Scriptures. Yea he constantly avoucheth that, (7) De doct. Christ. l. 1. c. 37. faith itself will stragger, if the authority of divine Scriptures do not stand sure. In which respect preferring it before all the writings of men, he further saith: (8) De Bapt. Cont. Don. l. 2. c. 3. Who knoweth not, that the holy Canonical Scripture as well of the old as new Testament is contained in its own certain Bounds, and that the same is so to be preferred before all the later writings of bishops, that no doubt or disputation may be had thereof, whether it be true or right whatsoever shall appear to be written therein. Thus S. Austin, and thus all Catholics at this day. SECT. iv That Sundry Protestants do acknowledge the sacred Scriptures to be the word of God, of divine and infallible authority. MAny Protestant's seem to give so much credit unto the sacred Scriptures, as that they pretend to believe nothing for certain, but the holy Scriptures only. So M. Willet teacheth that, (1) Synop. p. 38 The Scripture is not one of the means, but the sole, whole, and only means to work faith. And agreably our English Church hath decred that the (2) Art 6, Holy scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation: So that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an Article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation. The Helvetian reform Church ordaineth that, (3) In the Harm of Confess p. 4. In controversies of Religion or matters of faith, we cannot admit any other judge than God himself, pronouncing by the holy Scriptures what is true, what is false, what is to be followed, or what to be avoided. And again, (4) Ibid. p. 5. The Canonical Scripture being she word of God, and delivered by the holy Ghost, and published to the world by the Prophets and Apostles, being of all other the most perfect and ancient Philosophy, doth alone perfectly contain all Piety etc. (5) In the Harm. pa. 6. The Bohemian Ministers reach with one consent, concerning the holy Scriptures of the new & old Testament, which is commonly called the Bible etc. that it is true, certain, and worthy to be believed &c It is inspired and taught of the holy Ghost, and uttered by the mouth of holy men, written by them, and confirmed by heavenly and divine testimonies etc. (6) Ib. p. 7. Wherefore every one aught very highly to esteem of the divine writings of the holy Prophets and Apostles resolutely to believe them, and religiously to yield unto them in all things. The French Protest. avouch, (7) Harm. pa. 8. 9 That God revealed himself &c. fare more plainly in his word: which word in the beginning he revealed to the fathers by certain visions and Oracles, and then caused it to be written in these Books we call holy Scripture. All this holy Scripture is contained in the Canonical Books of the old and new Testament. And then making the Catalogue thereof, they say, we acknowledge these Books to be Canonical, that is, we accounted them as the Rule and square of our faith etc. and we believe that the Word contained in these books, came from one God etc. The Prot. of Belgia (8) Harm pa. 10. confess that, this word of God was not brought or delivered by any will of man but that holy men of God inspired by God's spirit spoke it as S. Peter witnesseth etc. And they (9) Ib p. 11. without any doubt believe also those things, which are contained in them etc. As also that this holy Scripture doth most perfectly contain the will of God, and that in it all things are abundantly taught, whatsoever is necessary to be believed of man to attain salvation. The Prot. of Wittemberge say, (10) Ib. p. 13. This Scripture we believe and confess to be the Oracle of the Holy Ghost, so confirmed by heavenly Testimonies, that if an Angel from heaven preach any other thing, let him be accursed. The Prot. of Scotland decree thus: (11) Harm. p. 19 As we believe and confess the Scriptures of God sufficient to instruct, and make the man of God perfect; so do we affirm and avow the authority of the same to be of God, and neither to depend on men or Angels. In regard of these premises and sundry other such like acknowledgements, D Fulke inferreth and concludeth as before, that (12) Against Purgat. pag. 214. whosoever denyeth the Authority of the Holy Scriptures, thereby bewrayeth himself to be an heretic. And in this truth all Catholics do accord with D. Fulke. SECT. V That it is impious to corrupt, or reject any part of Canonical Scripture. ALL sides agreed, that it is most impious to corrupt the words, or true sense of Scripture, by adding, or subtracting, mistranslating, or false interpreting; this being, as S. Paul saith, (1) 2. Cor. 4 2. to adulterate the word of God: and these Corrupters according to Origen, are, (2) In Rom. 2. Thiefs and adulterers of the Scriptures. And S. Cyprian calleth them, (3) De unit. Eccl. nu. 7. false Interpreters, art●ficers. & craftsmaisters in corrupting the truth. The ancient Heretics were observed by the (4) Iren. l 1. c. 1. Fathers, to be often guilty of this heinous crime, but none more frequently & palpably then our modern Prot. have offended herein, as will clearly appear upon sundry occasions in this Treatise following. But this they have learned from their first Father Martin Luther, to whom Swinglius said, (5) Swingl. tom 2. add Luth l. de Sacram. p. 412. 413. Thou dost corrupt the word of God, thou art seen to be a manifest and common corrupter and perverter of the holy Seriptures: how much are we ashamed of thee, who have hitherto esteemed thee beyond all measure, & now prove thee to be such a man. Whereas on the other side, for special reverence & sincerity of dealing in those matters, the Fathers and Catholic expositors are those whom S. Paul styleth (6) 2. Tim. 2.15. Right handlers of the word of truth: These making Conscience and esteeming it most sacrilegious to corrupt, altar, add, or subtract the lest word or syllable indicted by the holy Ghost, & written in the book of God. It is no less criminal to deny or reject the sacred Scriptures when they seem to make against them: which S. Hierome observeth to be the custom of ancient heretics, who, (7) In Proaem, Comment. in ep ad Tit. whatsoever they saw contrary to their opinion, they either scraped out, or rejected the whole. Or, as S. Austin saith of them. (8) L. 18 cont. Faust. Man. c 7. That which doth not hinder their heresy, that they receive: but tha● which hindereth, that they reeeive not. So the Manichees denied all the old Testament, and many parts of the new, as S. Austin (9) Haer. 46. & count. Faust. l. 3. & 81. witnesseth; the Nicolaires and Gnostikes discarded cut of the Canon the Psalter, as Philastrius (10) L. de haeres c. 117. testifieth. The Ebionites plainly rejected the Gospel of S. Matthew, as S. Epiphanius (11) Haer. 30. recordeth: And (12) L. 3. c. 21. according to Eusebius, they made small account of the rest of the Ghospels. Martion received only the Gospel of S. Luke, as Tertullian (13) L de Praescrip. Iren. l 1. c. 29. and Irenaeus avouch: And the same maimed in above 20. places, (14) Haer. 42. as S. Epiphanius proveth, and confuteth. The Alogians contemned the Gospel of S. john, and the Apocalypse, witness Epiphanius. (15) Haer 51. The Severians admitted not the Acts of the Apostles, as Eusebius (16) L. 4. c. 27. declareth, & the same affirmeth S. Austin (17) L. de utilit. cred c. 2. of the Manichees. The Ebionites rejected all the Epistles of S. Paul, as witness S. Irenaeus (18) L. 1. c. 26. Epiph. haer. 30. and S. Epiphanius. Now that our modern Prot. do no little offend in this kind of rejecting the Scriptures, when they seem to make against them, I shall sundry ways make clear, in this (19) See hereafter. subsequent Treatise. SECT. VI The necessity of finding out the true Sense of the sacred Scriptures. SEeing all things naturally desire that which is good, and the mind cannot incline to any evil, which may withdraw the understanding or the will from that which is right, unless it be under the pretext and colour of that which is true & good; even as the Devil to deceive men, (1) 2. Cor. 11. doth transfigure himself into an Angel of light: So in matter of faith, nothing being more true than the sacred Scriptures, all heretics under the specious title of the Scriptures, do deceive others and are deceived themselves. Now because falsehood cannot receive proof from truth, and Scripture rightly understood can produce or nourish no error; therefore from Scriptures falsely understood do all Heretics defend themselves and their cause. But against this fraud Christ himself forwarneth us, (2) Mat. 7.15. to take great heed of false Prophets, which come in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly are ravening wolves. This clothing of sheep are the words of the Prophets and Apostles, pretended by heretics, but inwardly, that is, in the Sense of the words, they are revening wolves and robbers of Souls. To which purpose saith most excellently the eloquent Vincent, (3) L. Cont. proph. haer. Novitates. c. 36. what is the clothing of sheep, but the sentences of Prophets and Apostles? Who are the ravening wolves, but the wild and ravenous senses of heretics, who always trouble the folds of the Church, and tear in peaces the flock of Christ by what means they can? But that they may more deceitfully steal upon the unwary sheep, the cruelty of wolves remaining, they cast of the shape of wolves, and wrap themselues within the sentences of God's law, as within certain fleeces of sheep. In like sort whereas our Saviour biddeth us not to believe false Prophets who will cry, (4) Mat. 24.23. Lo here is Christ, or there, old Origen expoundeth this of heretics detorting the Scriptures: (5) In Mat. hom. 29 He that would deceive us saith, Behold here is Christ, showing for example this place of the Gospel: but the Author of another error will say, Behold Christ is here, offering for example another text. So that the text of Scripture is made to serve the turn of all heretics, though never so opposite one to another: Every one, as S. Peter saith, (6) 2. Pet. 3.16. depraving the Scriptures to their own perdition. (7) Tract. 18. in joan. In this respect it is, that the sacred Scriptures are said to be the books of Heretics. Heresies (saith S. Austin) and certain opinions ensnaring the souls of the perverse, and plunging them into the depth (of Error) have no other root but when Scriptures are not well understood, and what is not well understood in them, is also rashly and audaciously defended. Yea, (8) De Gen. & lit. l. 7. c. 9 They are Heretics for no other cause, but because not rightly understanding the Scriptures, they obstinately maintain their false opinions, against the truth of them. And according to S. Hilary, (9) L. 2. de Trinit. & l. de Synodis extremo. Heresy is (or ariseth) of the understanding not of the Scripture (it self,) the fault is in the sense, not in the words. And then naming diverse Heretics, he saith, they all speak Scriptures without sense, they all pretend faith, without faith: for the Scriptures are not in the reading, but in the understanding. Agreably to which, Christ our Lord reproved the Sadduces in these words: (10) Mat. 22.29. You do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. The Sadduces did read the text of Scriptu●e, but therefore they are said to err, because they did not know, that is, they did not understand the Scripture: teaching thereby that the cause of Error, is the not right understanding, although we have the words upon our finger's ends. S. Irenaeus (11) L. 1. c. 1. disputing against heretics avoucheth that their monstrous Doctrines and fantasies of opinion, are wholly framed of Scriptures not well joined together; As If a man should break asunder the King's Image made of precious stones, and changing the figure, should make thereof Foxes & Lions, and by reason of the identity of the matter, should endeavour to persuade the simple, that this is the true Image of the king: such like monsters make Heretics of the word of God itself. This is so certain a truth, that D. Luther himself avoucheth that, (12) In Postil. Witt. in 2. con. 8. Dom. post Trinit. fol. 118. It is true that the sacred Scripture is the book of Heretics, because Heretics are accustomed to provoke to that book: neither did there arise at any time any Heresy so pestiferous, and so foolish, which did not endeavour to hide itself under the veil of Scripture. That then, which importeth for the final and Infallible deciding of Controversies arising from the Scripture, is to find out the true sense thereof intended by the holy Ghost: to which all parties will profess without any tergiversation to yield and subscribe. And so prescribed S. Hierome, (13) In Comment. ad Gal. 1. Let us not think (saith he) that the Gospel is in the words of Scripture but in the sense, not in the superficies, but in the marrow, not in the leaves of words, but in the root of reason. Again, (14) In c 1. ad Gal. Ep. ad Nepot. & in l. 3. reg. c. 1. Than the Scripture is profitable to the hearers, when it is not expounded without Christ (that is to say, not contrary to the Rule of faith delivered by Christ to his Church etc.) otherwise the Devil which allegeth Scriptures, and all heretics (according to Ezechiel) of Scriptures make Cushions which they may put under the elbow of men of all ages. Wherefore S. Austin adviseth well, (15) Ep. 221. Love exceedingly the understanding, because the Scriptures themselves, except they be rightly understood, cannot be profitable unto thee. Tertullian telleth us, (16) De Eraescript. c. 17. That the sense of holy Scripture adulterated, doth impugn the truth, as much as the style corrupted. And answerably herunto Prot. themselves teach, that (17) Rainolds in his Confer. p. 68 It is not the show, but the sense of words (of Scripture) that must decide controversies. Now how this true sense is to be found without all Error and deceit, these few Sections next following will clearly discover. SECT. VII. That the sacred Scriptures do admit several true and different senses, but not contrary, as well Literal as Mystical: & of the force of such Arguments as are taken from any of the foresaid senses. SAint Gregory (1) L. 21. mor. c. 1. teacheth that, It is a thing proper to the sacred Scriptures, having God for their Author, to be of that fecundity, as to afford several true senses, in one & the same sentence, as the literal or historical, and the spiritual or mystical. The literal is that which the words of themselves do immediately bear: the spiritual relateth to some thing else, then that which the words do immediately signify. The literal again is twofold, the one simple or plain, which consisteth in the propriety of words: the other figurative, whereby the words are transferred from their native signification to another: and of this there be so many kinds, as there are several kinds of figures. The spiritual sense also is divided into Allegorical, Tropological, and Anagogical. Now of these senses, the literal is found to be in every Text both of the Old and New Testament: And though the Spiritual be often to be had in both Testaments, yet not in every sentence of both. So those words, Thou shalt love thy Lord thy God with all thy hart, have but one sense, and that is Literal. These things supposed, that which may seem somewhat questionable, is, whether one Text of Scripture may admit several true & different Senses, either literal or spiritual? In which though I find (2) Fulk ag. Purg. pa. 151. Wil in Synop. p. 26. D. Fulke and M. Willet to hold the Negative; yet S. Austin (3) L. 12. Confess. c. 20. & 23. 27. 31. l. 3. de doct. Christ. c. 27. l. 11. de Ciu. Dei. c. 19 proveth by many examples, that in one sentence may often be found several true literal senses. And further saith, (4) L. 12. Confess. c. 31. When one shall say, Moses meant that which I do, and another, nay that which I do; I think I speak more religiously, why not rather both, if both be true? Or if any third or fourth, or any other truth any man shall see in these words; why may not he be thought to have seen all those truths, by whom God, to those that see true and divers things, hath tempered the Scriptures with many senses? In another place he affirmeth, that such is the Scriptures obscurity, that (5) De Ciu. Det. l. 11. c. 19 It bringeth forth diverse senses of truth etc. whiles one understandeth it after this manner, another after that. (6) L. 12. Conf. 1. & de G●n. ad lit. l. 1. c 21. de doct. Chr. l. 1. c. 36. de Ciu. Dei. l. 15 c. 16, de util. cred. c. 3. Yea one text of Scripture may well have so many understandings, as may stand with truth, and be not repugnant to life and good manners. And the like he teacheth in sundry other places. And indeed it is the general Doctrine of the Ancient Fathers. A truth so evident that sundry Prot. writers do teach the same. Zanchius avoucheth that, (8) De Sacra Script. fol. 421. 424. 425. Besides the literal Sense, the Allegorical sense is often needful: to which are reduced the Anagogical, and Tropological, or Moral sense; and that these are delivered from the Holy Ghost: (7) Orig. in Gen. ho 11. Greg. Mo●. l. 20. c. 1. Chrisost. ho 21 in Gen. Fulg. l. 2. C●ad Monim. c. 14. Lyra. in Daniel. c 8. and are sometimes collected as pertaining to faith or to manners, and according to the mind of the Holy Ghost. The Translator of the Bible into English published Anno 1576. speaking of the diversity of Translations, saith, (9) Ep. to the Brethrens of Engl. Scot and Irel. etc. Seeing some Translations read after one sort, and some after another, whereas all may serve to good purpose and edification, we have in the Margin noted that diversity of speech or reading, which may also seem agreeable to the mind of the Holy Ghost. Aretius thinketh, (10) Loc. come. loc. 59 fol. 187. As concerning the variable Exposition of Scripture, it is light which they (the Anabaptistes) do object: for they aught to consider that the Gifts in the Church be divers, namely in Interpretation, wherein whiles the Rule of faith and sincerity be observed, there is no cause why the diversity of opinions should hurt. And somewhat before he saith, (11) Ibid. fol. 177. Concerning the variable interpretation (of the Scriptures) I affirm every one to enjoy their several Gift, and do sometimes profitably vary: And that so long as it is not erred from the scope of faith, we aught not to be offended with the diversity of Interpretation. But to allege many witnesses in one, the Prot. of Geneva in their Principles of divinity propounded and disputed by certain Students there, under M. Theodore Beza, and M. Anthony Faius, and by them published, affirm and reach that, (12) L. 52. fol. 149. The Scripture is so plentiful, that one and the selfsame place can admit duers Interpretations, and yet all agreeable with the Doctrine of faith. So that both Scriptures, Fathers, and Prot. do all teach this Catholic Doctrine, that the words and sentences of Scripture do contain in them several different Expositions and understandings, and yet all true, and intended by the Holy Ghost. The next thing to be examined, is, which of these Senses do afford a forcible Argument for the establishing any truth in matter of faith and Religion. And first it cannot be denied, that a firm Argument may be taken from any sense, literal or mystical, so long as it appeareth that Sense to be true and intended by the holy Ghost: But because it is most difficult to know and discern when these mystical & spiritual senses are true, and so intended by the holy Ghost, therefore ordinarily speaking, arguments drawn from this Sense are weak, uncertain, and not sufficient absolutely to determine a Point of faith. And so it is generally taught by Divines, that, Theologia Symbolica non est argumentativa, symbolical or mystical Divinity doth not yield a strong Argument: which truth they have learned from S. Denis in his Epistle to Titus. And S. Austin demandeth (13) Ep. 43. who but most impudently will endeavour to interpret by himself any thing that is Allegorical, unless he have most manifest testimonies by whose light obscure things may be illustrated. And with him agreeth S. Hierome teaching (14) In. c. 1●. Mat. That never can Parables and doubtful understandings of riddles (or hard questions) profit to the Authority of Decrees. And the reason of this is, because the mystical and spiritual Senses are many; and although they may edify, when they are not against faith or good manners, yet it doth not always appear, that they were intended by the holy Ghost: wherefore (15) Ep. 48. ad Vincent. S. Austin deservedly derideth the Donatists, who from these words mystically interpreted, Show me where thou feedest, where thou liest in the noon day? did gather that the Church of Christ did only remain in Africa. Seeing then a good Argument cannot ordinarily be framed from the mystical or spiritual Sense; Let us now see what authority beareth the Literal: In which, it is our general doctrine, that seeing it is certain, that Sense which is immediately gathered from the words to be Sense of the holy Ghost, that therefore from the literal sense are we to take Arguments that will be efficacious: And so accordingly Chemnitius concludeth, from several sayings of S. Irenaeus (16) L. 2. c. 47. that (17) Exam. part. 1. fol. 74. 48. That is the sound sense, and which is without danger, which plainly and without ambiguity is set down in the Scripture in the same words. That than which is necessary to be known, is, how infailibly to found out the true Literal Sense from whence Arguments of force may be taken, & truly to discern when and wherein it differeth from the figurative. SECT. VIII. Certain Rules prescribed for the discerning of the simple Literal Sense from the figurative. And for the finding out of the true sense intended by the Holy Ghost. WE found by daily experience that often doubts do arise concerning the very literal sense of Scripture: And this sometimes through the ambiguity of words, as where it is said, Drink ye all of this; heeresome think it uncertain whether the word, All, signifieth all men without exception, or only all the faithful, or only all the Apostles. Sometimes the doubts arise through the propriety of words: for seeing the literal sense (as hath been said) is sometimes simple, and sometimes figurative, it is doubtful in many places whether the true sense be proper and simple, or figurative. All Catholics understand these words, This is my Body, simply and plainly, according to propriety of the words: Protestant's expound them figuratively. Through this difficulty some have fallen into grievous errors, as Origen, taking (1) Hier. ep. ad Pama●h. the words of Scripture figuratively, when they should have been taken simply. And on the contrary, Papias, (2) Hier. Praefat. l 18. in Isa. &. in c. 36. Ezech. Aug. l 20. de Ciu Dei. c. 7. Tertullian, and others, by taking the words properly, when they should have been taken figuratively. For the avoiding therefore of these extremes, S. Austin giveth us this good Rule. (3) L. 3 de Doct Christ. c. 10. Whatsoever can neither be referred to the honesty of manners, nor the truth of faith, that is to be taken figuratively and Metaphorically. Again, (4) ●b. c. 6. If any speech of Scripture be commanding as forbidding sin, or commanding Beneficence, than it is to be taken properly: But if it should seem to command sin, or forbidden Beneficence, it is a figurative speech. The 2. Rule given by S. Austin is, (5) De unit. Eccl c. 16. & count. lit Pet. c. 5. etc. 16. that obscure & doubtful places may not be urged against those which are more plain, but are to be understood & expounded by them. This is so reasonable, that Chemnitius accepteth of it for good, saying; (6) Exam. part. 1. fol. 48. 74. et. part. 3. fol. 49. We affirm that obscure places of Scripture are not to be expounded against that opinion which is expressed in plain and evident places of Scripture. And he allegeth S. Hierome to teach, that (7) Exam. part. 3. fol. 127. doctrine may not be gathered out of obscure, doubtful, enigmatical, and allegorical places of Scriptures. In regard whereof, that figurative layings afford no certain proof or Argument in matters of faith, it is taught by most Protestants, as (8) Chem. Ex. part. 3. pag. 127. Aret. loc come loc. 51. p 162. & loc. 81. p. 261. Wil in Syn. p. 27. Oecol. l. ep. Oecol. & Swingl. l. 1 p. 223. Lub. de Princip. p. 409. Down. of Antich. p. 169. Chemnitius, Aretius, M. Willet, Oecolampadius, Lubbertus, and M. Downham, who affirmeth it to be a Rule in Divinity, that, Theologia Symbolica non est argumentativa. A third Rule is, that the words of Scripture are ever to be taken in their plain, proper, and literal sense, and not to be changed into figures, unless that Sense be contrary to other plainer places of Scripture, or make against some known Article of faith, or be opposite to the common Explication of the whole Church, or infer some absurdity. This is also acknowledged by Protestant's: for D. Bilson affirmeth it to (9) In his true Differ. fol. 568. Be rightly said, that, in the Scriptures so long as the letter may possibly be true, and not against faith and good manners, we may not fly to figures. Chemnitius thinketh that, (10) Era. part. 2. fol. 71. when the Holy Ghost would have any sentence in the Scriptures to be understood otherwise then as the words do simply and properly signify, he plainly expresseth and showeth so much, either in the same or some other place. M. Hooker (11) Eccl. Pol l. 5. Ser. 59 p. 130. holdeth it for a most infallible Rule in Exposition of Scripture, that where a Literal construction will stand, the furthest from the Letter is commonly the worst. And the very same is taught by (12) Against the Plea of the Innocent. pa 194. D. Covell. And this with great reason, for if those texts of Scripture which being literally taken, are not directly against any other plainer Scripture or Article of faith, may be perverted and turned into Tropes and figures, then as Melancthon well observeth, (13) L. Ep. Oe col. & Swingl. ep. ad Prider. Micon p. 645. All things may be perverted: Yea faith itself will perish, and all divine Mysteries depend only upon opinion, and so the way laid open to infinite errors. A fourth Rule approved by Catholics & Protestants is this: that, when the Scripture doth specially instruct us in the Doctrine of the Holy Sacraments, in the institution or publishing of God's peculiar Commandments, or in any principal Article of faith, than that sense is to be holden good, for proof of which the words are most plain and literal. But for the right understanding of this, it is to be observed, that although our Saviour in his ordinary Exhortation or preaching to the people, which did imply a Commandment, did sometimes to stir them up to greater attention, remember them in figurative words of some general duty or Commandment, not then first prescribed, but formerly known and commanded; yet the first promulgation of every peculiar Commandment is ever delivered in words plain, not figurative or obscure. And as touching doctrines, it is not meant hereby, that every sentence or opinion concerning God is ever to be understood according to the literal words, but only that such as comprehend in them a special difficulty or necessity for us to believe, or practise; such as are the Articles of our faith, which are set down and delivered in plain words, and so to be understood. Wherhfore such examples of God being a Consuming fire, of Christ being a stone, a lion, a vine, a door, and the like, are of another nature, not importing any principle or Article of faith or doctrine. Again, in the secluding of Tropes and figures, it is not intended that every figurative locution should be secluded, but only such as is obscure and dark, for there be some which are in themselves no less easy and manifest then the other: As for example to say, The Cup is shed, Every one knoweth (as Beza (14) In Mat. 26.28. confesseth) that thereby is meant not the Cup itself, but the thing contained in the Cup. And this, and such like are sometimes usual, but yet their sense is known and manifest. This Rule thus understood, is acknowledged by Protestants to be good: so Vrsinus prescribeth that, (15) Comment. Catech. fol. 416. Articles of faith aught to be understood properly, unless some Article so taken properly, do disagree with other places of Scripture. Whitaker teacheth that, (16) De Sacra Script. fol. 391 395. Although in the words (of Scriptures) many things be obscure, and in many places, yet all Articles of faith are manifest. Chennitius affirmeth that, (17) Ex. part. 1. fol. 48. The Scripture when it delivereth doctrine or Commandments, to be certain, & nothing obscure. Melancton discoursing of this matter confesseth that, (18) L. de verit. Corp. & sing Domini, and see L. Epist. Oecol. & Swingl. fol. 132. 140. And Confess. Aug. tract. de Euchar. Although the phrase of Scripture be full of figures in narration of things done, yet saith he, If in the Commandments or Doctrines which contain the nature or will of God, we go about to do the like, what shall f, ollow, learned men may easily judge. Whereupon he concludeth that in Doctrines of faith, the Scriptures aught to be taken properly, as the words do usually signify, unless thereby, An absurdity do light upon other plainer places of Scripture: Which if it do, then, saith he, It is to be redressed by the benefit of figures: But if the Absurdity light only upon reason, and not upon the Scripture, then, as he teacheth, must the word of God be preferred before the judgement of reason. And he further avoucheth that It is needful that the meaning of those places be certain, from whence Doctrine, or Articles (of faith) be taken: otherwise saith he, when the rite of Circumcision was instituted, it had been lawful for Abraham to have imagined some other thing then that which the words signify: And, a subtle man might have disputed, a thing (seeming) so ridiculous, to be in no sort commanded of God: But (thereby only) to be signified, that lusts were to be restrained and bridled. Thus fully Philip Melancthon. Lastly Carion thinketh it needful, (19) Chron. p. 237. that in the Articles of faith, in themorall law, and in the Promise of Grace, that we be restrained with the native signification of the words. And as this Rule standeth good for the understanding of such Scriptures as instruct us in the Institution of Sacraments and Commandments, and in the necessary Article of faith: So also may it serve for the finding out of the true sense of any other Text, in which the usual and Literal sense is ever true; if so the said sense make not against some other plainer places of Scripture, or be contrary to some Article of faith, or opposite to the general understanding of the Church, or therewith it infer some gross and plain absurdity. These Rules prescribed and approved both by Catholics and Prot. if they likewise be observed in the Exposition of the Scriptures, they will certainly discover the literal sense from the figurative, and thereby prevent Prot. of their frequent flying to figures, when they are convinced by the Letter. SECT. IX. An Examination of such Rules as Prot. ordinarily prescribe, and observe for finding out of the true Sense of the sacred Scriptures. THe first Rule that I find to be used and taught by Modern Sectaries, for the finding out of the true Sense & meaning of the Scriptures, is the Scripture itself. (1) Harm. of Conf p. 5. The Interpretation whereof (say they) is to be taken only from herself, that herself may be the Interpreter of herself etc. And, (2) Ib. p. 3. We acknowledge that Interpretation of Scriptures for authentical and proper, which being taken from the Scriptures themselves &c. accordeth with the Rule of faith & Charity. Yea (3) Ib. p. 14. the true meaning of the Scripture is to be sought in the Scripture itself, and among those, that being raised up by the Spirit of God, expound Scripture by scripture. This Rule to be most imperfect and false, I prove at large (4) See hereafter. hereafter; for the present, M. Hooker shall confute it, avouching that, (5) Eccl. Pol, l. 2. pa. 116. The Scripture could not teach us the things that are of God, unless we did credit men, who have taught us, that the words of Scripture do signify these things. And seeing, as D. Whitakers confesseth (6) De sacra Script. pag. 521. the Scripture hath no lively voice which we may hear, but is a thing without all life: It is impossible to imagine that herself alone can make known to her Readers, the true understanding of so many and so difficult passages as are contained in her. Others perceiving the insufficiency of this, do give for their Rule, not the Scripture itself sole, and alone, but as (7) Whitak. de Eccles. Contr. 2 q. 4. p. 221. & de script. pag. 521. it is diligently read, conferred one place with another, the Circumstances weighed, and much prayer used. But these studies and Conferences are but humane endeavours, and such wherein every man, without extraordinary Privilege from God, is subject to error, oversight, and man's infirmity, all his prayer and possible diligence notwithstanding: and therefore cannot make and infallible Rule, as shallbe further sundry ways evicted, in this (8) See hereafter. Treatise following. Only I will now observe what D. Whitakers, who prescribed the foresaid Rule, as the best means of Interpretation, thinketh of it himself. (9) De Eccl. Controu. 2. q. 4 p. 221. Such as the means are (saith he) such of necessity must be the Interpretation: but the means of interpreting dark places, are uncertain, doubtful, and ambiguous, therefore it cannot be but that the Interpretation also must be uncertain, but if uncertain, than it may be false etc. So confessedly false is the foresaid Rule. The last Rule then, which indeed they chief rely upon, is the interpretation made by the Holy Ghost, and given as they imagine, to every Private man. So D. Whitaker affirmeth even of such as are ignorant in tongues, that, (10) De sacra Script. p. 127. They acknowledge and allow the Doctrine, being instructed by the Holy Ghost. But Lubbertus saith more plainly that, (11) De Principijs etc. p. 573. God hath given to every faithful person, not only the Spirit of understanding, but also of discerning false Dostrine from true. Yea say Brentius & D. white, (12) Brent. Prologue. Cont. Petr. Sot. Whit. in the way to the Church. pa. 6. 27. As the private man hath private Authority of judging and deciding Doctrine of Religion, so the Prince hath Public. But though it be most true, that the Scriptures are to be understood by the same spirit by which they were written, and given unto us, to wit, the Holy Ghost, and that by the Holy Ghost the Gift of Interpretation is sometimes given to particular men: yet that neither the said gift is given to every one of the faithful, nor they to whom it is given, without special Revelation, can infallibly be assured thereof; & much less can it give any assurance to others of the right expounding of Scripture or deciding any Controversy, as I shall at large declare hereafter (13) See hereafter. . In the mean time, it is not unworthy of observation, that Protestants appointing these Rules for the finding out of the true sense of Scripture, do thereby intent no other, but to make themselves, even every Private man, to be absolute judge and Interpreter of the sense of the Scripture: and so to exempt themselves from all other Interpretations, though made by Ancient Fathers, General Counsels, and the universal Church. SECT. X. That the certain and Infallible Rule, for the finding out of the true Sense of the Scriptures, is the Church of Christ. ALthough Prot. ordinarily profess that they (14) Harm. of Confess. p. 3. Do not acknowledge that, which they call the meaning of the Church of Rome, for the true and natural Interpretation of the Scriptures: Yet the Church of Christ in General Council hath Decreed that, (15) Conc. Trid. Sess. 4. No man dare to Interpret the sacred Scripture contrary to that Sense, which the Holy Mother the Church hath and doth hold, to whom it belongeth to judge of the true Sense and Interpretation of holy Scriptures. And this with greatest reason, for if the Church hath power from Christ to discern the word of God from the words of men as shallbe clearly proved (16) See hereafter. hereafter, doubtless she hath the like power of discerning in the words the sense and meaning of God, from the sense and understanding of men, both these being committed to the Church, that the may faithfully preserve them, and give them to others, to wit, the true Scriptures and true understanding thereof. This God promised to his Church by the Prophet Esay in these words, (17) Isa. 59.21. My spirit that is in thee, and my words that I have put in thy mouth, shall not departed out of thy mouth, and out of the mouth of thy seed, and out of the mouth of thy seeds seed, saith our Lord, from this present and for ever. Which is also confirmed by Christ our Saviour promising (18) Io. 14.16.17. The spirit of truth, which should abide for ever, and should (19) Io. 16.13. teach all truth And indeed seeing the true Gospel of God, doth not consist in the writings or words, but in the sense; if the Church had only the written word, and not the true sense thereof, she had not the true Gospel of God, and so neither faith in Christ which is had by the true Gospel; Faith having relation not to the words but to the sense. Wherhfore Heretics and Devils though they can allege Scriptures, yet not having the true sense, they have not a true, but a false & Diabolical Gospel. Besides Christ opened (20) Luc. 14.45. (the Apostles) understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures, which certainly he did not for them alone, but much more for his Church: and so accordingly the Apostles delivered to the Church the true sense of them: for if they had delivered the words and not the sense, they had not preached the Gospel, nor taught all Nations to keep all things that were commanded to them by Christ. What preaching or doctrine would that be, which were delivered without the meaning? certainly no other than of Children, or Parrots who can give the sound of words without the sense. Lastly, seeing the Church is the Pillar and ground of truth; and truth properly and truly is in the understanding of the Scriptures, not in the writings or words, but improperly & as in a sign; it evidently followeth, that she hath a certain knowledge of the truths which are contained in the Scriptures. This truth is so certain, that S. Austin for the true understanding of the Scriptures, directeth all men to the Church, saying, (21) L. 1. Cont. Crescon. c. 33. The truth of Scriptures is holden by us, when we do that which now hath pleased the universal Church, which the authority of the same Scriptures doth commend, that seeing the holy Scripture cannot deceive, whosoever feareth to be deceived by the obscurity of this question, let him take Counsel thereof from the Church, which without any ambiguity the holy Scripture doth demonstrate. But to omit sundry other Fathers very clear for thh purpose, many of the learnedst Protestants teach the same Doctrine, as I shall (22) See hereafter. show hereafter: only for the present, hear what D. Whitaker saith to Dureus his Catholic Adversary, (23) Cont. Dur. l. 2. fol. 134. Thou dost affirm that to be the sense of the word, which the Catholic Church hath received from the Holy Ghost; I confess so much for the Church is taught the true sense of Scripture from the Holy Ghost: she is the keeper of faith, the ground and Pillar of truth. So confessed and clear it is that the true and undoubted sense and Interpretation of Scriptures, is to be learned from the Catholic Church. Wherhfore all Catholics in their Disputes, Sermons, and Comments upon the Scripture, do ever place this as a sure ground and undeniable Principle, that the true and sincere sense of the Scriptures, is to be taken from the Interpretation of the Catholic Church. SECT. XI. An explication of what we mean by the Church, when we say, that the true understanding of the Scripture, and the final Decision of all Controversies in Religion, is to be taken from the Church. FIrst then (1) Canus loc. come. l. 12. c. 6. et. l. 5. c. 4. Bellar de Concil. l 2. c. 2. Et de verb. Dei. l. 3. c. 3. Rhem. Test. in Mat. 18. Catholics do here understand by the Church, the supreme Pastor thereof with a Council of other Bishops, Pastors and Doctors. In so much that whatsoever by these in matters of faith and manners is decreed, and proposed to the whole Church to be believed, that we all firmly believe to be most true and infallible, & wholly agreeing with the true sense of God's word intended by the Holy Ghost. Secondly, we (2) Val. T. 3. Disp. 1. q. 1. Punct. 7. §. 44. Bellar. de verb. Dei l. 4. c. 3. etc. Canus loc. come. l. 12. ca 6. understand by the Doctrine of the Church, such Points of Faith also, as not being written in the Scriptures, have been delivered by the Apostles by word of mouth, the Holy Ghost inspiring them, or Christ being the Author of them: And these we believe to have as infallible authority of truth, as if they had been written in the Scriptures. Thirdly (3) Staplet. de Princip. l. 11. c. 4. we likewise teach, that the universal & General practise of the Catholic Church, is a sure and Infallible Interpreter of the Scriptures. In so much that if any Question shall arise concerning any difficult place of Scripture, the general observation and Practice of the Church concerning the matter treated in that place is to be inquired, and to be held and followed, as the best Interpretation, and a truth Infallible. Fourthly, Protestant's (4) jewel in his Sermon at Paul's Cross. Fulk in his Answer to a Counterfeit Catho. p. 27. 33. 36. Whitak. count. Camp. Rat. themselves confess, that the Church during the first 600. years after Christ, was pure, sincere, and truly Catholic; to the holy Fathers then of those times we appeal, firmly believing (5) Staplet. de Princip l. 7. c. 12. that what they with unanimous consent did teach, or the greatest part of them, without contradiction of others, concerning points of faith, or what unanimous Interpretation of Scripture they made concerning Articles of faith, that the same is by us received and believed, as the true meaning of the holy Ghost, and matter of faith. Lastly, the Church of Christ hath flourished and shined in all Ages, with true and undoubted Miracles, which being Truth, cannot give Testimony to a falsehood; these also are sure and infallible proofs of all such Doctrine, in Confirmation whereof they are done. These are the Principles and firm grounds upon which the Catholic Church doth build her faith and Religion: which I do not hear go about to confirm, with many such Arguments as might be easily produced in proof of them, because the same willbe done at large upon several occasions in this Treatise following, to which therefore in this respect I refer the Reader. THE TRUE STATE OF THE QUESTION IN CONTROVERSY, Between Catholics and Protestants, concerning the judge of Controversies in matters of Religion, consisteth in this: Whether, besides the sacred Scriptures, any other infallible Authority and judge is to be acknowledged, by which the Doctrine of Faith, and the true sense of Scriptures may be proposed to the faithful, as revealed by God, and to be believed. And whether the said Authority and power of Judging, be to be ascribed to the Church, to General Counsels, and to the Fathers of the Primitive Church? Or only to the sacred Scriptures themselves, or the Private Spirit of every particular Man? CHAP. I SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. THIS Controversy being the greatest, and that whereupon all others do depend, for the full & clearest Decision thereof, the Council of Trent (1) Concil. Trid. Ses. 4. decret. de Edi. & usu sacrorum librorum. decreeth for the repressing of proud wits, that no man relying upon his own wisdom in matters of Faith & manners &c. wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own sense, presume to interpret the holy Scriptures contrary to that sense which our holy Mother the Church hath, and doth hold; to whom it belongeth to judge of the true sense and interpretation of Holy Scriptures. Before this it was taught in the Council of Sens, that (2) Decret. 4. Contentions being risen concerning Faith, the Scripture often is in vain consulted, unless the certain and infallible Authority of the Church do end the strife, which discerneth the Canonical Book from he Apocryphal, the Catholic sense from the heretical, the true from the adulterate. These Counsels avouch the Church to be judge of the true sense of the Scriptures. Concerning the authority of Counsels, in the said Council of Sens, it was ordained, that, (3) Con il. Sen nense Decret. 3. It might seem absurd, if God with so great care was present to the old Synagogue, that if any thing occurred in the Law, difficult or doubtful, which could not be ended without Controversy by the judges and Lawyers, yet they should not want a designed assembly, by whose sentence all the matter should be ended; yet he should leave his Church, much to be preferred before the Synagogue, without necessary helps, that she should not have whereupon safely to rely, when Question of Faith ariseth. Wherhfore seeing she Rule of the Church is certain and infallible etc. that authority cannot be denied to General Counsels, which most nearly do represent the universal Church. In the eight General Council it was thus decreed, (4) Actione 10. cap. 1. to. 3. We profess to observe & keep the Decrees of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, received by Tradition, both from the Holy Apostles etc. as also from Orthodoxal, General, & Provincial Counsels. So undoubted are the Decrees of Counsels in matters of faith. The authority of ancient Fathers in expounding the Scriptures, is such, as that in the Council of Trent it is decreed, that (5) Conc. Trid. Sess. 4. Decret. de Edit. & usu Sacrorum librorum. no man presume to interpret the sacred Scriptures etc. against the unanimous consent of Fathers. And it was enacted by the Council in Trullo, that, (6) Synod. 6. Constantin. 8. in Trullo can. 19 If any Controversy concerning Scripture shallbe raised, let them not otherwise interpret it, then as the Lights and Doctors of the Church have expounded in their writings. In the eight General Council it was determined, that, (7) Synod. Constantinop. 8. generalis Act. 8. If any man according to the custom of wicked heretics, by any means, either by word, time, or place, shall attempt to remove the bounds, which the holy Fathers of the Church, or the S. Sacred and General Counsels have placed; or do rashly innent novelties, and other expositions of faith etc. let him be condemned for ever. In the first Lateran Council it is thus decreed, We (8) Cont. Later. sub Martino 1. Consul. 5. follow in all things the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, Athanasius, Hilarius, Basill, Gregory etc. and we receive all things which are expounded by them, for the right Faith, and in condemnation of Heretics. And we receive also other holy and orthodoxal Fathers who have ever preached in God's holy Church, the true Faith without blame. The Bishops & Doctors in the Council of Valence said, (9) Conc. Valent. sub Leone p. 4. cap. 1. We do reverently submit our hearing, and understanding etc. to the clearest expositors of sacred Scripture, that is, to Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrose, Hierome, Augustine, and the rest etc. And to our power we embrace what they have written for our salvation. So that by the several Decrees of so many Counsels it appeareth, that the true sense and interpretation of Scriptures, and thereby the deciding of all diffrences in Religion, are to be known and taken from the Catholic Church, from general Counsels, and the unanimous consent of ancient Fathers. This is our Catholic doctrine. Protestants untruths. The Authority of the Church not being to be infringed by any true and solid argument, Protestants endeavour to weaken the same by falsehoods and untruths: for whereas (15) Bellar. de Con●il. authorit. l. 2. cap. 12. all Catholics teach, that the Scriptures are in sundry respects to be preferred before Counsels; Caluin falsely accuseth us in these words: To (16) Instit. l. 4. c. 9 § 14. subject thus the Oracles of God to the Censure of men, that therefore they should be allowed because they pleased men, is a Blasphemy unworthy to be remembered. Again, (17) Initio libr●, seu Instructionis cont. Anabap. & in Luc. c. 4.16. we do not after the manner of Papists say, that the sacred Scriptures aught to be cast away, that we may rest upon the authority of men, for this evasion we judge to be execrable blasphemy. If you will believe john White, (18) Way to the Church. Ep. Dedic. n. 2. All their speech is of the Church, no mention of the Scriptures, or God their Father, but their Mother Church. And, (19) Ibid. p. 12. They know and confess the most and greatest points of their Religion, even well-nigh all wherein they descent from us, have no foundation on the Scriptures. Luther speaking of Counsels, affirmeth, there (20) In Act. Apo. c. 15. was never any one pure, but either added something to faith, or subtracted. And he avoucheth, that the Pope (21) De council. & Eccl. propè extremo. hath buried the sacred Scripture in dirt and dust, and hath almost blotted out the whole Christian Doctrine. Master Sparks affirmeth that (22) Answer to john de Albines. pag. 82 83. we prefer the authority of the Church the wife, before Christ the husband; that we make the written word of God inferior in the Authority to the Church, and to have his Canonical credit from thence. But these and such like untruths sayned by Protestants, the Catholic Church disclaimeth, as mere impostures, invented by men malignant, and barely affirmed without proof or probability. The greatest esteem we have of sacred Scriptures, as believing them to be God's word, all inspired by him, all Catholic (23) Bellar de verbo Dei. l 1. c. 2. Authors do fully testify, and I have (a) Preparative. sect. 1. 2. formerly proved. Protestant Doctrine. You must ever know that the body of Protestancy, is a Cerberus with many heads; for in this present Controversy, some Protestants teach, that our only judge upon earth in matters of faith and Religion, are the sacred Scriptures, or written word of God; so our English Church hath decreed, that the (24) Article 6. Scripture comprehended in the Canonical books of the old and new Testament, is the Rule of faith so fare, that whatsoever is not read therein, or cannot be proved thereby, is not to be accepted as any point of faith, or needful to be followed. This article is defended by D. (25) Way to the Church. pag. 12. White. And D. Morton acknowledgeth, (26) Apolog. part. 2. l. 1. c. 1. Protestant's will have all matters of faith squared & tried according to the written Rule, that is the sacred Scripture, even as by the Touchstone. (27) Pag. 4. In the Harmony of Confessions it is determined, that in Controversies of Religion, or matters of faith, we cannot admit any other judge than God himself pronouncing by the holy Scriptures, what is true, what is false, what is to be followed, or what is to be avoided. (28) Ibid. p. 5. Yea the interpretation thereof is to be taken from herself, that herself may be the Interpreter of herself. And so (29) English Confession. ibid. pag. 10. be the sure and infallible Rule etc. whereunto all Ecclesiastical doctrine aught to be called to accounted. Other Protestants make every faithful man, endowed with the spirit, to be judge of all Controversies in Religion. So D. Bilson styleth (30) True difference etc. part. 2. pag. 353. The people discerners and judges of that which is taught. Doctor Whitaker confesseth of such as are ignorant in tongues, that (31) De sacra script p. 127. they acknowledge, and allow the Doctrine being instructed by the holy Ghost Lubbertus avoucheth, that (32) De principijs etc. pag. 573. God hath given to every faithful person, not only the spirit of understanding, but also of discerning false Doctrine from true: And this in so full manner, that according to Brentius & Doctor White, (33) Prolegom. count. Petr Soto. White in the way to the Church. p. 6. 27. Between the Prince and the private man is this difference; that as the private man hath Private authority of judging and deciding Doctrine of Religion, so the Prince hath Public. Master Rogers teacheth that, (34) Def. of the Articles Art 20. pag. 103. Authority is given to the Church, and to every member of sound judgement in the same, to judge in Controversies of faith etc. And this is not the private opinion of our Church, but etc. also the judgement of our godly brethren in foreign nations: so that every private spiritual man is a supreme head of the Church, able to judge all Controversies. Thus according to Protestant's, the judge in matters of faith are either the sacred Scriptures, or every faithful man endowed with the Spirit. Protestants agreed with ancient Heretics. Protestants by their foresaid opinions do show themselves of what race they are come. So whereas D. Whitaker affirmeth, (35) Cont. Duraeum l. 7. pa. 478 it is sufficient for us (Protestants) by comparing the Popish doctrine and Scriptures together, to know their difference and disagreeing: we leave it free for Historiographers (saith he) to writ what they l●st. And whereas Beza saith, (36) In Barcrofts Survey. pag 219. If any shall oppose against my exposition the Authority of certain of the ancient Fathers, I do appeal to the word of God. This appealing from Father's Historiographers and Church, only to the written word, is condemned in Maximinus the Arian by S. Austin, who produceth him saying, (37) L. 1 cont. Maximin. & cont. Faust. l. 32. c. 19 & ep. 222. If thou shalt bring any thing from the sacred Scripture which is common to all, it is needful we hear you: But these words which are out of the Scripture, in no case are to be received of us. But not only Arians, but (38) L. 1 de Trinit. c. 3. all Heretics (saith S. Augustine) endeavour to defend their false and deceitful opinions out of the Scriptures. (39) L 1. cont. Haer. c. 35. If one shall ask (saith Vincentius) any Heretic etc. from whence do you prove, from whence do you teach, that I aught to forsake the Universal and Ancient Faith of the Catholic Church? Presently he answereth, For it is written: and forthwith he prepareth a thousand testimonies, a thousand examples, a thousand authorities, from the Law, from the Apostles, from the Prophets. In brief, this appealing to only Scripture is condemned in the Nestorians, as (40) L. 7. c. 2. Socrates testifieth: In the Macedonians and Eunomians by (41) De spiritu sanc c 15. & l. 1. cont. Eunom. S. Basil; and in several other heretics by sundry (42) Hilar. orat. count. Constant. Tertul. l. de prescript. c. 15. Hieron. ep. ad Paulin. & tom 3. cont. Lucif. Ambros. in c. vlt. ad Tit. Orig. hom 7. in Ezech. ancient Fathers. To come nearer home amongst our neighbours, it is condemned in the Puritans by D. Bancrofte (43) Survey of pretended discip. c. ●7. . In the Anabaptists by Caluin (44) Tract. Theo. pa. 57 & instruct. count. Anabap p. 478 and Hooker (45) Eccl. Pol. praef. pa. 38. . In the Protestant Arians by (46) De aeterno Dei filio l 1. c. 2. Simlerus; and the same is the doctrine and practice of the Brownists (47) In their apology. pa. 103 4 93. 99 100 and see Ainsworth in his counterpoison, p 15 154. . And yet that all Protestants when they are urged by Catholics, do use the same shameful flight to only Scripture, their own Brethrens shall accuse them. The Antitrinitarians say to the Tigurine Protestants (48) Simlerus de fill. Dei. in Bullingers' praef. thereto. fol. 4 & in Simlerus his preface. fol. 1. . You have taught us that nothing is to be received besides the Scriptures; therefore we demand where it is written in the Scriptures? etc. Except you show this according to your Rule, we reject and condemn those things: therefore we have learned of you to contemn the Fathers. In like sort saith Socinus the Arian to Volanus the Protestant: (49) ●i●. de Christi not. p. 21. To what purpose should I answer that which thou borrowest from the Papists etc. You are no less deceived in urging against us the Churches perpetual consent, then are the Papists in urging thereof both against you and us etc. (50) Ibid. pa. 222. Even Volanus himself disputing against the jesuits, is enforced to reject the examples, sayings, and deeds of Athanasius, Hierome, Austin, Theodoret, and other Fathers, whose authority he now opposeth against us, as sacred. Thus etc. Volanus may receive answer from himself, when he so often enforceth against us the authority of learned men, and consent of the Church. Luther himself avoucheth that, (51) In postil. wit. in. 2. c●n. 8. Dom. post Trinit. fol. 118. It is true that the sacred Scripture is the book of Heretics, because Heretics are accustomed to provoke to that Book: neither did there arise at any time any Heresy so pestiferous and so foolish which did not endeavour to hide itself under the veil of Scripture. So clear it is, that all sorts of Sectaries, whether Protestant's or Puritans, do agreed with the ancient heretics in rejecting the authority of the Fathers and of the Church, and in appealing only to the sacred Scriptures, or the Private Spirit. Of which appealing by old heretics to the Private Spirit, I shall (52) See neerafter chap. 4. show hereafter. Protestant Errors. It is worthy observation to see the gross errors and absurdities into which Heresy doth plunge a man. Caluin acknowledgeth of the Protestant Libertines, that they (53) Instruc. adverse Libert. c. 9 were accustomed to laugh, if any man alleged the Scriptures: neither to have dissembled, but that they hold them for fables etc. If any place was objected unto them, they answered we are not subject to the letter, but aught to follow the spirit that quickeneth. Swenckfeldius (54) See Staphylus l. de concord. discip. Lutheri. also rejected the written word, as the letter that killed, contending himself only with the internal spirit. Luther teacheth, that (55) Conc. de Sacram. Alt. tom. 1. Ger. Wit. in Gal. 3. pag. 147 the right of interpreting Scripture is equally granted to the Laity, as the learned. Yea he trembleth not to say, Although the Papists do bring a great heap of Scriptures in which good works are commanded: Yet I nothing care for all the words of Scripture, although more than those were yet produced. Thou Papist dost greatly contemn, and with the Scripture makest thyself courageous, which yet is inferior to Christ as Lord. Therefore I am nothing moved therewith. Go too then, rely upon the servant as much as thou wilt, but I do rely upon Christ the true Ma star, Lord, and Emperor of Scripture. To him I do assent, and know that he will lie to me in nothing, nor will lead me into error. I do rather make choice to honour and believe him then that with all the sayings of Scripture, I will suffer myself to be removed from my Opinion a nail's breadth. And in sundry places he averreth, that (56) Colloq. Isleb. de Christo fol. 96. Tom. 1. Ger. Wit. part. 1. fol. 190. Tom. 5. len. fol. 500 in Colloq de spir. Sanct. fo. 125. de tentation. fid. fol. 218. Tom 6. Ger. len fol. 86. Tom. 7. Ger. Wit. f. 482. the Apostles might err and teach false doctrine; And that themselves daily doubted of the truth of their Doctrine. See how an Enemy of the Church, becomes also a contemner of Scripture itself, when it speaketh against him. Reynolds avoucheth that (57) Conclus. annex. to his Confer. pag. 686. S. john's Gospel alone is sufficient to Salvation. But if I should tell him that according to his Doctrine, all Controversies are to be decided by Scripture, and nothing is to be believed but what is taught in Scripture; he would never be able to show that all this is performed only by S. john's Gospel. Some Protestants affirm, that the Old and New Testament, or the Law and the Gospel, are contrary one to another: Illyricus teacheth that (58) In Clavo script. part. 2 tract. 1. Col 10. there are two kinds of doctrine, the Law▪ and the Gospel, and those of themselves, and their own nature truly contrary. (59) Ibid. Col. 11. This truly is the key of the whole Scripture and Divinity, to know that therein is contained a double kind of doctrine, and a double way of Salvation, which of themselves are plainly contrary one to another. The (60) Ibid. Col. 39 Law and the Gospel of themselves do fight altogether. These doctrines do fight but the inferior Law doth yield to the superior Gospel, and so one Contradictory failing, the other remaineth true. Caluin likewise affirmeth, that (61) Instit. l. 2. c. 9 §. 4. Paul maketh the justice of the Law and the Gospel contrary amongst themselves. This error is so wicked, that the Protestant Pareus avoucheth, (62) In Gal. 3. loc. 40. If the doctrine of the Law, and the doctrine of the Gospel be contrary, God in his word should be contrary to himself, which God forbidden. Such gross and execrable errors do Protestants teach and defend, against the truth and authority of holy Scriptures, though at other times when they are pressed with the authority of the Church, of General Counsels, and ancient Fathers, they seem wholly to appeal to them. SECT. II. The sacred Scriptures clearly teach that we are to repair to the Church of Christ, for the final deciding of Controversies in Religion. I Must once for all, most earnestly entreat the Christian Reader, of what Profession soever he be; that he diligently observe, whether the Texts of Scripture alleged, being taken in their native signification, and according to the literal sense which the words of themselves do import, do not clearly make for that Catholic point of doctrine, for which they are produced: for that being granted, I gain the intent which is here desired. In the book of Exodus we read that, Moses said to jethro, (1) C. 18. 15. 16. 19 20. 21. 22. 23 24. 25. 26. The people cometh to me seeking the sentence of God. And when any Controversy chanceth amongst them, they come unto me to judge between them, and to show the Precepts of God, and his Laws. But jethro said etc. Hear my words and counsels etc. Be thou to the people in those things that pertain to God etc. And to show to the people the Ceremonies and rites of worshipping, and the way wherein they aught to walk, and the works that they aught to do. And provide out of all the People, men that are wise, & do fear God etc. which may judge the people at all times: and what greater matter soever shall fall out, let them refer it to thee, and let them judge the less matters only etc. If thou dost this, thou shalt fulfil the Commandment of God etc. which things when Moses heard, he did all things that he had suggested unto him. And choosing substantial men etc. he appointed them Princes of the people etc. who judged the people at all times; and whatsoever was of greater difficulty they referred to him, themselves judging the easier causes only. Now that these might rightly perform their charge, it is further said by God to Moses, (2) Num. 11.17. I will take of thy spirit, & will deliver to them etc. Many words in this Text plainly prove, that Moses was the Supreme judge over the Israelits even in matters of Religion. Let us now examine those poorest evasions, which Protestant's have for the avoiding of this plainest Text. M. Bridges (3) Defence etc. l. 2. fol. 237. answereth hereunto, that the charge given heerto Moses, was only in regard of civil causes, but this is clearly contrary to the former words of Scripture, Moses being to show to the people, The precepts of God & his Laws, the things that pertain to God, & the very Ceremonies & rites of worshipping. Other Protestant's yet further reply, that Moses was not a Priest, but only a temporal Prince. But this is likewise most untrue, for the same Scriptures affirm, that Moses exercised all functions of Priesthood, as teaching the (4) Exod. 18.15 People all Precepts of God & his Laws, (5) Exod. 21.1. consecrating Aaron, and other Priests, and (6) Ib. ver. 7.21. anointing them, and their garments; yea which is most proper unto a Priest; (6) Ibid. vers. 36.37. he offered sacrifice every day continually. A truth so manifest, that the Prophet David said, (7) Ps. 98.6. Moses and Aaron in his Priests. And whereas Hunnius avoucheth that (10) Colloq. Ratisb. Sess. 1. Moses sacrificed as a Prophet of the Lord, not as a Priest, this is barely affirmed without all ground or proof, and is clearly convinced of falsehood, by what hath been said next before. As Moses' being a Priest, was thus ordained by God the supreme judge even in causes Ecclesiastical: so were the people of Israel commanded to go to the high Priest for the final deciding of their doubts and dissensions. (11) Deutr. 17. 8.9.1●.11. And see cap. 1.5. If thou perceive (saith Moses') that the judgement with thee be hard and doubtful between blood and blood, cause and cause &c and thou see that the words of the judges within thy gates do vary; arise and go up to the place which our Lord thy God shall choose. And thou shalt come to the Priests of the Leviticall Stock, and to the judge that shall be at that time; & thou shalt ask of them, who shall show thee the truth of the judgement. And thou shalt do whatsoever they that are Precedents of the place, which our Lord shall choose, shall say and teach thee, according to his Law, and show shalt follow their sentence: neither shalt thou decline to the right hand, nor to the left hand. But he that shallbe proud, refusing to obey the Commandment of the Priest, which at that time ministereth to our Lord thy God, and the decree of the judge, that man shall die. Here the people are commanded under pain of death, to submit themselves and their causes to the decicision of the high Priest. But D. Whitaker here (12) De sacra Script. controu. 1. q. 5. p. 463. replieth, that the people were but commanded to obey the Priest, if he taught them according to the Law; in which sense Protestants profess to obey the Church or Counsels, if they decree according to the Scriptures: Yet this doth nothing avail; for first D. Whitaker and other Protestants, appealing ever to the Original, as to the fountain, and text most authentical, and rejecting our vulgar translation as corrupt, these words, And teach thee according to his law, are only to be found in our vulgar, and not in the Hebrew. Secondly the foresaid words are not conditional, but words of promise or assurance, that he shall teach the truth according to the Law, which appeareth as well, in that the people are commanded under pain of death, to abide the Priests absolute sentence, as also in that, if the people were to judge whether the Priest gave sentence according to the Law, or not, than not the Priest, but the People were judges: And so whereas this Law was made for the Satisfaction of the People in their doubts, and final ending of their controversies, all things would be left no less doubtful and disagreeing then before. Wherefore (13) In Prolegom. count. Petrum à Soto. Brentius further replieth, that the people are here referred not only to the Priest; but also to the civil judge, who therefore may hear and determine causes Ecclesiastical. But the answer is easy, for first by the word, judge, we may well understand the chief or high Priest, for according to the Hebrew it is said; Ascend to the Priests, and to the judge, as if it had been said, Ascend to the Council of Priests, and their Prince the high Priest. Secondly though we understand by the judge the civil Magistrate, yet this only argueth their Offices to be distinct, as the Priest's Office to concern matters Ecclesiastical; the Magistrates, matters civil; the Priests, to give definitive sentence; the Magistrates to execute the same. This answer than not satisfying, other Protestants seek to evade by affirming barely that the foresaid Law of Deutronomy concerned only matters civil, not spiritual or directly tending to God. But besides that the law was general, concerning all doubts arising from the law, and the text saith in general, between cause and cause; seeing here it is evident that the people are referred by God to the high Priest, for the determining of their difficulties; how absurd & distasting would it be to our politic State, if our English Clergy should affirm, that the decision of temporal and Civil suits were to be referred to the Priest or the Church? Yea how severely would Bishops and Ministers be punished, if they should but endeavour to assume any such pretended authority? Others observing that none of the foresaid evasions do satisfy so plain texts of Scripture, as not being able to deny the words to be most evident, do therefore, as acknowledging the same, yet further answer; that many things established in the old Law, are now abrogated by the new, and therefore, an argument drawn from the decrees & practise thereof, to be now invalide, in regard of our time of grace. But this also is as insufficient as the former answers; for although many things used in the old Law, being Ceremonial, be now abrogated; yet that maketh no more against the Ecclesiastical judge now, than it doth against the judge in Civil causes, or the temporal Magistrates, which were appointed by God, and exercised their authority during the old Law: and therefore most things then prescribed, not being Ceremonial, are still with us Christians, though not in every circumstance, yet in substane observed. And the rather aught this to be, seeing the occasions to have Controversies ended, and the dangers of erring are now no less than they were during the time of the old Law. But all this is yet more fully explained and confirmed by holy King josaphat, who having appointed Priests in Jerusalem, said thus unto them; (14) 2. Paralip. c. 19 10. 11. Every cause that shall come to you of your brethren etc. Whersoever there is question of the Law, of the Commandment, of Ceremonies, of iustifications; show it them, that they sinne not against our Lord etc. And Amarias the Priest, and your Bishop shallbe Chief in these things, which pertain to God: moreover Zabadias' etc. who is the Prince in the house of juda, shallbe over those works, which pertain to the Kings Office. So dinstinctly doth King josaphat allot to the Bishop the decision of questions of the Law, of the Commandment, and of all things which pertain to God, leaving the care of such things as pertain to the King's Office, to Zabadias' a temporal Prince. Now it will not suffice to answer, that josaphat made this distinction and Decree by his own authority, & therefore that the power which the Priest had for judgement, was but given him by the King, and depended of his pleasure; for we have seen before to the contrary, that the Ordinance was by God himself, who gave the same authority to Moses, and afterward enacted a Law thereof in Deuteronomy, chap. 17. So that josaphat did only command the execution of that which God had formerly prescribed. By the Prophet Ezechiell God saith of Priests, (15) C. 44. 23. 24. They shall teach my people what is between a holy thing and polluted, & between clean and unclean they shall show to them; And when there shallbe a Controversy, they shall stand in my judgements, & shall judge etc. By the Prophet Aggeus God directeth his people to ask (16) C. 2. 12. the Priests the Law. And by Malachy he promiseth that (17) C. 2, 7. The lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge, & the Law they shall require of his mouth, because he is the Angel of the Lord of Hosts; that is, his messenger sent & appointed to declare the truth. These texts are clear for the Priest being judge, and the people's requiring the knowledge of the Law from him. This place of Malachy is so forcible, that Protestants for want of better answer, instead of, shall keep knowledge, do most corruptly Engl. Bibl. of 1578. translate, should preserve knowledge, contrary to all Originals. Lastly of the practice of the old Testament, it is said, expressly, and this according to the Protestants translation (19) Engl. Bibl. of Anno 1578. , that (20) Esd. 2.8.7.8.12.13. the Levites caused the people to understand the Law etc. and they read in the book of the Law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading etc. Than all the people etc. made great joy because they had understood the words that they had taught them. And on the second day, the chief Fathers of all the people, the Priests, and the Levits, were gathered unto Esdras the Scribe, that he also might instruct them in the words of the Law. So plain it is, that the people of the old Law, were instructed in their understanding of the Law, and the Scriptures, not by their own reading and conferring of Scriptures, or by any imagined and invisible Ghost, but by the Priests & Levits, who were then the Pastors of their Church. And agreably to this we shall see shortly, that the Apostle (21) Eph. 4.11. affirmeth, that now in the Church Christ hath placed not only Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists, but also next after them Pastors and Doctors: The divine Providence disposing, that we should have not only the sacred writings of the Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists, but also the Commentaries, Interptetations, and Preach of Pastors and Doctors, in explanation thereof. Which Pastors and Doctors (as Caluin (22) Instit. c. 5. de fide. gathereth upon this place) have an ordinary Charge in the Church, and the Church can never want them, but evermore, as he saith, Doctores praesunt Scripturae interpretationi etc. Doctors have authority to interpret the Scriptures, that sincere and wholesome doctrine may be retained among the faithful. So false it is, that the external judgement granted in the old Law, is now abrogated by the New. Now this course of deciding Controversies by the Priests or the Church, being so generally prescribed and practised in the old Law, was in itself so good and profitable, that Christ at his coming approved and confirmed the same, saying, (23) Mat. 23.2.3. Upon the Chair of Moses have sitten the Scribes, and the Pharisees. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe ye, and do ye; but according to their works do you not, for they say, and do not. Here our Saviour commandeth the people to observe and do, whatsoever the Scribes and Pharisees shall say, or prescribe unto them; and that for this reason, because upon the Chair of Moses have sitten the Scribes and the Pharisees: signifying thereby, the Supreme and infallible authority, which I have proved before, was given to Moses by God, for the deciding of Ecclesiastical Controversies: as also that his Successors in that Chair, were to have the same, though in their lives and conversations they proved offensive and scandalous. Where I cannot but note the special providence & care of God over his Church, who though he sometime permit the Superiors and Prelates thereof, to be of sinful & scandalous life, yet he ever so preserved them from teaching false doctrine to the people, as that he commandeth these still to follow their teaching, though their works be bad: which in his goodness and wisdom he would not do, if in like sort he permitted them to err in faith and doctrine, as in lewdness of life; but rather to the contrary would give them Counsel, to take good heed both of their doctrine and life. To conclude then, from the ordinance and pactise of the old Law; If the cause to have Controversies ended be as urgent now, as during the Old Testament, and the danger of error as grievous; then if the People were not referred to the written word, or the Private Spirit, for the deciding of their doubts, but even to a visible and known judge, to wit, the Priests; may Christians, (24) Heb. 8 6. Whose Testament is established in better promises, expect less plain and certain means for ending of their Controversies? To affirm the contrary were indeed to prefer in this behalf, Moses before jesus-christ, & the Ecclesiastical government and policy of the old Law, before ours, which were no less absurd in itself, than otherwise impious. And so I will pass to the Law of Grace. It is prescribed by Christ himself, that (25) Mat. 18.15.16.17.18. If thy Brother shall offend against thee, go and rebuke him beeweene thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, join with thee beside, one or two etc. And if he will not hear them tell the Church. And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the Heathen and Publican. Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shallbe bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall lose upon earth, shallbe loosed also in heaven. Our Saviour here referreth the final deciding of dissensions amongst Neighbours unto the Church; therefore much more doth he the same in matters of Religion. If he command an Adulterer to be brought to the judgement of the Church, much more an Heretic. And if the Church have authority to lose whatsoever (not only whomsoever) upon earth, than no question she hath authority to lose all difficulties arising in Religion. And if they who disobey the Church's sentence are to be accounted as Heathens and Publicans, that is, damnable sinners, than it followeth evidently not only the said sentence of the Church to be final, not admitting any further appeal either to Scriptures, or the Private spirit, but also that the not hearing or disobeying the Church's judgement, is sinful & punishable. D. Whitaker would avoid this two ways, first by expounding it of (26) Controu. 2. q 4. c. 2. 3. Ecclesiastical Censures, not of doctrine. Secondly by affirming that the Church is to be heard, but in those things only, in which she heareth and obeyeth Christ. But if she be to be heard & obeyed in her Ecclesiastical Censures of Excommunication and the like, much more in condemnation of Heresies; if she be confessedly the supreme judge in correcting and punishing us, much more in directing & preserving us from error. Neither doth Christ (as Whitaker pretendeth) restrain this Precept of obeying the Church to any particular matter, but indeed enlargeth it to all, saying, (27) Mat. 18.18. Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth etc. whatsoever you shall lose upon earth etc. (28) Ibid. v. 19 Concerning every thing whatsoever they shall ask it shallbe done them. (29) Luc. 10, 16. And he that heareth you heareth me. All (30) things whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do ye. So clear it is, that the foresaid place is not to be understood only of Censures. In like sort to say the Church is to be heard, (3) Mat. 23.3. but in those things only in which she heareth and obeyeth Christ, or teacheth according to the Law, or Scriptures, is most idle, for so is any Child, and the Devil himself to be heard. And so instead of ending Controversies, it begetteth new ones, calling the Church itself into question, when it is to be heard, and when not, and thereby making the sense only to be this; Hear the truth wheresoever the truth is taught according to the Law, which to say, is not infallible, and finally to direct us, but rather to leave us in our first and other new perplexities. This place is so convincing for the authority of the Church, as that our English Protestant's in their Bible of 1562. do translate the foresaid words thus: If he hear not them, tell the Congregation. So fearful they are of the word Church, and the power thereto given. This direction of Christ, his Blessed Apostles and our first Christians observed most diligently, for when some had Act. 15.1.2.4.6.7.8.9.10.11.13.19.22.28.29. taught that, unless you be circumcised according to the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved: Not little sedition therefore being risen to Paul and Barnabas against them, the Church of Antioch appointed, that Paul and Barnabas should go up, and certain others of the rest, to the Apostles and Priests unto Jerusalem upon this question. Which they accordingly doing, the Apostles and Ancients assembled to consider of this word. And when there was made a great diputation, Peter rising up decided the matter, whose speech james confirmed, and the whole Church of Jerusalem so assented thereunto, as that they agreed the foresaid decree to be sent to Antioch, saying, It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you, than these necessary things etc. Now when this decree was read at Antioch, they rejoiced upon the consolation. And when Paul and Timothy passed through the cities, they delivered unto them to keep the Decrees that were decreed of the Apostles ●and Ancients which were at Jerusalem; yea it is expressly said, that Paul walked through Syria and Cilicia confirming the Churches: Commanding them to keep the Precepts of the Apostles and the Ancients. Here the deciding of the foresaid Controversy, was not referred to the conference of Scripture, or the Private spirit, but to the judgement and determination of the Apostles, Priests, & Church of Jerusalem: which after consult had thereof, they determined, and their Decree without all further appeal was received with joy, and was holden as a Precept, and the observation thereof was commanded by S. Paul The Scriptures further teach us, that we are bound to hear and obey our spiritual Pastors: Christ said unto his Apostles, (32) Luc. 10.16. He that heareth you, heareth me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth me. S. Paul likewise, (33) Heb. 13.17. Obey your Prelates, and be subject to them: for they watch, as being to tender account for your souls. Now if we be commanded to hear and obey them, as our Prelates, (34) Eph. 4.11. Pastors, and (35) Mat. 28.19.20. Doctors, then may we safely rely upon their judgement and determination: for if they could err, and so we, in following and obeying them, than might we lay the fault upon Christ and his Apostles, who commanded us to obey them. And whereas some reply, that Pastors, Prelates, and Doctors, being men, and according to Scripture, (36) Psal. 115.11. Every man is a liar, that therefore we cannot be infallibly a certained that their teaching is not erroneous: This doth not suffice, for though by nature they be men and subject to lies and deceits, yet by Pastoral authority they are true Governors of the Church, and instruments of the holy Ghost, by whose assistance in their General assemblies, and public decrees, they cannot err in matters of faith. S. Paul speaking of the Gospel which himself preached, and which he had from the holy Ghost, saith, (37) Gal. 2.1.2. I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas etc. And I went up according to Revelation, and conferred with them the Gospel, which I preach among the Gentiles, but apart with them that seemed to be something, lest perhaps in vain I should run, or had run. By this it is clear, that though S. Paul was taught his Gospel of God, and not of men, and had an Extraordinary calling by Christ himself; yet by Revelation he was sent to Jerusalem, to confer the said Gospel with his Elders, the Ordinary Apostles, which afterwards he nameth to (38) Ver. 9 be Peter, james, and john: not that himself was doubtful of the truth of his Gospel, but because other men could not, nor would acknowledge so much, till he were allowed by such as were without all exception known to be Apostles, and to have the spirit of truth, to discern whether the vocation, Spirit, and Gospel of Paul, were of God: he knowing that otherwise without conference with them, he should lose his labour, both for the time past, and to come. These texts of Scripture do plainly direct us to the Church and Pastors thereof, for the clearing of all doubts, and the determining of all controversies and questions, which shall arise in matters Ecclesiastical. SECT. III. That the Ancient Fathers expound the sacred Scriptures agreably with Catholics in proof of the Church being the judge of Controversies. FOr the right understanding of the true sense of the foresaid Scriptures, let us now see in what manner they were expounded by the ancient Fathers and Doctors. Whereas I proved before that Moses was appointed by God the Supreme judge in matters Ecclesiastical; and Protestants answered thereto, that Moses was no Priest, and therefore could not be a competent judge in those causes: S. Austin expounding these words of the Psalm, Moses and Aaron in his Priests, saith, (1) In Psal. 98. Aaron was brother to Moses, whom he ordained Priest etc. But if Moses was not a Priest, what was he? Can he be greater than a Priest? This Psalm expresseth that he was a Priest, Moses and Aaron in his Priests. Therefore they were priests of our Lord. Yea else where he affirmeth, that (2) Quaest, 23. in Leviticum. This Psalm maketh it undoubted, that Moses was a Priest. S. Hierome intending to prove that Samuel was not Priest or Bishop, (though some hold that he was Extraordinary, (3) L. 1. cont. jovin. writeth thus. In the psalms he is not named among Priests, but amongst those who invocate the name of our Lord: Moses and Aaron in his Priests, and Samuel amongst them who invocate the name of our Lord. And S. Gregory (4) Orat. ad Greg. Nyssenum. Nazianzen in proof hereof, having produced the same psalm, calleth Moses the Prince of Princes, and the Priest of Priests: so clearly do the Fathers prove from Scriptures that Moses was a Priest. Now that Moses was not only a Priest, but that his Chair or authority was to be reverenced and obeyed, S. Austin confirmeth from the words of Christ himself; for having numbered in order of succession all the Bishops of Rome, from S. Peter to Anastasius, who then was Pope, he avoucheth, that, (5) Ep. 165. If any traitor in those times had stolen into that Order of Bishops etc. it would have nothing prejudiced the Church and innocent Christians: for whom our Lord providing, said of evil Prelates: whatsoever they say, do ye, but what they do, do you not, for they say, and do not. And again, (6) Cont. literas Petil. l. 2. c. 51. why dost thou call the Apostolic Chair, the Chair of Pestilence? If for the men, why? did our Lord jesus-christ for the Pharisees any wrong to the Chair wherein they sat? Did he not commend that Chair of Moses, and preserving the honour of the Chair, reprove them? for he saith they sit upon the Chair of Moses, that which they say do ye. As also (7) Ibid. c. ●1. And see Aug. ep. 166. neither for the Pharisees etc. did our Lord command the Chair of Moses to be forsaken, in which Chair verily he figured his own. For he warned the people to do that which they say, and not to do that which they do, and that the holiness of the Chair be in no case forsaken, nor the unity of the flock divided, for naughty Pastors. So fully doth S. Austin confirm the authority of Moses and his Chair, as also of the Church of Christ from the words of Christ. But S. Austin is so full herein, as that he referreth our certain knowledge of the Scriptures themselves, to the authority and determination of the Church, saying of himself, (8) Count ep. Fundamenti, c. 5. I would not believe the Gospel, unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me thereto. Neither did he speak this of the time past when he was a Manichee, as some (9) See Whitak. Duplicat. adversus Stapletonum. l. ●. c. 8. p. 387. pretend, for all the words and circumstances of the place contest the contrary, and accordingly are understood of the Protestant (10) C●nturiae tres Cent. 2. q. 3. p. 267. Brachmanus. Yea Swinglius so much disliketh them, as that he saith; (11) Tom 2. fol. 135. Here I entreat your indifferent judgements, that you freely speak, whether this saying of Austin may not be thought more audacious than meet, or to have been uttered imprudently. But here without entreaty, every man may see, how imprudent and impudent Swinglius is, in this his unworthy censure of S. Austin. josephus witnesseth that (12) L. 2. cont. Apion. the Priests were appointed by Moses to be overseers of all things, and judges of Controversies. Concerning S. Paul's conferring his Gospel with S. Peter, james, and john, Tertullian argueth thus: (13) L. 4. cont. Marc. 10. c. 2. If he from whom S. Luke received his light, desired to have his faith and preaching authorised by his Predecessors, how much more reason have I to desire the like for the Gospel of S. Luke, seeing the same was so necessary for the Gospel of his master. S. Austin also saith hereof, (14) Tom. 6. count F a●t. M●nich. l. 28. c 4. The Apostle S. Paul called from heaven, if he had not found the Apostles with whom by conferring his Gospel, he might appear to be of the same Society, the Churcb would not believe him at all. S. Hierome avoucheth that (15) Ep. 89. c. 2 he had not had security of preaching the Gholpell, if it had not been approved by Peter's Sentence, and the rest that were with him. (16) In Mat. 28. S. Chrisostome upon these words, Tell the Church, understandeth by the Church, the Prelates of the Church. Now as the ancient Fathers have thus expounded the former Scriptures in behalf of the Church, being the judge of Controversies in causes Ecclesiastical; so was their own practice answerable in all succeeding ages: for never did there heresy arise in any age, but it was still condemned and extinguished by the supreme Pastor and other Bishops assembled who lived in the same age. Now to censure that for error, which the universal Church teacheth, S. Austin (17) Ep. 118. termeth most insolent madness. This is proved particularly throughout all ages by Cardinal Bellarmine, (18) De verbo Dei. l. 3. c. 6. who reciteth the heresies, and the Popes and Counsels that condemned them; showing withal, that they were ever reputed heretics who did not obey them. Agreably to which, D. Bilson confesseth, that the Fathers (19) Perpet. govern. pag. 374. In all ages, as well before as since the great Council of Niece, have approved and practised this (of Counsels) as the surest means to decide doubts. By this it appeareth, that according to the Exposition made by the ancient Fathers, the Scriptures do teach us, that not the Scriptures alone, but the Church of Christ expounding the same, is to be acknowledged and received for our Guide and judge in matters of Faith. SECT. FOUR That Protestants expound the Scriptures agreably with Catholics in proof of the Church being the judge of Controversies; and that sundry Protestants do teach and defend the same Doctrine. THe Text of Scripture is so clear and convincing for this our Catholic doctrine, as that sundry of our chiefest Protestant Doctors, not only interpret the same accordingly, but withal do teach and defend the same truth. The very Puritans acknowledge, concerning the Ecclesiastical Primacy in time of the old Law, that, (1( English Puritanisme p. 16 And see Hook. Eccl. pol. l. 5. pag. 235. The high Priest of the jews, was Typically and in a figure the supreme head of the whole Catholic Church; which though (say they) it were visible only in the Province and N●tion of jewry, yet those of other Nations and Countries (as appeareth by the history of the Acts, even though they were Aethiopians) were under this high Priest and acknowledged homage unto him. So that he was not a Provincial Metropolitan, but in very deed an ecumenical and universal Bishop of the whole world. And thersore the Pope of Rome, who alone maketh claim unto, and is in possession of the like universal Supremacy, hath more warrant in the word of God to the same, than any Metropolitan or Diocesan, not dependant upon him, hath or can have. So that by the word of God, either there must be no Metropolitans, or Diocesans, or else there must be a Pope. In like sort teacheth M. Cartwright, (2) In Whiteg. Def. pag. 428. The high Priest was the head Priest over all the whole Church, which was during his time to our Saviour Christ. So clear it is that not only Moses, but even during the whole time of the old Law, there was one supreme head Ecclesiastical, unto whom all others were bound to obey. Now concerning the law of Deutronomy, whereby, as I have formerly proved, the authority & Primacy of the Church was established; Protestant's in so evident a matter affirm, that the people were bound (3) Marg. notes of the Engl Bib. of Anno 1585. in Deut. 17.11. to obey their sentence, that the controversy might have an end. D. Rainolds confesseth that, (4) The law of Deutronomy was made to establish a highest Court of judgement, in which all harder causes Ecclesiastical and Civil, should be determined. And the self same is taught by (5) De sacra scrip. pa 466. Bilson perpet. Govern. c. 4. p. 20. And see his true Diff. etc. part. 3 p. 36. 37. D. Whitaker, D. Bilson, and M. Hooker. Now that the sentence grounded upon this Law was definitive and final, it is acknowledged by D. Bilson saying, (6) Perpet. Govern. p. 20. Their sentence by God's Law no man might refuse without punishment of death. Yea saith D. Whitaker, in this Case (7) De sacra scrip. pa. 466. of defyning Ecclesiastical controversies by the Minister, it was not lawful to appeal, for otherwise there would have been no end of Contention. With whom accordeth Doctor Reinolds affirming, (8) Conference, pa. 251. that in this highest Court of judgement, all harder causes Ecclesiastical were to be determined without appeal further. And the like is taught by M. Hooker, (9) Preface before Eccl. Pol. pag 26. 27. 28. who further alleging this Law of Deutronomy, and the former example of the Apostles out of the Acts, telleth the Puritans, that what success God may give to any Conference or Disputation, we cannot tell, but we are sure that nature, Scripture, and Experience, have all taught the world to seek for the ending of Contentions by submitting itself unto some judicial and definitive sentence, whereunto neither part that contendeth may under any Pretence refuse to stand. Yea it is a truth so certain, that the Church of Christ is the judge of interpretation of Scripture, and of all other Controversies, that Martin Luther confesseth, that, (10) Lutherus l. de potestate Papae. we are not certain of any private man, whether he have the Revelation of the Father or not, but the Church it is, of whom it is not lawful to doubt. And thereupon he saith, (11) In Disput. Lipsiaca. I submit myself to the judgement and determination of the holy Church. And in another place; (12) Ep. ad marchionem Brandeburg. quae est tom. 2. Germ. fol. 243. It is a dangerous and horrible thing to hear or believe, any thing which is contrary to the unanimous testimony of faith, and the doctrine of the holy and Catholic Church, which she hath agreably kept from the beginning, for above a thousand and five hundred years. Were it possible to think that any man should say thus much for the authority of the Church, and do the quite contrary if he were not a Luther. Caluin expressly teacheth, that, (13) Inst. l. 4. c. 1 sec. 5. as (God) in times past was not content only with the Law, or only with the Scripture, but added Priests for interpreters, from (14) Mal. 2.7. whose lips the people should se●k the true sense thereof: So at this day he would not have us only to attend to reading, but he also ordained masters, by whose labour we may be helped. And in his Commentary, upon these words, It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and us, he saith, 15) In comment in Act. 15. by this is confuted the obstinacy of those who with full mouths boasting of faith, do no less impiously, then proudly contemn the ministry of the Church. For as it were a Sacrilegious division, if faith but in one Article should depend of man a part; So they openly mock God, who passing by (or neglecting) his ministers by whom he speaketh, pretend to receivo him their master. Now who are these true Ministers, himself telleth us to his own shame, saying, (16) Comment. in Ezechiel. 13. we see at this day how the Papists do take unto themselves the name of the Church, because perpetual succession is pretended by them. And truly we are compelled to confess, that they have the Ordinary Ministry. So Catholikly Caluin. Chemnitius teacheth, that in respect of (17) Exam. part. 1. fol. 63. many hard questions, God would have to remain in his Church (to avoid all occasion of error) the gift of Interpretation, which is not common to all, no more than is the gift of healing and miracles. And this gift God would not have to be contemned or rejected, but reverently used, as an Instrument and help to find out the true and sound sense of Scripture. According to the Confession of Wittenberg, (18) Cap. de Eccles. the Church hath right to judge of all doctrines: (19) Cap. de Concil. She hath an assured promise of Christ's perpetual presence, and is governed by the Holy Ghost. Yea saith D. Whitaker, (20) Controu. 1 q. 3. c 6 pa. 323. She hath the spirit of God, by whom being taught, she heareth the voice of her spouse, and acknowledgeth his doctrine. And in answer to Duraeus, (21) Cont. Duraeum. l. 2. f. 134. Thou dost affirm that to be the sense of the word, which the Catholic Church hath received from the Holy Ghost: I confess so much for the Church is taught the true Sense of Scripture from the Holy Ghost, she is the keeper of faith, the ground and Pillar of truth. And again, (22) Ibid. fol. 142. 143. It seemeth to thee as though I should esteem that for a great offence, that when any hard question ariseth the judgement of the Church should be required; which thing I confess never came into my mind, for the judgement of the Church is greatly to be accounted of, and is ever greatly of force to interpret the Scriptures rightly, and to determine Controversies. D. Reynolds after his long debating this point, doth in the end acknowledge, that not only, (23) Confer. p. 99 Christ our Saviour is to be our judge, but also they, which under him have it committed to them, even the Church of Christ. D. Bancroft preached publicly, (24( Sermon preached the 8. of February, Anno 1588. pag. 42. 43. God hath bound himself unto his Church of purpose, that men by her good direction might in matters of doubt be relieved; to whose godly determination in matters of question, her dutiful children aught to submit themselves, without any curious or wilful contradiction. A saying so Catholic, that a Puritan writer repeating the same (25) A Treatile entitled a Brief discourse of untruths etc. contained in a Sermon preached by D Bancroft. p. 34. saith, If this be not to join hands with the Papists, let the Reader be judge. (26) Def. of the Art art. 20. Prop. 3. p. 103. Rogers defendeth, that the Church hath authority to judge and determine in Controversies of faith. And (27) Ib. Art 20. p. 104. that to interpret the word of God is a peculiar blessing, given by God only to the Church, and company of the faithful, though not to all and every one of them. And whereas General Counsels do truly represent the Church, the authority of them for the final deciding of Controversies, Protestants do confirm from the sacred Scriptures; in so much that Melancthons' advice is, that (28) Concil. Theol. part. 2. p. 1. 2. And see l. 1. epist. 211. They assemble general or national Counsels etc. because it is written, Tell the Church. This was the custom of the Church from the very beginning etc. And Counsels are the proper judgements of the Church: yea it is expedient, that there be judgements in the Church, for other Nations cannot but be scandalised, if they shall hear that we will not undergo the sentence of any Council. D. Whitgift, D. Rainolds, D. Bilson and others do gather from the former example of the Apostles in the Acts, the necessity of (29) Whit. Def. p. 661. And see Carthwright, ib. and p 678. Rain. Confer. p 254. 255. Bills. in his Perpet. Govern. c. 16. p. 373. Counsels for the deciding of Controversies. In regard hereof Caluin saith, (30) Inst. l. 4. c. 9 §. 8. We willingly embrace and reverence as sacred, for as much as concerneth decrees of faith, those ancient Synods, as that of Niece, Constantinople, Ephesus the first, Chalcedon, and the like, which were assembled for the confuting of heresies; for they contain nothing but pure and native Interpretation of Scripture, which holy Fathers applied with spiritual wisdom, to the overcoming of the enemies of Religion, who then appea●●d. And in another place, (31) L. 4. c. 9 §. 13. We truly do willingly grant, that if Disputation happen concerning any opinion, that there is no remedy either better or more certain, then if a Synod of true Bishops do assemble, where the doctrine controverted may be discussed: for much more weight will such Definition have to which the Pastors of Churches having invocated the spirit of Christ, shall generally consent, then if any one alone at home, what he hath conceived, shall deliver to the people, or some few men privately should make it. Sir Edwin Sands confesseth that (32) Relation etc. fol.. 82. The Papists have the Pope as a common Father, adviser, and conductor, to reconcile their jars, to decide their differences, to draw their Religion by consent of Counsels unto unity etc. whereas on the contrary side, Protestants are as severed, or rather scattered troops, each drawing adverse way, without any to pacify their quarrels, no Patriarch one or more, to have a common superintendance or care of their Churches for correspondency and unity: no ordinary way to assemble a General Council of their part, the only hope remaining ever to assuage their contentions. Now that these Counsels cannot err, D. Bilson acknowledgeth with them the presence & assistance (33) Perpet. Govern. pag. 372. 373. 374. of the holy Ghost. (34) Ib. p. 371. And (43) that they are strengthened with the promise of our Saviour. M. Ridley affirmeth (35) Act. Mon. pag. 1288. that, Counsels do indeed represent the whole Church, and being so gathered together in the name of Christ, they have a promise of the gift and guiding of his Spirit into all truth. From which ground of their freedom from error, D. Bilson observing truly, that, (36) Perpet. Govern. pag. 372. To have no judge for the ending of Ecclesiastical contentions, were the utter subversion of all peace, doth thereupon infer (37) Ibid. p. 370. Synods to be an external judicial means to discern error. And further he affirmeth, that the Fathers in (38) Ibid. p. 374. all ages, aswell before as since the great Council of Nice, have approved and practised this, as the surest means to decide doubts. Luther was opinion that, (39) Lib. count. Swing. de veritate Corp. Christi in Euch. If the world shall continued longer, it willbe necessary by reason of the different interpetations of Scriptures, which now are, for the preserving of unity of faith, that we receive again the Decrees of Counsels, and fly unto them. To whom D. Covell addeth that, (40) Modest Examination. p. 110. If Synods want, the Church neither at any time was, nor indeed can safety be without tempests. Yea such is the force of a General Council, that Sir Edwin Sands (as before) thinketh it (41) Relation. f. 8. 2. The only hope remaining ever to assuage (Protestants) dissensions. And M. Hooker avoucheth that, (42) Pref to Eccl. Pol. p. 28. The will of God is to have us do whatsoever the sentence of judicial and final decision shall determine, yea though it seem in our Private opinion to swerve utterly from that which is right. Which sentence saith he, (43) Ibidem. Is ground sufficient for any reasonable man's Conscience to build upon, whatsoever his opinion were as touching the matter before in question. And that, (44) Ibid. p. 26. As for other means without this, they seldom prevail: because that, (45) Ibid. p. 28. without this, it is almost impossible that we should avoid confusion, or ever hope to attain peace. Of all which we may conclude, that seeing Protestants expounding the sacred Scriptures, are enforced from thence to confess, that Counsels do truly represent the Church, that they are guided by the holy Ghost into all truth, that the Fathers of all ages have used them for the ending of Controversies, that without them the Church can never be without tempests, and that, they are the surest means to decide doubts, that therefore for the ending of Ecclesiastical contentions, we are to appeal unto them, as a most certain and Supreme judge. And that our Protestants at home, do not rely only upon Scripture, but upon an external judgement or definitive sentence appointed for the ending of Controversies, appeareth by their answerable practice thereof, in the high Court of Parliament, Anno 1. Eliz. cap. 1. Where having reserved the judgement of Heresy to a General Council, but yet with limitation that the matter be declared Heresy by the Scripture: it next afterwards determineth that to be Heresy absolutely, & without any such or other limitation, whatsoever shallbe hereafter judged to be Heresy by the high Court of Parliament of this Realm. And so accordingly, the Puritans in their treatise entitled, (46) Pag. 3. A Petition directed to her most excellent Majesty etc. do refer their matters in question to the Parliament to judge thereof. But this flying of Protestants in causes Ecclesiastical to Parliaments, consisting for the greatest part, of the Laity, strongly convinceth their desperation to decide their daily and deadly arising dissensions, only by the Scriptures. But now, because the Council of Trent (47) Sess. 4. hath further decreed, that, none presume to interpret the sacred Scriptures contrary to the unanimous consent of Fathers; let us see how fare sundry of the learnedst Protestants, do agreed with us in the same Rule of interpretation by Fathers. D. Morton professeth, that, (48) Protestants Appeal. pag. 354. It hath been the common and constant profession of Protestants to stand unto the judgement of Antiquity, for the continuance of the first four hundred years and more, in all things. Yea (49) Ibid. p. 512. Protestants in the disquisition of truth, do not absolutely bound the name of Antiquity, within the compass of the first Century of years, but are content to allow it a longer extent, & therefore in all doctrines which are truly Catholic, etc. they refuse not to be tried by the testimonies of the Ancient Fathers in the first five hundred years after Christ. This doctor maketh here a fair flourish, as though all Protestants did stand, as in all reason they aught, to the judgement of the Fathers of the Primitive Church: but how false this is, every Section through this whole Treatise, which treateth of the Father's interpreting Scriptures, will clearly demonstrate. (50) Exam. part. 1. p. 74. Chemnitius conceiveth this trial by the Primitive Church, to be so good & just, as that he thinketh, that no man doubteth, but that the Primitive Church received from the Apostles and Apostolic men, not only the text of Scripture, but also the right and native sense thereof. Whereupon saith he, (51) Ibid. pag. 64. we are greatly confirmed in the true & sound sense of Scripture, by testimony of the Ancient Church. And accordingly other Protestants confess, that the (52) Harmony of Confess. p. 400. Primitive Church is the true and best Mistress of Posterity, and going before leadeth us the way. D. Saravia confirmeth the authority of the Primitive Church, from her special assistance by the holy Ghost, saying, (53) De diversis Ministrorum gradibus p. 8. The holy Ghost who governeth the Church is the best Interpreter of Scriptures, from him therefore is the true interpretation to be sought, and seeing he cannot be contrary to himself who ruled the Primitive Church, and governed it by Bishops, it is not agreeable to truth now to cast them of. D. Whitaker renewing the most audacious challenge made by D. jewel, writeth thus to the glorious Martyr Campian, (54) Resp. ad Rat. Camp. p. 90. 9 Attend Campian, The speech of jewel was most true and constant, when provoking you to the Antiquity of the (first) Six hundred years, he offered, that if you could show but any one clear & plain saying, out of any one Father or Council, he would grant you the victory: It is the offer of us all, the same do we all promise, and we will all perform it. And the like is proclaimed by (55) Of the Church l 5. in his Appendix thereto. Part. 1. p. 33. Mort. Protestants Appeal p. 573. 574. D. Field, and D. Morton. So that if we may believe these great Doctors, all Protestants do appeal to the Counsels and Fathers of the Primitive Church for the deciding of Controversies, and for the finding out of the true sense and Interpretation of Scripture. Neither may we in reason think that this gift of interpretation of the sacred Scriptures, ceased with the Pastors of the Primitive Church; but as Pastors and Doctors are to continued, to (56) Eph. 4.11 12.13.14. the consummation of the Saints etc. until we meet all into the unity of faith, which is, according to Protestants, (57) Whitak. ag. Reinol. f. 76. Melanct. loc. come de Ecclesia. for ever, to the end that we be not Children wavering, and carried about with every wind of doctrine. And who therefore not by any humane authority, but by (58) Act. 20.28. the holy Ghost are placed &c. to rule the Church of God: that so likewise their infallible power and authority of interpeting Scripture, and declaring the true sense thereof, is also to continued in the Church. In proof whereof, Caluin gathereth from these words of the Apostle (59) Eph. 4.11.12. And he gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and other some Evangelists, and other some Pastors and Doctors etc. that, (60) Instit. impress. Genevae. 1550. c. de fide f 234. these Pastors and Doctors have an ordinary charge in the Church, & the Church can never want them, but evermore Doctors have authority to interpret the Scriptures, that sincere & wholesome doctrine may be retained among the faithful. D. Fulke confesseth that, (61) Answer to a Counterf. Cath. art. 14. f. 81. the Church never wanteth the gift of understanding. And both he, and D. Whitaker teach that, (62) Against Rhem. Test. f. 445. 6. Whitak. de sacra Scrip. contro. 1. q. 4. f. 406. The people are not sufficient to read the Scriptures without their Pastors to guide them in all matters and doubts. The translator of the Bible into English published Anno 1556. in his Epistle thereto prescribeth, that every one as he is placed in this body which is the Church, aught to inquire of the Ministers concerning the will of the Lord, which is revealed in his word; for they are, saith Hieremie, the mouth of the Lord, yea he promiseth to be with their mouth, and that their lips shall keep knowledge, and that the truth and the law shallbe in their mouth, for it is their Office chief to understand the Scriptures, and teach them. So clearly do Protestants attribute to the Pastors and Doctors of the Church in all ages the gift of interpretation, the true understanding of Scriptures, and the People's duty in learning of them the will of God, and the decision of their doubts. And thus we see by the several texts of the holy Scriptures, either taken in that literal & native sense which the words do afford, or according to their Exposition made by the Ancient Fathers, and Protestant writers, that our judge of Controversies is not only the written word, but the Church of Christ in all ages, General approved Counsels, and the unanimous consent of Ancient Fathers. Such objections from Scriptures as are usually urged against the judicature of the Church, are either taken from such texts, as give great praises to the Scripture, or seem to assure every man of the assistance of the spirit, or which may be thought to detract from the Infallibility of the Church: of all which being to speak in the Chapters following, I reserve the answers for their more proper places. CHAP. II. The true State of the Question concerning the Church's Infallibility, or not erring. Whether the Universal Church of Christ can err in defyning matters of faith, and manners: or rather, that such her Decrees are always most true and infallible, and for such are to be believed, and observed by the faithful. SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. THE Church being thus proved to be the judge of all Controversies in Religion, it must needs follow that she is free from error, and therefore as a truth most certain in the Council of Basil it was decreed, that (1) Respons. Synod. de Authorit. Concil. Gener. the Catholic Church is enriched with so great Privilege by Christ our Saviour, who founded it with his blood, that we firmly believe she cannot err etc. in those things which are necessary to Salvation. The holy Ghost who cannot lie, hath promised that he will stay with her to the end of the world, and that she is to be taught by the Holy Ghost in all truth. And the same is taught by the Council of Sens, saying, (2) Decret. General. The universal Church cannot err, because she is governed with the Spirit of truth, abiding with her for ever, and with whom Christ abideth until the end of the world. And (3) Decret. 1. He that shall not follow (her) authority in faith and manners, as if he had denied God etc. let him be holden worse than an Infidel. And so accordingly it is now (4) Bellar. de Eccl. l. 3. cap. 14. Rhem. Test. in Luc. 18.8. generally taught, that the Catholic Church of Christ cannot err in matters of faith and manners. Points not defined. Some teach (10) See Bellar. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c, 4. that the particular Roman Church cannot err in matters of faith, in such sort that no true believers should be found in the Roman Church. But others limit this, in case the Apostolical Sea should be removed from Rome, which whether it can be translated or not, is also disputable. But none of these are defined by the Church as matters of Faith, or otherwise condemned as doctrines heretical. Protestants untruths. Luther blusheth not to say, that (11) Lib. de Concilijs. those Sycophants who flatter the Pope (meaning Catholics) are so besotted, that they defend most audaciously this Paradox, The Counsels have power to make new articles of faith, and to change the old. But this is an audaciously made by Luther. White affirmeth that, (12) Way to the Chur. Pref. to the Reader. n. 12. For the Church, the Fathers, the Counsels, the Pope, which is all they can pretend, are yielded by themselves to be subject to Error. But john white in lying followeth in this his Father Luther. Rogers avoucheth that, (13) Def. of the Articles Art 21. p. 113. Never yet had there been a Council, either General or Nationall, or whatsoever &c. either begun or ended to the glory of God, but it hath been, I say, not called only, but confirmed also by some Godly Emperor, King, or Queen. This in effect is granted by all reformed Churches. And, (14) Ib. Art 11. p. 116. by Counsels, the Traditions and books of foolish men, have been made of equal authority with the word of God; as by the Council of Trent. This is only loud lying, and therefore needeth no other Answer. Protestant Doctrine. The English Protestant Church hath decreed that, (15) Article 19 the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of faith. (16) Article 21. See Calu. Inst. l. 4. c 9 General Counsels etc. when they be gathered together, for as much as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the spirit and word of God, they may err, and sometime have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation, have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture. Whitaker affirmeth that, (17) Controu. 2. q. 4. c. 3. pa. 489. God hath not promised this to the Church that it should not err etc. The universal Church may err. The Church militant may err. All the Pastors and Bishops of Churches may err. It is (18) Ibid. pa. 490. evident that the true Church even in things necessary may err for a tyme. Yea (19) Ibid. pag. 491. it is evident that the whole Church erred concerning the vocation of the Gentiles. And the Church (20) Ib. q. 5. c. 17. p. 541. also for a time may err in some fundamental points. The like is taught by (21) De notis Ecclesiae. vol. 3. p. 139. Danaeus Controu. 4. l. 3. c. 17. p. 733. Beza and others. So that according to Protestant's the universal Church, the true Church, General Counsels, all Pastors and Bishops may err in matters of faith, in things necessary, and in points fundamental. Protestants agreed with Ancient Heretics. The (22) Alph. de Castro. ver. Concilium. Arians taught all Counsels to be subject to error, and particularly they rejected the Nicene Council. The Donatists (23) Aug. passim Cont. Donatistas'. condemned the whole Church of error. And so did also (24) Serm. 45. Wicliffe. And the same as you have seen do our modern Protestants defend, as true heirs of such unworthy Progenitors. Protestant Errors. We (25) De vera Eccles. refor. pa. 322. do not urge without cause (saith Caluin) the Church of God, for some ages to have been so torn and broken in pieces, that it hath been destitute of true Pastors. Danaeus affirmeth that, (26) Contro. 3. p. 426. the Church often hath no man for Pastor. And (27) Controu. 4. p. 757. the true Church hath often wanted Prelates. And the same is taught by (28) Beza de notis Eccles. vol 3. p. 147. Sadeel, resp. ad art. abiurat. p. 573. Lub l. 5. de Eccl. c. 5. other Protestants. Whitaker not fearing to charge the Apostles themselves with errors, saith (29) Controu. 2. q. 5. c. 17. p. 541. , These were great errors, and yet we see these to have been in the Apostles, even after the holy Ghost had descended upon them. Brentius affirmeth that, (30) In Apo. Confess. c. de Concil. p. 90●. S. Peter chief of the Apostles, and also Barnabas after the holy Ghost received, together with the Church of Jerusalem, erred. But if the Church can be without true Pastors, if the Apostles who have delivered unto us the new Testament of God's sacred word; if S. Peter the head of the Church, be all of them subject to error, upon what firm ground can any Christian build his faith or certainty of Religion? SECT. II. It is proved by Scriptures that the Universal Church of Christ, cannot err in matters of faith and manners. I Must suppose what I have formerly proved, (1) See before c. 1. §. 1. See 3. Reg. 8. 14. Mat. 18.17. Fulk. ag. Rhem. Test. in Act 15. sect. 5 Ridley Act. Mon. p. 1288. and which is acknowledged for true by sundry Protestants which is, that by the Church in this question is understood, not only the whole company of the faithful, comprehending therein both the Clergy and the Laity, but chief that which doth truly represent the whole Church, to wit, the head thereof, and the Bishops lawfully assembled together in General Council: Even as the Parliament representeth the whole Common wealth, and hath the Authority thereof. And so S. Austin (2) L. 1. de Bap. c. 18. &. l 7. c. 53. calleth the sentence of a General Council, the consent of the whole Church. Now that the Church taken in this sense cannot err, may first be proved by all such arguments, as we (3) See before c. 1. used before in proof that the Church of Christ, is the lawful and final judge of Controversies in Religion, for it doth evidently follow thereof, that she is not subject to error. Or else it must be granted, that Christ hath made for us in matters of Salvation, an erroneous judge, which were absurd and blasphemous. The same is confirmed by such places as speak expressly of the Church itself, (4) Mat. 16.18. Upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. (5) Mat. 18.17. If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as a Heathen and Publican. Now if the Sentence or decree of the Church may be false and erroneous, it were most injurious to bind every one under so great punishment to assent thereunto. Those texts literally taken being most plain in our behalf, let us see how Protestants would evade them. To this place Whitaker answereth: (6) De script. l. 1. c. 12. sect. 1. pa 143. The son of God hath commended the voice of the Church to be heard, but not unless she show the Scriptures. Or as Herbrandus saith, (7) In Compend. loc. de Ecclesia. pag. 492. As long as she soundeth heavenly and uncorrupt doctrine, but so long a Child may be believed. Field (8) Of the Church. l. 4 c 4 Hunnius in Colloq Ratisbon. sess. 6. Molineus in Scuto. p. 84. and others do limit this to contentions between particular persons, not to Controversies of Religion: but if the Church be to be heard in matters Civil, much more in Ecclesiastical. Herbrandus also limiteth this to the Church of Christ's time, saying, The (9) In Compend. loc. de Eccles. pag. 494. Commandment is not universal of the Church of all times, but Christ speaketh of his little Church, according to the Condition of those times, which then wanted a pious politic Magistrate, and who should be a member of the Church. But this derogateth from Christ's perpetual Providence over his Church: neither are those times less needful of an Infallible teacher and judge, than the former. Christ also is called (10) Eph. 1.22.23. The head of the Church, and the Church his body; & (11) Eph. 4.4. one body, one spirit; Therefore if the Church should err, the error thereof would be ascribed to Christ, he being the head thereof, and to the holy Ghost, as the Soul or life. And whereas Caluin answereth, that Christ and the holy Ghost do teach the Church all truth absolutely necessary, (which is contrary to his former brethren) but yet do always leave some blemishes or smaller errors; which no more are to be ascribed to Christ, or the holy Ghost, than Ignorance, whereof doubtless there is some in the Church: I answer, as the husband who is head of the wife, is not bound to remove all Ignorance from her, and yet is bound to remove all error, whereof great hurt may arise, although she may be excused by Ignorance: So Christ is bound to preserve the Church from all error, whereof great Evil may ensue, of which kind is all error concerning faith: seeing it is a most pernicious evil, that the Church should worship God with false faith, God's true worship chief consisting in faith, hope, and charity. Again, if the Church only cannot err in matters necessary to salvation, than the most points of faith may be called in question, for many things are to be believed, which are not absolutely necessary to salvation, as that there are Divine Scriptures, without the faith whereof, many have been saved, as well before the Scriptures were written, as since the (12) Irenaeus l. 3. c. 4. time of the new Testament, in remote Nations. Now I presume that Caluin will not allow that doubt to be made of the Scriptures. Again those smaller errors are either such as do not prejudice the integrity of faith and man's salvation; & then without just cause did Luther & all Protestants revolt from the Catholic Church, with so much combustion and effusion of Christian blood: Or if they do prejudice faith & salvation, than they are not small, but weighty errors, & such, as therewith the Church cannot stand. For Whitaker confesseth, that (13) Controu. 2. q. 5. c. 17. If any fundamental point of doctrine be removed, the Church presently falleth; but no man will deny that such things as prejudice faith and salvation, are fundamental, unless he will speak so absurdly and contradictory as Whitaker doth in the same place, affirming that, The Church may err for a time in some foundations, and yet be sound. So that you must imagine a Church to be sound, and yet fail in the foundation. Yea directly contrary to Whitaker, S. Paul calleth the Church, (14) 1. Tim. 3.15. The pillar and ground of truth. This text is so plain in our behalf, that Protestants labour extremely to avoid the same. (15) Calu. in Tim. Whitak. count. Staplet. fol. 289. Vrfinus Comment. Catech. fol. 17. Rein. Confer. pa. 639. Caluin and others answer, that she is only so called, because she is a faithful keeper of the truth, preserving the Scriptures. But this maketh for me, for if she be a faithful keeper of the truth, how then doth she err? for in erring she doth not keep the truth, but departed from it. And if it be only understood that she kept the written word from perishing; then in that sense, Libraries, Sationers' shops, and Arkes, may be called Pillars and grounds of truth: neither is here any mention made of Scriptures, but absolutely the Church is called the Pillar and ground of truth: Besides the Church was a Pillar of Truth, when there were not any Scriptures to be preserved. Whitaker further answereth, that (16) Controu. 2. q. 4. c. 2. p. 485. not simply every truth, but only necessary is understood in this place, Answerably to which saith Vorstius, (17) In Antibel. p. 143. The Apostle treateth not of every truth in any respect belonging to Religion, but only of saving truth, or necessary to Salvation to be known; and this conditionally, to wit, so long as she persevereth the true Church of Christ. Or (as Peter Martyr saith) (18) In loc. Clas. 4. c. 4. §. 21. I confess she is truly the Pillar of Truth, but not always, but when she relieth upon the word of God. Or as others say, (19) Confess Heluet. c. 17. She erreth not as long as she relieth upon Christ the Rock, and the foundation of Prophets and Apostles. Or as Bullinger writeth, (20) Decad. 4. serm. 5. fol. 229. the Church erreth not when she heareth the voice of her spouse & Pastor. But all this is so impertinent, that with the same limitations, I may truly affirm any Cobbler or Tinker, any Heretic or Devil, to be the Pillar of truth: for none of these err so long as they rely upon Christ, and the word of God. And indeed it is all one as to say, She is the Pillar of truth, whilst she is the Pillar of truth. So idle is all this. Again, Protestants must understand here, either all Truth, or but some Truth: if they mean that some truth is ever in the Church only, and she in that respect the Pillar of Truth, that cannot be so, for some truth is ever also among heretics, and yet is not their Congregation the pillar of Truth. And if they mean that all Truth is ever in the Church only, than we have our intent, that the Church cannot err, seeing every error is a denial of some truth. Lastly, Chemnitius (21) Exam. part. 1. p. 10. Rein. Confer. p. 652. c. 9 and Reinolds answer, that the Apostle calling the Church the Pillar of Truth, meant only, that she aught to be the Pillar of Truth, and so though not always indeed, yet always in office and duty, she is the Pillar of Truth, even when she erreth: Even as in like manner the Priest is called (22) Mal. 2.7. The Messenger of the Lord of Hosts, not for that he did always the Lords message truly, but for that he always had authority so to do. I answer this shift is no better than any of the former, the Comparison being most unlike, for though it were granted, that the Priest did not God's message always truly, yet was he always truly and indeed God's Messenger, receiving that name and office, not from the message done, but from the authority & charge, given him to do the same: for the word Messenger, is a word of Office, respecting only an authority & charge of a thing not already done, or presently in doing, but hereafter to be done, namely of the message to be executed, & so even before the message done, the party is actually invested in that office, in respect only of the authority and charge, which actually he enjoyeth? As in like, King's Ambassadors are actually for the time Ambassadors, before they do their Embassy, or although they do it untruly. But these words which the Apostle referreth ●o the Church, are of another nature, being titles not of Office only, but of Privilege, respecting an action still present. And so the Church, is in this place also called the House of God, for that God still dwelleth in her; and in the next words, she is termed The Pillar of Truth. Because (even as (23) Confer. p, 639. Reynolds himself saith) it beareth up the Truth and confirmeth it: for no man can say of the Church, that she is the House of God, when God dwelleth not in her; or that she is actually the Pillar of Truth when she erreth, as on the other part it may be said in the example objected of the Priest, that he is actually God's Messenger, and may so be called even before his message done, or though he err therein: As also in like manner he is truly his Priest, though he should err in the function thereof. (24) Instit. impress. Argentor. c. 4. defied. p. 147. Caluin himself confesseth thus much, speaking of the jews Church when it had revolted, in which notwithstanding he than acknowledgeth peculiar prerogatives of the Church, and yet in respect of the Revolt and defection of those times, he saith thereof, If those be Churches, then is the Church not the Pillar of Truth etc. not the Tabernacle of the living God: whereas if the foresaid answer were good, the Church revolted, which he speaketh of, was even the Pillar of Truth, because as then she aught to have been such. To conclude, as the Church is ever actually, and indeed The house of God: So is she ever actually and indeed the Pillar of Truth: and unto her, as God's house the faithful aught to resort to be taught, as the Prophet foretelleth of Christ's Church, saying, (25) Isa. 2.3. Mich. 4.2. Come let us ascend to the House of the God of jacob, and he shall teach us his ways. The same is proved by such places as argue that lawful Counsels cannot err. If the first Council said confidently, (26) Act. 15.28. It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost & to us, so avouching the decrees thereof to be the decrees of the holy Ghost, than the like may say other Counsels, the holy Ghost no less assisting them for the good of the Church. Christ himself also (27) Mat. 18.20. promiseth his own perpetual and present assistance, saying, Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. But for the better understanding hereof, observe, that our Saviour speaking before of the incorrigible man, said, Tell the Church, and if he will not hear the Church etc. Now lest any should think that the Church might be contemned or disobeyed, he annexeth immediately, Whatsoever ye shall bind upon Earth etc. And lest any should doubt of God's assistance, when the Pastors of the Church assembled do condemn or absolve any man, therefore it followeth, Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them. And concerning everything whatsoever they shall ask it shallbe done to them of my Father etc. Now what request more just & necessary, then to be able infallibly to discern truth from falsehood? Christ speaking of the coming of the holy Ghost, saith, (28) Io. 16.23 & 14.26. when he is come which is the spirit of Truth, we will lead you into all truth: Whitaker would evade this, saying, (29) Controu. 2. quaest. 4. c. 2. p. 486. 488. I answer, Christ and the holy Ghost do teach the Church all truth, simply necessary, but often do leave some error: And the same answer is given by Reinolds (30) Thes. 2. Bucanus loc. 41. and others. But this is contrary to the text which saith, that the holy Ghost will lead into all truth. Neither would this be sufficient direction for Christians, who are not able to discern, what truth is simply necessary, and what not. Daneus therefore restraineth this only to the Apostles, saying (31) Controu. 4. p. 632. This promise of Christ belongeth properly and truly to those twelve whom he then spoke unto: Therefore it is a personal benefit, which cannot be extended to others than those twelve Apostles. And the same answer is made by Molineus. (32) In Scuto. p. 51. But S. Cyprian (33) Cypr. l. 4. Epist. Basil. Constit. Monast. c. 23. and S. Basill apply this to their Successors. And Fulke confesseth, that, (34) Fulk. Rhem. Test. in Luc. 10.16. It is all one to despise the Minister of Christ's Catholic Church, and to despise Christ. And that this is not spoken only to the Apostles, but also to their Successors, is manifest, in that the said Spirit is promised to abide with the Apostles (35) Io. 14.16. for ever, that is, with them and their Successors. And so Christ himself saith, (36) Io. 14.16. I will ask the Father, & he will give you another Conforter, that he may abide with you for ever, the Spirit of truth, which (37) Io. 16.13. shall teach you all truth. And accordingly he prayeth after to his Father, not only for the Church of that age, but also for the Church in all ages following, in these words: (38) Io. 17.20. And not for them only do I pray, but for those also that by their word shall believe in me. So expressly is Christ's Church sanctified for ever in the truth of this word. Now, the holy Ghost doth not teach all truth to every particular man, or Bishops being apart, therefore when they are assembled together. Fulke further replieth, that every true Christian may err, & yet is no true Christian void of Christ's Spirit; for as the Apostle teacheth, (39) Rom. 8.9. He that hath not the Spirit of Christ, is none of his. But this is but a deceipful evasion, for the gift of Christ's spirit is not always one; it is one in the whole Church, & another in every true Christian, we speak here of that particular spirit which is the (40) Io. 16.3. Spirit of truth, which doth teach all truth; the gifts of this Spirit (I say) be not always one, but it distributeth as the Apostle affirmeth (41) Rom 12.6. Different gifts, & therefore though every true Christian hath Christ's Spirit to Satisfaction, yet hath he not thereby, his special gift of the Spirit of Truth, whereof we now speak, no more than he hath the gift of prophesying, and of miracles. Of Bishops & chief Pastors it is said, (42) Luc. 10.10. He that heareth you, heareth me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth me: (43) Heb. 13.17. Obey your Prelates and be subject to them: they are called Pastors, (44) Eph. 4.11. or Shepherds, and (45) Mat. 28.19. teachers. (46) Eph. 4.11. And he gave some Apostles▪ & some Prophets, & othersome Evangelists, and othersome Pastors & Doctors, to the consummation of the Saints, unto the work of the ministry unto the edifying of the body of Christ, until we meet all into the unity of faith etc. And now followeth the reason why Christ provideth these Pastors in his Church; That now we be not Children wavering & carried about with every wind of doctrine, in the wickedness of men, in craftiness to the Circunuention of Error. So providently doth God preserve his Church against every wind of false doctrine, and circumvention of Error. Accordingly as the Prophet foretold, calling the Church of Christ (47) Isa. 35.8 a direct way, so that fools cannot err in it. Now, if we be commanded by God to follow and hear them as our Prelates, Pastors, and Doctors; then either they cannot err, or erring, and we following them therein, we may lay the fault upon God, who commanded us to follow them: And then seeing every Bishop apart, or several from the rest may err, it followeth, that many lawfully assembled in Council together cannot err. The same is proved by all such texts as convince, that the Head, or Chief Bishop of the Church cannot err in defyning matters of faith, (48) Luc. 22.31. Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired you, that he might winnow you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail. Here Christ prayeth not for all the Church, but in particular for Peter, as all the words show, Simon, for thee, thy faith, thy brethren: Also whereas our Saviour began to speak in the Plural number, Satan hath desired that he might winnow you (vos) forthwith he changeth his manner of speaking, and saith, but I have prayed for thee: further he prayeth for him to whom he saith, and thou sometimes converted, which cannot agreed to the whole Church, except we will say the whole Church to have been first perverted, which is many ways untrue. But now that which Christ prayed for, is expressly, that his faith should not fail, and then seeing this prayer for Peter, was for the good of the Church, the Devil still desiring to winnow the faithful, it thereof followeth, that she never wanteth one, whose faith may not fail, by whom she may be confirmed. Again, Peter is called (49) Mat. 16.18. a Rock, and foundation, both which argue firmness; for a Rock is not broken with wind or tempest, and if the foundation fall, all the whole house falleth withal. Again, if the Church could err, than there were no means left to decide controversies, and preserve unity: yea all former decrees of the Church, and many condemned heresies thereby would be called in question. And we should ever remain uncertain of sundry parts of Scripture itself, the authority whereof was holden doubtful, until they were approved as Canonical by the Church and her Counsels. And if the church can err, how can Protestants be assured that their Church doth not err, in condemning the Roman Church of superstition? Or how can the vulgar be sure they are taught the truth, when their Teachers themselves confess, that their Church, and all their Pastors may lie? And lastly, if the Church can err, one of these absurdities must ensue, that either Christ may sometimes be without a Church, an Espouse in Earth, (as he was all the while there were no Protestants, if their Church be the Spouse of Christ) or else, if the Catholic Church only is, and hath been his wife and spouse, and the same have such Errors as Heretics falsely pretend; then his wife so dear (50) Eph. 5.26. and so praised, is notwithstanding a very whore: this so gross absurdity convinceth, both that the Catholic Church always is, and that it teacheth truth always. In brief, (51) Io. 14.16. Mat. 16. mar. 28. Eph. 4. Io 17. Luc. 22. Ps. ●. Eph. 5. if the Church be the Pillar of Truth, if it hath the spirit of God to lead it into all truth till the world's end; If it be builded upon a Rock, and hell gates shall not prevail against it; If Christ hath placed in it Apostles, Dostors, Pastors, and Rulers, to the Consummation, and full perfection of the whole body, that in the mean time we be not carried away with every blast of doctrine: If Christ have prayed for it that the faith of the chief Governor thereof do not fail: If it be his house, his Spouse, his body, his lot, kingdom and Inheritance given him in this worlld: If he loveth it as his own flesh, and it cannot be divorced or separated from him: Lastly if the new Testament, Scriptures, Sacraments, and Sacrifice cannot be changed, being the everlasting dowry of the Church, continued ever in this our Catholic Church; then certainty it cannot err. So plain then are so many texts of Scripture in proof that the Church cannot err. SECT. III. That the Fathers do expound the Scriptures, in proof that the Church of Christ cannot err. SAint Cyprian (or rather as some think Ruffinus) speaking of the Church saith, (1) De symbolo Apost. This is the holy Church not having blot or wrinkle etc. The Churches of Heretics are not without blot or wrinkle of untruth, (2) Eph 5. v. 27. and therefore the Prophet said of them, (3) Ps. 25.5. I have hated the Church of the malignant, but of this Church which keepeth the faith of Christ whole, the holy Ghost saith, (4) Cant. 6.8. my Dove is one. S. Austin directeth us to the Church for the finding out of all truth, saying, (5) L. 1. Cont. Cres●o. c. 33. The truth of Scriptures is holden by v● when we do that, which now hath pleased the universal Church, which the authority of the same Scriptures doth commend, that seeing the holy Scripture cannot deceive, whosoever feareth to be deceived by the obscurity of this question, let him take Counsel thereof from the Church, which without any ambiguity the holy Scripture doth demonstrate. S. Lucius Pope and martyr (6) Ep. 1. ad Episcopos Hisp. & Galliae. affirmeth that, The Roman Church is Apostolical, and the Mother of all Churches, which is never proved to have erred from the path of Apostolical tradition; nor depraved with Heretical Novelties, to have failed according to the promise of our Lord himself saying, I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not. That the Fathers taught from Scripture, that Counsels could not err, appeareth by S. Cyril, who speaking of the Bishops of the Council of Nice, who made the Creed, saith, (7) Cyr. Alex. in Expos. Symb. Ni●eni. Truly with them sat Christ himself, who said, where two or three shallbe gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them: for how can it be doubted, that he did invisibly rule that holy and great Synod? As also in that the said words of Christ are cited and urged in proof that General Counsels cannot err, by the Council of (8) Epi ad Leon. quae est post tertiam Act. eiusdem cont. Sin 6. Act. 17. Tol. 3. propè init. Innoc. disp. 20. can. de quibus. Celestina. ep. ad Conc. Ephes. primum. Chalcedon, by the sixth Synod, by the third Toledan Council, by Innocentius & Celestinus. S. Austin in another place saith, (9) In Ps. count part. Donat. Number the Priests even from the sea of Peter, observe who in that rank of fathers succeedeth one another, that is the Rock which the Proud gates of Hell do not overcome. In proof of the supreme Pastor's freedom from erring, I may allege that, Theodoret writeth to Pope Leo in these words, If (10) Ad Leonem Papans. Paul the preacher of truth, the trumpet of the Holy Ghost ran to great Peter, that from him he might bring the answer (or resolution) to them who contended at Antiochia concerning the legal ordinances; much more we, who are abject and little, do run to your Apostolical Sea, that we may receive from you, remedy for the wounds of the Churches. S. Bernard writeth thus to Pope Innocentius, (11) Ep. 190. ad Innocen. It is meet that all dangers and scandals of the kingdom of God (or Church) be brought to your Apostleship, those especially which concern faith. For I think it convenient, that there chief the damages of Faith should be repaired, where faith cannot feel defect; for to what other Sea was it ever said, I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not. So eleerly do the Fathers and Counsels expound the Scriptures, in proof that the Church, General Counsels, or the Supreme Pastor of the Church cannot err in matters of faith. SECT. IU Protestant writers teach, that the Church of Christ cannot err in matters of faith. THe place before cited out of the Prophet Isay, is so clear for the Churches not erring, as that the Glossers upon the English Protestant translation, confess the truth thereof in the marginal notes upon that place: Caluin commenting upon the same place saith, (1) In Isa. c. 50. God promiseth that his Church shall never be spoilt of this inestimable good, but that it shallbe governed by the holy Ghost, and underpropped with heavenly doctrine etc. And a little after, such is the promise that our Lord will so assist his Church, and will have that protection and care of it, as he will never permit it to be deprived of his doctrine: what more clear could be spoken by a Catholic? But no man delivereth his mind more freely in this point then Luther, The (2) De decem praeceptis. Church (saith he) cannot err, but every man may err in his devotion etc. The Church is governed by the holy Ghost. Again (3) To 7. Ger. Wit. de vet. Eccl fol. 561. they are enforced to confess the Church to be the Rock against which the gates of hell cannot prevail. Matt. 16. or as Paul expoundeth, the Pillar and groundwork of truth etc. Therefore the Church neither will nor can suffer a lie & false doctrine. Yea, (4) Tom. 7. de Antiqua Ecclesia f. 562. Germ. The Church neither aught nor can lie, nor teach errors, not in the lest things▪ seeing God is the mouth of the Church: & as God cannot lie, so also neither the Church. And (5) Resp. ad Dialog Siluestri Priorat. the universal Church cannot err, as the Cardinal Cameracensis proveth most learnedly, upon the first of the Sentences. Yea saith he (6) Epist. ad Marchion. Brandebur. Tom 2. Germ. fol. 324. It is dangerous & fearful to hear or believe any thing which is contrary to the unanimous testimony of faith, and the doctrine of the holy Catholic Church, which from the beginning she hath kept with one consent for 1500. years. And, (7) In Protestatione. I protest (saith Luther) first, that I will neither speak or hold any thing, but first that which is had, and may be had, in and from the sacred Scriptures; then from Ecclesiastical Fathers received by the Roman Church, hitherto observed; and from the Cannons and Decretals of the Pope. But if any thing cannot be proved or disproved from these, that will I only hold for disputation sake. If Luther had performed this his just protestation, he had never been condemned by the Church for an Heretic. Would any man think it credible that Fox and many of his canonised Saints, who so obstinately opposed and disobeyed the Church, should expressly teach, that the Church cannot err; and yet I found that Fox himself saith, (8) Act. mon, p 999 The true Church Christ never suffereth to err in the whole. (13) Ib. pag. 493. Ridley (9) Ibid. 1362. I do acknowledge an unspotted Church of Christ, in which no man can err, without which no man can be saved. And, Ib. pag. 1186. the Catholic Church is the Spouse of Christ, the Pillar and stay of truth, this Church I believe according to the Creed. Philpot. (11) Ibid. pag. 1401. I do not think that the Catholic Church can err in doctrine. Bradford calleth the Church, (12) Ib p. 1211. Christ's wise, the Chair and seat of verity. james Bainhams opinion was, that, There be two Churches, the Church of Christ, and the Church of Antichrist; the Church of Antichrist doth and may err, and the Church of Christ not. Bilney avoucheth that (14) Ib. p. 464. the Catholic Church can by no means err in faith. And the same truth of the Church not erring, is taught by (15) In his Serm. preached 8. Feb. 1588. Hun. Act Colloq. Ratisb. fol. 105. Keker. in System. Theol. Pow. of things indifferent. c. 2 p 7. D. Bancroft, Hunnius, Kekermanus, and powel. Bertrand de Loque saith of this very question, (16) Discourse of the Church. c. 11. p. 198. The Controversy in my judgement is not of the Catholic (or universal) Church, for we all agreed herein, that she cannot err touching faith etc. Wherhfore this question is, touching (only) a particular Church: but that a particular Church may err Catholics do not deny. In this sense also is S. Paul expounded by Zanchius, saying, (17) De Relig Christ. c. 24 §. 20. p. 139. We believe and acknowledge this Catholic Church, which we have above described, so to be governed by the spirit of Christ, that he will never suffer all the same at once to err etc. Whereto we doubt not to pertain that which Paul said, The Church to be the Pillar and foundation of truth, because out of the Church there is no truth, but in it, it is perpetually kept, seeing allalwayes some company great or little may be found, in which the word of truth soundeth. But of every particular Church we have learned the reason to be unlike. In like sort saith Rhegius, (18) Discuss. Theol. p. 213. See Hunnius in Acta Colloq. Ratisb. f. 105. We grant that although particular Churches may err, yet the whole Church cannot err altogether, for the promises of God do withstand it. hus also in this is very liberal saying, (19) Serm de fidei suae elucidatione. I admit all the doctrines of holy Doctors, declaring faithfully the law itself: I reverence also all general and particular Counsels, Decrees, and Decretals, & all laws, Cannons, and Constitutions. And concerning Counsels which do represent the Church, Luther's opinion was that, (20) Cont. Swinglium & Ocolamp. If the world shall longer continued, it willbe again for the different interpretations of Scripture, which now are, to preserve unity of faith, that we receive the Decrees of Counsels, and fly to them. Again, (21) In Declaratione Eucharistiae. I have not said nor counselled, neither is it my Intention, that one or some Bishops by proper authority begin to give to any one both kinds, unless it should be so ordained and commanded in a General Council. So respective in this humour was Luther to a General Council. D. Bilson acknowledgeth with Counsels, the presence and assistance (22) Perpet. Govern. pag. 372. of the holy Ghost. And, that they are strengthened with the promise of our Saviour. Ridley affirmeth that (23) Act. mon. p. 1288. Counsels do indeed represent the whole Church, and being so gathered together in the name of Christ, they have a promise of the gift, and guiding of his spirit into all truth. Thus do many of the chiefest Protestants expound the Scriptures in behalf of the Church not erring, and believe and teach the same doctrine themselves. SECT. V Objections from Scripture, in proof that the Church may err in matters of faith, answered. SOme object that Aaron, and the whole multitude adored the golden calf. But the Answer is easy, for Aaron was not then invested with the authority of high Priest, but that office was imparted long after unto him, as appeareth in Exodus c. 40. Neither did the Levits consent to that Idolatry, or Moses in whom the supreme Priestly dignity still remained; so many ways impertinent is this Objection. Such places are also objected, as seem to argue all Pastors, Priests and Prophets, not only of evil life, but even of ignorance or error. His (1) Isa. 56.10. jerem. 6.13. watchmen all blind have been ignorant etc. The Pastors themselves have been ignorant of understanding. Answer. It is frequent in Scriptures (2) Mat. 2.3. Luc 10 25. for the faults of some, all to be reprehended in general, that so the reprehension may seem more vehement: and this is observed by S. Austin. (3) De Ciu. Dei. l c. 12. Yea jewel himself doth acknowledge that, In (4) Defence. p. 442. the holy Scriptures, this word, All, is often used instead of many. Again, these reprehensions concern Priests as they are several, not as they are assembled in any lawful Council together. Neither is it necessary that these things which are spoken against the Priests of the old Testament, should be applied also to these of the new, especially assembled in Council, the Church having greater promises from God, than the Synagogue had, of which it was never said; Upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, with sundry such like. Some urge those words of Christ, (5) Luc. 18.8. But yet the son of man coming shall he find, trow you, faith in the earth? as though at Christ's coming all faith should be ceased, and so the Church to have erred and perished. Answer. The Ancient heretics Luciferians, and Donatists, as Protestants now do, used this place to excuse their fall from the Church; saying it was decayed in faith, when they forsook it: to whom S. Hierome (6) Hier. count. Lucif. c. 6. Aug. de unit. Ecclesiae. c. 15. & de verb. Dom. Serm. 36. and S. Augustine answered; that Christ saith not, that there should be no faith left in earth, but by this manner of speech insinuateth, that at the latter day in the great persecution of Antichrist, faith should be more rare, especially that perfect faith, containing devotion and affection towards God. Rogers objecteth (7) Def of the Art art. 11. p. 116. that at the death of Christ, the chief Priest, with the rest of the Priests and the people erred in faith, condemning our Saviour as guilty of death, and denying him to be the Messiah, accordingly as was foretold by the Prophet, (8) Ezech. 7.26. The law shall perish from the Priests & Counsel from the Elders: As also that at the same time the apostles lost their faith. Answer. 1. The Chief Priest and the rest were not assembled to expound the Law, or teach the people, but to pronounce sentence in a matter of fact; in which no man doubteth but that they might err. 2. The Privilege of not erring was granted to those Priests, but until the time of Christ's coming; and of it the Prophet said, The law shall perish from the Priests: but the New Testament is to continued unto the world's end, and to it the promise was made for (9) Ps 88.29. Isa. 54. jer. 31.31. ever, and that the (10) Mat. 17.18. gates of hell should not prevail against it. 3. As for the rest or the people, to many of them these injuries to Christ were most displeasing, as to Nicodemus, joseph of Arimathia, and others. And to many others in judea, and sundry other parts of the world they were altogether unknown, who therefore remained at the same time faithful. And so accordingly Protestant's tell us of (11) Harm. of Confess. pag. 326. Zacharie, simeon, joseph, Elizabeth, Marie, Anne, the teachers, and many others, who agreed in pure doctrine and did not hear the Pharisees and Saducees; many of whom being then living. never consented to Christ's condemnation. Yea Caiphas himself did not err in faith, when he (12) Io. 11.49. said, that it was expedient that one man die for the people, and the whole nation perish not. And this he said not of himself, but being the high Priest of that year, he prophesied, that jesus should die for the Nation etc. And as for the Apostles they were not as then Bishops, but only designed. Neither is it probable, that they as then did err in faith; for though it be said that, (13) Mar. 16.14. He reproved their incredulity, yet this doth not signify that they lost their faith which they had, but only that they were slow to believe that which they had not formerly believed, to wit, our Saviour's resurrection, whereof when himself had said, (14) Luc. 18.33.34. They will kill him but the third day he shall rise again; it is immediately said, but they understood none of these things. And S. john giveth the reason hereof: (15) Io. 20. ●. For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he should rise again from the dead. Besides the B. Virgin Mary, & S. Mary Magdalen and others, continued as then with great Charity, which necessarily presupposeth faith. Again, the state of Christ's Church with obligation to enter thereinto, did but begin at Pentecost, when the Apostles preached publicly the faith of Christ. Lastly Protestants acknowledge, that the Church cannot err in matters necessary to salvation, wherefore if they charge the whole Church with this damnable error, they therein impugn themselves no less than us. For so saith Willet, (16) Willet. Synop. p. 51. The Church of God may err in some points not necessary to Salvation, but (she) cannot fall into any damnable error, (17) Against Rhem. Test. p 122. 168. 169 336. 373. 372. Cal. Instit. Argent. pa. 369. & the like is taught by (37) Fulk & Caluin, so many ways doth appear the weakness of this Objection. Fulke (18) Ans. to a Counterf. Cath. p. 89. urged from S. Paul, (19) 1. Cor. 13.9. That our knowledge is imperfect, our prophesying imperfect; therefore the doctrine of the Church may also be imperfect or erroneous. Answer. Fulke may as well conclude that therefore S. Paul's doctrine & writings may be erroneous, for this his saying concerneth himself, as much as the Church; we must therefore understand, that S. Paul in this place (as is affirmed by S. Austin (20) Cited by Bede upon this place. and is otherwise manifest by the (21) 1. Cor. 13.10.12. Circumstance of the text) only insinuateth our knowledge in this life not to be so clear & manifest, as it shallbe in the next life, saying to this end in the place cited; we see now by a glass in a dark sort, but then face to face: now I know in part, (for which Fulke translateth falsely, imperfectly) but then I shall know, as also I am known. Which knowledge of the Church, although in this sense and respect, it be, and ever was but in part, yet it hath been, and still is so certain in itself, that she may be bold to say in her determinations, (22) Act. 15.28. It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and us. Rogers objecteth that (23) Def. of the Art art. 21. p. 115. Fulk. Ans. were to a Counterfeit Cath. p. 86. General Counsels consisting of men, who may err, and who are all liars, God only being true, that therefore they are subject to error. Answer. Though men of themselves be all subject to error, yet God being true, who hath promised in that case to be in the midst of them, the danger of error is taken away. 2. Though every man be of himself a liar, yet may some men notwithstanding by Gods special grace, be true and no liars, as the Evangelists and Apostles of Christ's, against whose doctrine and writing this argument maketh as much, as against the Church, unto which the direction of the holy Ghost is no less promised, then to the Apostles and Evangelists. Whitaker and Reynolds argue thus (24) Contro. 2 q 4. c 3. Rem. in his 2. Concl. That which befalleth to one, may befall to the whole: but every one in particular may err, therefore the whole may err. This is a poor sophism, for in the like sort might I argue, Whitaker cannot remove a millstone, nor Reynolds, nor any other Minister; therefore all the Ministers in the world together, cannot remove a Millstone. So though particular Pastors of the Church may err, yet not the whole Church, especially it being guarded by God's promise, and the assistance of the holy Ghost. But Whitaker and Fulke reply, (25) Contr. 2. q. 4. c. 2. Fulk. in c. 16. Io, sec. 5. (23) That the holy Ghost is promised to every one in particular, Christ prayed to sanctify every one, and confirm him in verity, as he did for the whole, for the laity, aswell as for the Clergy. Answer. It is true that he promised to every particular, and prayed for them, but in a different manner, to every one according to their several state and degree: he prayed for S. Peter, and the rest of the Apostles, and Bishops their successors, and assured them the holy Ghost; as to parents, masters, and shepherds of his fold; to the Laity and every particular man, as to Children, scholars, and sheep to be directed by them: they have the holy Ghost to teach, preach, and govern; these to obey, learn, and believe. Wherefore as the Pastors cannot err in teaching, defyning, and condemning heresies; so neither any particular man in believing, obeying, and submitting himself unto them. Thus have Prot. like unshamefast Children, sought (though with small success) to discover the nakedness of their spiritual mother, Christ's Spouse. CHAP. III. The true State of the Question, concerning the difficulty in understanding the sacred Scriptures. Whether the Sacred Scriptures be so easy and plain to be understood, as that without the explication of the Church, they are sufficient to decide, and end all controversies of faith, or rather in many places are very obscure and difficult, even to the learned. SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. AMONGST other reasons that convince the sole Scripture, not to be our judge of Controversies, is the extreme difficulty in finding out the true Sense thereof. And therefore in the Council of Basil we are taught, that, (1) Concil. Basil. Orat. joan. de Ragusio. Seeing the sacred Scriptures in many places are hard to be understood, in the resolving of such doubts as arise concerning faith, there doth often happen amongst learned men variety and multiplicity of Opinions, and as it were an endless difficulty. Wherhfore in this difficulty of Scriptures, and variety of Opinions, it is necessary to have recourse to some measure or square, by application whereof, truth is discerned from falsehood, which truly can be nothing else in humane things, than the holy Catholic Church, which we suppose cannot err. (2) Bellar. de verbo Dei. l. 3. c. 1. Rh. Test. p. 232. 672. Val to. 3. d. 1 q. 1. de obiecto fidei p. 112. All Catholics agreably teach, that the Scriptures in many places are so obscure, that they need the interpretation of the Church. In which, their meaning is that this obscurity doth not arise through any default of the doctrine therein by God delivered, but by reason of the Majesty and depth of the wisdom and knowledge of God taught thereby, & through the weakness of man's understanding. Protestant Doctrine. In this question Luther's absolute decree is this: (3) L. de seru● Arb. fol. 440. I say of the whole Scripture, I will have no part thereof to be said to be obscure. (4) Praef. Aspert. Artic à Leone 10. damnatorum. The sacred Scripture is of itself most certain, most easy, most plain, (and) the expounder of itself. D. Fulke is of opinion that, (5) Against Rhem. Test in 2. Pet. c. 3. Whatsoever is necessary to be known, is plainly set forth, and easy to be understood of them that will read diligently, mark attentively, pray heartily, and judge humbly. (6) Apol. part. 2. l. 1. c. 19 That which is questioned (saith D. Morton) is, whether all such things as are necessary to salvation, are so very plain, that the most unlearned believers, by the reading thereof, may be instructed to Piety; and Heretics, though most learned, may clearly enough be confuted by them. And herein M. Morton holdeth the affirmative part. The same is taught by (7) Controu. 1. q 4. c. 3. pa. 341. etc. 1. p. 135. Et Controu. 2. q. 5. c. 7. p. 513. Perkins Tom. ●. Col. 128. Whitaker, and sundry other Protestants. So that according to these men, the Mysteries of the B. Trinity, of the Incarnation of Christ, of the holy Sacraments, of our justification etc. are so very plain in the Scriptures, that the most unlearned believers by the reading thereof may be instructed to Piety, and Heretics though most learned, may clearly enough be confuted by them. But how false all this is, daily and doleful experiences do most clearly convince. SECT. II. That the Scriptures are obscure and hard to be understood, it is proved by the Scriptures themselves. THe Prophet David, who was a man most conversant in such Scriptures as were written in his time, was skilful in the Hebrew, and otherwise humble, not proud or unbelieved; yet he prayeth for the true understanding of the Law, or Scriptures, as for a special gift from God, saying, (1) Ps. 118.18. Reveile my eyes, and I shall consider the marvellous things of thy Law. (2) Ib. ver. 26. Teach me thy justifications. (3) Ib ver. 34. Give me understanding, and I will search thy law, and sundry such like. (4) Praefat. Assert. Artic à Leone 10. damnatorum. Protestants ordinarily answering, that the Scripture of itself clear, is made obscure to the proud and incredulous, through their own blindness & wicked affections, will nothing help them in this case; for David was a man humble, and a true believer, and yet he prayeth for the true understanding of the Law, or Scriptures. Neither will it suffice to answer with (5) Prologue. Cont. Petr. à Soto. Brentius, that the Scriptures obscurity is sometimes by reason of the Hebrew and Greek Phrases, yet the Sense is ever most clear: for besides that this seemeth to be spoken contrary to itself, as the words to be obscure, but the Sense most clear; David doubtless well understood the Hebrew Phrases, and therefore that could 'cause no difficulty to him. The Apostles likewise who had heard so many heavenly lessons, given from the mouth of Christ, were yet so troubled with this difficulty of Scriptures, as that our Saviour accompanying the two disciples going to Emaus, (6) Luc. 24.27.32. Beginning from Moses and all the Prophets, he did interpret to them in all the Scriptures the things that were concerning him &c. And they said one to the other, Was not our heart burning in us, whiles he spoke in the way, and opened unto us the Scriptures? Yea immediately before his Ascension, all his Apostles being assembled together, he said to them (7) Luc. 24.44.45. These are the words which I spoke to you when I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the Law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms of me. Than he opened their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures. Signifying thereby that the Apostles themselves, could not rightly understand the Scriptures, had not Christ specially opened or enlightened their understandings, that they might understand the Scriptures. Hear I hope it will not be replied, that the Apostles did not know the Hebrew Phrases, themselves being Hebrews borne: nor that they were proud and misbelievers, being the chosen Apostles of Christ our Saviour. In respect of the Scriptures difficulty, as also of the weakness of us to conceive; the Apostle (8) Heb. 5.13.14. maketh difference not only of persons, but of doctrine, affirming some to be unskilful of the word of justice, and such as are to be fed with milk, or easy doctrine: others who by custom have their senses exercised to the discerning of good and evil; and of these the Apostle saith, strong meat is for the perfect. And so elsewhere he saith, (9) 1. Cor. 2. v. 7. we speak wisdom among the perfect, discoursing oftentimes of doctrine hard to be understood, such as the Apostle termeth (10) Heb 9. 1●. inexplicable. So clear it is that some mysteries and doctrines of faith, are so fare from being easy, that they are so hard that they are inexplicable. S. Philip hearing the Ethyopian Eunuch (11) Act. 8.30.31. reading Esay the Prophet, said, Trowest thou that thou understandest the things which thou readest? who said, And how can I unless some man show me? And he desired Philip that he would come up, and sit with him. And the place of the Scripture which he did read was this; As a sheep to slaughter was he led etc. And the Eunuch etc. said, I beseech thee of whom doth the Prophet speak this? of himself or of some other? And Philip opening his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture, evangelized unto him jesus. Here the Eunuch acknowledging his ignorance in the understanding of the Scriptures, intreateth the Apostle to expound the same, which he accordingly performed, not referring him back again to the Scriprures, or any conference thereof. Now whereas some reply that this Eunuch, as also the Apostle at those times were carnal, & therefore no marvel if the Scripture were to them as then obscure: I answer, that all heretics and Infidels, to whom the Protestants prescribe the sacred Scriptures for their only certain Rule, direction, and judge in matters of faith, are doubtless no less carnal; yea all ignorant persons are in like manner carnal, at lest before their Conversion, and yet in the mean time the foresaid Scriptures must be their only stay; yea after their Conversion, they are still, in regard of their capacity & understanding, weak, and carnal, though otherwise spiritual in respect of their faith, humility, and obedience. But none more clearly testifieth the obscurity of Scriptures than Saint Peter, who expressly writeth thus: (12) 2 Pet. 3.15.16. As also our most dear Brother Paul according to the wisdom given him hath written to you. As also in all Epistles speaking in them of these things, in the which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned, and unstable deprave, as also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own perdition. This text is to convincing, that D. Fulke in his translation thereof, most directly contrary to the Greek and Latin, doth thus foully corrupt and falsify the same, (13) Against the Rhem. Test. 2. Pet. 3.16. Yea almost in every Epistle speaking of such things, among which are many things to be understood, which they that are hard, unlearned, and unstable, pervert, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction. This making of Hardness to agreed to the Readers, not to the Scriptures, is so gross a corruption, as that other Protestant (14) See Bible of Anno 159●. Translatours rejecting the same, do agreed with our vulgar translation herein. And though S. Peter doth not say, that S. Paul's Epistles are hard, but only that in them are certain things hard to be understood, which some pretend for an answer; yet all is one to say, such an Author is hard to be understood, or he writeth of matters hard to be understood: And the rather here, in that S. Peter allegeth this hardness, as a reason why S. Paul's Epistles are depraved by the unlearned and unstable. And it may justly be further observed, that seeing S. Peter affirmeth, those things of S. Paul, as also the other Scriptures to be depraved by unlearned, and unstable men, thereby he showeth the other Scriptures for the most part to be likewise obscure: for by reason of the difficulty, the other Scriptures also are depraved, even as those things of Paul's Epistles. All this notwithstanding, Whitaker blusheth not to affirm, that Peter doth not say, (15) Controu. 1. q. 4. c. 3. pa. 341. Paul's Epistles to be obscure, not nor that in Paul's Epistles there are certain things obscure: but this the very sense of Seeing will easily confute, by but reading the words themselves. SECT. III. That the Ancient Fathers expound the sacred Scriptures agreably with Catholics, in proof of the Scriptures obscurity, and difficulty. SAint Ambrose writing upon the former words of King David, Give me understanding, and I will search thy Law, saith, (1) Serm 10. in Psal. 11●. The Prophet who had received the Holy Ghost, after he was anointed King, anointed a Prophet, writing the hundred and eighteen Psalm, desireth understanding to be given to him, that he may understand the Commandments of God; and knoweth, that unless he receive grace from our Lord, he is not able to understand his Commandments. S. Hierome alleging the self same words inferreth thus, (2) Ep. 13 ad Paulin. c. 4. If so great a Prophet confesseth the darkness of his Ignorance, with what a night of Ignorance dost thou think us little ones and almost sucking babes to be compassed? But this veil was not only put upon the face of Moses, but also upon the Evangelists and the Apostles. S. chrysostom expounding those words of Christ our Saviour, Search (3) Io. 5.39. the Scriptures, saith, (4) Hom. 40. in joan. Christ referred the jews not to the simple and naked reading of the Scriptures, but to a very diligent search; he said not, Read the Scriptures, but Search, for divine things do need greatest diligence. In a shadow to those Ancestors not without cause he spoke, he commanded therefore to dig more deep, that so we may find those things that lie bid in the bottom. For we do not dig for any thing that lies in the Superficies, and is apparent, but for that which as a treasure is hid in the bottom; for he that seeketh for such things as these, unless he use greatest diligence and labour, he shall never find the things sought for. S. Hierome instanceth this obscurity in diverse books of the Bible, (5) Ep. 103. ad Paulinum. ca 7. Who is able (saith he) to understand or expound Esay, Hieremy, Ezechiel, and Daniel. Ezechiel hath a beginning and ending enwrapped in so great obscurities, as that these parcels with the beginning of Genesis, were not read by the Hebrews before they were thirty years old etc. james, Peter, john, judas set forth seven Epistles, as mystical as succinct, & both short and long: short in words, but long in Sentences: so that he is a rare man, who is not half blind in the reading thereof. The Apocalypse of john hath as many mysteries as words. Again, (6) Praef. in Oseam. If in the expositions of all the Prophets we need the coming of the holy Ghost, that by his revelation they may be opened, by whose instinct they were written; And we read in Esay, that the book was sealed, which the Scribes and Pharisees, who boasted they knew the letters of the Law, could not read, because it was sealed, and none could be found but the lion of the Tribe of juda, whom God the Father signed, who was able to open the mysteries thereof: How much more in the explanation of the Prophet Osee is our Lord to be prayed unto, & with Peter we are to say, (7) Mat. 13. Expound us this Parable; especially since he testifieth the obscurity of this volume in the end thereof who writ it, (8) Ose 14.10. Who is wise and shall understand these things? Understanding, and shall know those things? which we are to understand, not as impossible, but as difficult. In like sort concerning the Epistle to the Romans, he avoucheth, that (9) Ep 150. ad Hedibiam q. 10. All the Epistle to the Romans needeth interpretation, and is wrapped in so great obscurities, as that to understand the same, we need the help of the holy Ghost, who by the Apostle did speak these things. S. Hierome also alleging the former example of the Eunuch mentioned in the Acts, writeth thus, (10) Ep. 103. ad Paulinum. That in the mean time I may speak of myself, I am neither more holy, nor more studious than this Eunuch, who came from AEthtopia, that is, from the uttermost Coasts of the world, to the Temple, left the Court, and became so great a lover of the Law and divine knowledge, that even in his Chariot he read the Scriptures: And yet having the Bible, thinking of the words of our Lord, with tongue and lips speaking thereof, yet he knew not him, whom unknown he worshipped in the Book: Philip came and showed to him jesus, who shut up lay hid in the letter. O wonderful virtue of the Teacher! The same hour the Eunuch believeth, is baptised, and is made faithful and holy, and of a scholar becometh a Master etc. these things I have briefly touched etc. that thou shouldest understand, that in the sacred Scriptures, thou art not able to enter the narrow path without a guide and a teacher. And then showing that neither Grammarians, Rhetoricians, Philosophers, Geometricians, Logicians, Musicians, Astronomers, Astrologers, Physicians, not nor Husband men, Carpenters, Smiths etc. can come to be that which they desire, without a teacher etc. he addeth, as also our times do plainly confirm, that it is only the Art of Scriptures, which all do challenge to themselves etc. This the chatling old wife, this the foolish old man, this the prattling Sophister, this all presume, tear, and teach, before they learn. S. Austin endeavouring to expound these words of S. Paul, (11) Cor. 3 12. If any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones etc. promiseth that (12) De fide & operibus. c. 15. it is meet diligently to attend how that sentence of Paul the Apostle is to be taken, being plainly difficult to be understood. Yea he further teacheth, that this Sentence is to be accounted amongst those whereof Peter affirmeth, that in the writings (of Paul) there are certain things hard to be understood. And coming to set down his own opinion he saith (13) Ib. c. 16. Heer peradventure it willbe expected of me, what I think of this Sentence of Paul the Apostle, and how I think it is to be understood? Here I confess I had rather hear others more understanding, and more learned etc. So clearly doth S. Austin acknowledge the difficulty of Scriptures, exemplifying the same particularly in S. Paul's writings, which he taketh to be of those which S. Peter meant, when he affirmed, that there were certain things hard to be understood in the Epistles of Paul And thus we see that the ancient Fathers do clearly expound the Scriptures agreably with Catholics, in proof of their obscurity and difficulty. SECT. iv That Protestants expound the Sacred Scriptures agreably with Catholics in proof of the Scriptures obscurity: And that sundry Protestants do teach and defend the same Doctrine. CHemnitius producing the former example of the Eunuch, teacheth that in respect (1) Exam. part. 1 f. 63. of many hard questions, God would have to remain in his Church, to avoid all occasion of error, the gift of interpretatation, which is not common to all, no more than is the gift of healing▪ and miracles. And this gift God would not have contemned or rejected, but reverently used as an Instrument and help, to find out the true and sound sense of Scriptures, even as the Eunuch said, How can I understand without a Guide? The Translatours of the English Bible of Anno 1578. in their marginal notes, of the place before alleged from S. Peter (2. Pet. 3.16.) do affirm that; As no man condemneth the brightness of the sun, because his eye is not able to sustain the cleernes thereof; So the hardness which we cannot sometime compass, or perfectly understand in the Scriptures, aught not to take from us the use of the Scriptures. Aretius affirmeth that (2) Loc. come. loc. 53 f. 164. Many things remain obscure even to the Godly etc. Who did ever sufficiently express the matter of the Trinity, of the Incarnation of the son of God etc. I pass over in silence the different understandings of the places of the Gospel, wherein thou mayest find among the Interpreters, almost so many opinions, as there be Interpreters. And immediately after, he allegeth the foresaid saying of S. Peter, to prove the obscurity of S. Paul's Epistles; affirming generally of the Scriptures, that they contain (3) Ibid. fol. 106. obscurity, as well in the matter as in the phrase. And that the veil (or darkness) of the letter, is taken away by fit Interpreters. And that those being wanting, the Church is brought into darkness. The like whereof is also taught by (4) De sacra. Script. p. 46. D. Whitaker. D. Fulke not only produceth several of the forealleged texts agreably to this purpose, but also declareth his own opinion to be the same, saying: (5) Against Rhem. Test. in 2. Pet. 3. p. 821. As concerning the Argument and matter of the Scriptures, we confess that for the most and chiefest matters, it is not only hard, but impossible to be understood of the natural man etc. Again, Hierome to Paulinus noteth certain difficult places in the Prophets; and who will mislike him that he desired to learn of Didimus? etc. And David prayed for understanding. The Eunuch required an Interpreter. And we also affirm that prayer is necessary for all men, and an Interpreter requisite for the unlearned, that will come to the right understanding of the Scripture etc. Yea we deny not but the Scriptures are in some places very hard. And (6) Ib. p. 810. we plainly protest, that whosoever despiseth the ordinary Ministry of the word, which God hath established in his Church, for the direction of us in truth and love, shall never attain to true knowledge, not, though he were otherwise never so well learned, much less if he be ignorant and unlearned. Cartwright the Puritan avoucheth, that (7) In Whiteg. Def. p. 784. Unless the Lord work miraculously and extraordinarily, the bore reading of the Scriptures without t●e preaching cannot deliver so much as one poor sheep from destruction. But would any man think it credible, that so learned a man as D. Martin Luther, should so ingenuously confess his own ignorance in the understanding of any one Book of Scripture? observe but his words: I would (8) Pref in Psalmos. not have that to be presumed by any of me, which none yet of the most holy and most learned could perform, to wit, to understand and teach the true sense of the Psalter, in all things. It is enough to have understood some, and those in part, the holy Ghost hath reserved many things to himself, that he might always have us his scholars. And I know it to be a point of most impudent rashness of him that dare profess, that he understandeth anyone book of Scripture, in all parts. (9) De Conci●ij●. p. 12. Above twenty years ago I was compelled to contemn the Commentaries of the Fathers, when I was to read the Scriptures in the schools, and with great sweat (or pains) to seek the true and proper meaning. The Translator of the English Bible of Anno 1600. avoucheth, that it is, (10) Preface. A very hard thing to understand the holy Scriptures, and that diverse errors, sects, and heresies grow daily, for lack of the true knowledge thereof. The Centurists doubt not to affirm that, (11) Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. col. 52. The very Apostles thought that the Scriptures cannot be understood, without the holy Ghost, and an Interpreter. Caluin speaking of the Scripture saith, (12) Instit. l 3. c. 2 §. 4. See l 4. c. 17. §. 10. Daily reading, we fall into many obscure places, which do argue us of Ignorance. But with this bridle God keepeth us in humility, assigning to every one a measure of faith, that even the best Doctor may be ready to learn. So clearly do the learnedst Protestants expound the sacred Scriptures, in proof of the Scriptures obscurity, and consequently agreably with Catholics defend the same Doctrine. SECT. V That the Scriptures are obscure, it is further proved by sundry reasons. IN Scriptures we may consider, either the things there spoken of, or the manner wherewith they are spoken, both which are obscure: for the matter therein contained, it is concerning the blessed Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ, the Sacraments, the hidden working of God in the soul of man, sundry Prophecies not to be accomplished so many hundred years after their first prediction, and other the like. All which being high Mysteries, must of necessity be difficult. Now the manner wherewith they are set down is no less obscure, for first many things seem to be contrary, (1) Exod. 20.5. as, I am the Lord thy God etc. visiting the iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children. And the (2) Ezech. 18.20. Soul that shall sin, the same shall die: the son shall not bear the Iniquity of the Father. S. Matthew and S. Luke report, (3) Mat. 10.10. Luc. 9.3. that our Saviour sending his Apostles to preach, forbade them to take a Rod. But S. Mark recordeth that, (4) Mark. 6.8. he commanded them that they should take nothing for the way, but a Rod only. S. Paul affirmeth that, (5) Heb. 9.4. In the Ark of the Testament, there was a golden pot having Manna, and the Rod of Aaron that had blossomed, and the Tables of the Testament. And yet in the third Book of kings, and elsewhere it is said, (6) C. 8 9.2. Paralip. 5.10. In the Ark there was nothing but two Tables of stone. Again in the Acts of the Apostles it is said, (7) C. 9 7. The men that went in company with (Paul) stood amazed, hearing the voice, but seeing no man. And yet in the same Acts, S. Paul saith, (8) C. 22.10. They that went with me, saw the light indeed, but the voice they heard not of him that spoke with me. So likewise in S. Luke, Christ said to Peter, (9) C. 22.34. The Cock shall not crow to day till thou deny thrice that thou knowest me. And yet S. Mark relateth that, (10) C. 14.68.72. After the first denial the Cock crew, and that after another denial, immediately the Cock crew again, all which, with many (11) See Mar. 15.25. & Io. 19.44. Also Luc. 3.35.36. & Gen. 11 12. See also Hook. l. 5. sec. 19 p. 30. other such like, are seeming Contrarieties. Which must needs argue greatest difficulty for their right understanding, seeing, that we are bound to believe, that they are not truly contrary, but all true in themselves. In like sort there are many speeches so obscure & doubtful, as that the learnedst Interpreters do vary and are troubled therewith. When the jews said, (*) Io. 8.25. Who art thou? jesus said to them: The beginning who also speak to you: here Beginning in Latin (Principium) is of the neuter gender, and the Relative which (qui) of the Masculine: And which is more, in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Beginning, is the Accusative case, both which according to our ordinary conceit, would seem a most manifest incongruity. There are also in the sacred Scriptures obscure figures and parables almost innumerable. And if we be to examine and determine Controversies by the Originals, we shall find the Ambiguity, of the Hebrew especially, most intricate, one and the same word or Phrase being oftentimes indifferent to receive diverse significations, whereof great incertainty groweth among the learned, and to the ignorant in tongues, a difficulty invincible. And if (as Luther affirmeth) (12) Praef. assert. Artic. à Leone damnatorum. the Scriptures be more clear than the Commentaries of all the Fathers, and as other Prot. make so easy, that the vulgar people may understand them by their own reading, to what end then the Fathers not only heretofore, but even Protestants now continually do writ so many Commentaries in explanation thereof? But chief seeing Prot. decide all Controversies only by Scripture, how arise so daily and deadly dissensions among themselves, concerning things taught and set down in the Scriptures, if the Scriptures be so easy as is pretended? To these demands two things are usually answered; first, that though the Scripture be most clear, yet it is dark to the proud and unbelieved, by reason of their blindness, and wicked affection. Secondly, that though in some places it be obscure, yet the selfsame thing is clearly set down in other places. But by the first it followeth, that Luther himself (who giveth these reasons) is a Proud man and Infidel, it being evident, and for such even by Prot. acknowledged, that he taught and maintained sundry gross errors, and in all for his defence pretending Scriptures. And by the like reason the same crimes of Pride and Infidelity incur all Lutherans, by the judgement of Caluinists, and all Caluinists by the judgement of Lutherans; & so the like may be affirmed of our Protestants and Puritans, every one of these condemneth the other of false doctrine in sundry points, and yet all building their opinions upon the Scriptures. And against the second I urge first, that sundry obscure places, have not coherence with any other place; as the greatest part of the Apocalypse, and the beginning and end of the Prophet Ezechiel. Secondly though it were true, yet a true conference of places amongst themselves, is a thing of itself very difficult; for that place which a Caluinist would think to be clear, and therefore other places concerning the same matter to be expounded thereby; a Lutheran will avouch to be obscure, and other places to be more plain. Besides this, it is also very difficult always truly to discern whether the places so conferred do speak of one and the same thing, seeing the same word, and almost the same phrase is used in Scriptures to signify diverse things, as the Scripture (13) Baptism is sometimes used for the Sacrament of Baptism, othertimes for Penance or Martyrdom. See Mar. 1.4.1. Cor. 15.29. & Mar. 10.38. Luc. 12.50. itself testifieth, and S. Austin (14) L. 2. de Doctr. Christi. c. 24 25. 26. observeth. But because this conference of Scripture is accounted by Protestants so available for the making of Scriptures easy to be understood, and to be our judge of Controversies; I will therefore treat thereof more largely in this Section following. SECT. VI That the Conference of one place of Scripture with another, doth neither make the Scriptures to be our judge of all Controversies, nor always easy to be understood. SEeing Protestants generally teach, that (1) Reinolds in his Conference. pa. 68 It is not the show, but the sense of the words that must decide Controversies: And seeing as D. Whitaker avoucheth, (2) De sacra Script. p. 521. The Scripture hath no lively voice which we may hear we must use certain means whereby we may search out what is the true sense & meaning of the Scriptures. And these means, as they (3) Rein in his Conf. p. 83 84. 9●. 99 Whitak. de sacra Scrip. p. 511. 522 523. prescribe, are our reading of the Scriptures, our Conference of places, our weighing of the Circumstances of the text, our skill in the tongues, our diligence, our Prayer and such like. Of which means D. Reynolds doubted not to aver, that, (4) Conference. pa 99 They are still effectual, if men pray as they should, and search as they aught in the spirit of faith and modesty. And D. Fulke avoucheth that, (5) Against Purgat. p. 434. Who so observeth this search shall come to the knowledge of the truth most certainly. I will now make manifest the vanity and insufficiency of this pretended course of trial, and that for sundry respects: for first if in the observation of the foresaid means, they require such a conference and diligence as is but imaginary, and cannot be performed; then they prescribe vainly and to no purpose: And if they intent but such a diligent observation as is possible and within our power; then I allege them the example (to omit others) of D. Martin Luther, whom Prot. acknowledge to be a man (6) Apolog. Anglic part. 4. c. 4. q. 2. sent of God to lighten the world, (7) Act. Mon. p. 416. the Elias, conductor, and Chariot of Israel, whose calling they think (8) Aret. loc. come. loc. 63 p. 198. Daneus Isagog. part. 4 l. 2. p. 36. Lascius de Rus. Religione p. 93. extraordinary, and his coming and speaking specially (9) Anti-Christus p. 12. 13. 80. Co●radus Schlusselb. in Catol. haeret, p. 314. 316. foreshowed in the Scriptures, & since foretold by (10) Act. Mon. p. 399. & see Fox in Apoe. p. 324. sundry Prophecies (of later times) which went upon the time of Martin Luther: yea they account him a (11) Sleidan. l 16. & after the Eng. Transl. fol. 222. Prophet, and that sundry of his Prophecies proved true: And himself undertook that he was so assured and certain of the truth of his doctrine, as he feared not to say; (12) Aduersus falsò non●matum Ecclesiasticum statum. I would have you know, that hereafter I will not honour you so much, that I will either suffer you, or the Angels from heaven to judge of my doctrine etc. Neither will I have my doctrine judged by any, and therefore not of the very Angels: for seeing I am certain thereof, I will thereby be judge both of you and the Angels. This is the pure spirit of a new Ghospeller. Now this so rare a man, being skilful (13) Act. Mon p. 403. in the Gerecke and Hebrew did not only confer the Scriptures most diligently, even with a desire (as himself confesseth) to altar his judgement against the Real Presence, (14) Ep. ad Argentinens. And in the Treatise against the Defence of the Censure p. 99 100 Because (saith he) I did well perceive that I might very greatly hurt thereby the Papacy (so direct and holy was his intention:) and, If Carolostadius or any man else could have persuaded (him) that there had been nothing in the Sacrament but Bread and Wine, he should have bound him to him by a great good turn. But also he had personal (15) Cooper's Chronicle fol. 290. Sleydan l. 6. f. 83. Communication therein with Oecolampadius and Swinglius, (13) Act. Mon p. 403. he heard and observed their conference and Collections from the Scriptures: and yet all this notwithstanding still persisted in his former opinion (16) See Bridges in his defence of the Governor. pag. 559. Perkins in his 4. Treatises Tract. How to apply God's word. num. 10. of the Real Presence: (14) Ep. ad Argentinens. And in the Treatise against the Defence of the Censure p. 99 100 the which he thought to be so clear a truth, that mentioning his former desire to change his judgement therein; he yet concludeth and saith, (17) Ep. ad Argentinens. and the Treatise against the Defence of the Censure. p. 100 But I do see myself captive, no way being left to escape; for the Text of the Gospel is too plain etc. And not content with this, he proceedeth so fare, as to (18) Sleydan. l. 16. f. 215. after the Eng. Translat. set forth a book against Swinglius, wherein he reciteth and (19) Defence. verborum Coerae in the 7. Tom of Luther's works. rejecteth the arguments and conferences of Scripture framed by Swinglius and Oecolampadius against the Real Presence. Now upon these premises I do infer, that for so much as Luther observed the foresaid prescribed means of conferring the Scriptures, and that with all diligence he could, and yet the same notwithstanding, still believed and taught (in other Protestants judgements) a doctrine most erroneous, as also the like did his followers (20) Exam. part. 2. 92 94. 100 Chemnitius, jacobus (21) In Confut. Disput. Grinaei de ●oena Domini. Andreas, and (22) Act. disp. de 8 ●oena pub●icè in Academia Heidelberg. Anno 1584. and see Haffenreff loc. Theol. l. 3. loc. 7. de Sacram. p. 371. others of the learnedst Protestants; that therefore the Conference of Scriptures, though observed & used with all diligence we can, is yet nevertheless uncertain, and unavoidable to resolve us privately, much more to end and determine our public Controversies. Secondly, I argue from the nature of the thing itself, that seeing our foresaid skill in tongues, our conference of places, and other prescribed means, are but actions on our behalf humane, and such wherein, as in our other humane endeavours, every man without extraordinary Privilege from God, is (all his prayer, learning, and possible diligence not withstanding) subject to error, oversight, and man's infirmity, as both reason and Experience teach, that therefore the same can be no certain and infallible Course of judgement, whereby to determine Controversies. A truth so certain, that Lubbertus speaking of their own learnedst ministers and Interpreters saith, (23) De principijs Christian. dogm. p. 563. As we have showed that all these may err in expounding, so also do we affirm, that they may err in judging. Yea saith Zanchius, (24) De sacra Script. pag. 411. 412. with judgement let us hear them, knowing that they are men, and that they could, and may err. And as it were despairing to prescribe any Rule for means, he jumpeth from them to the point of Elections, so restraining the understanding of Scriptures, as an immediate and special gift peculiar only to the Elect, (25) Ib. pag. 375. chief by reason of this obscurity (saith he) we can give no rule for the understanding of Scriptures, because it is in no man's power, that he be Elect. And, It is only granted to the Elect, that they may understand the sacred Scriptures truly, clearly, properly, and sound. D. Whitaker, who prescribed the foresaid means, is enforced yet to give sentence against them, and therein against himself, saying, (26) De Ecclesia Controu. 2. q. 4. p. 221. Such as the means are, such of necessity must the Interpretation be: but the means of Interpreting are obscure, uncertain, doubtful, and ambiguous, therefore it cannot be, but that the Interpretation also must be uncertain; If uncertain, then may it also be false etc. So that all diligence in Conferring is insufficient to assure us infallibly of the true sense of the Scriptures. Thirdly such as are Ignorant in the tongues, wherein Scripture was first written, as also such as cannot read at all, cannot have the foresaid. Conference for their Infallible judge, seeing whether the Translatours have erred, either upon Ignorance or malice, or both, they are not able to discern; and consequently whether that which they read or hear, be altogether true Scripture, or rather replenished with manifold errors, and so no certain judge, they remain most uncertain. According to which D. Whitaker is enforced to confess, that, (27) De sacra Script. pag. 523. The Ignorance of the Hebrew and Greek tongues, hath brought forth many Errors: truly those that know them not, do err often and avoidable. And therefore for the instruction of these he is enforced to fly to their immediate knowledge from the holy Ghost, saying, (28) Ib. pag. 127. The Ignorant in tongues, although they cannot judge of all places whether they be truly translated, yet they acknowledge and allow the Doctrine being instructed by the holy Ghost. And as for those others, (29) Ib. p. 588. Who know not letters, and cannot read, he granteth that, They retain wholesome saith by the preaching of their Pastors. So that to all such as do not understand the Hebrew, and the Greek, or that cannot read at all, the foresaid Conference of Scripture can be no immediate and certain course of judgement. Fourthly, this foresaid Conference is only a Colourable refuge of words, whereby to make, not the Scripture our judge, but ourselves judge of the Scripture: for to Confer and apply the Scriptures, and thereby to determine the right sense, is in us an act of our understanding, even as it is the like to confer our temporal laws: wherefore if the Scripture only without our conference thereof, do not determine to us the true meaning of itself, then is it no more our judge in Matters of faith, than the law is in temporal causes: And then further, if every one of us be to undertake this Conference for himself, without relying upon the Conference▪ and judgement of any Interpreter, further than we ourselves can discern the same to be true by our Conference, (as many Protestants (30) Zanchius de sacra Script. p. 412. Whitak. de sacra Script. pag. 529 Carthwr. in Whiteg. def. pag. 511. & Whitguift 16. Bilson in his difference etc. part 2. p. 353. Willet Synops. Controu. 1. q 2 p. 127. teach) it thereof necessarily followeth, that every man must judge and determine the sense of the Scriptures for himself, which is all one as to make himself his own judge. A clear Example hereof Protestants have in their Lutheran and Puritan Brethrens, of whom they must needs confess, that concerning such Errors as they lay to their charge, they make themselves judges of the Scripture, and not the Scripture their judge. Neither doth it suffice to answer, that they defend not an erroneous, but a sincere Conference: for the rightful conference maketh the Scripture no more judge, then doth the right conference of the laws, make the Law to be our judge. And as for the different kinds of erroneous and rightful Conference, they do equally and alike admit our judgement and act of conferring, only the nature of this conference is severally altered, according to the sincerity or error thereof. So that as Protestants must needs confess of their foresaid Brethrens, that they in their said Erroneous conference make not the Scripture their judge, but themselves judges, though erroneous judges of the Scriptures meaning: In like manner in their own Conference, they make themselves (though in their opinion rightly judges, yet) judges and determiners thereof. Whereupon it followeth, that Protestants whether learned or unlearned, conferring the Scriptures either sincerely or erroneously, do nevertheless in the said Conferences make themselves judges of the Scripture, and not the Scripture their judge. This sequel is so clear, that sundry Prot. do in plain terms acknowledge the same. Lubbertus teacheth, (31) De Princip. Christian. dogm. l. 23. p. 563. All the faithful are judges of interpretations and doctrines. And (32) Ibid. p. 573. that God hath given to every faithful person, not only the Spirit of understanding but also of discerning false doctrine from true. D. Bilson expressly defendeth, that, (33) True difference etc. part. 2. p. 353. The people must be discerners & judges of that which is taught. Brentius avoucheth most fully that, (34) In Prologom. Cont. Sotum & in Confess Wittenberg c. de sacra Script. It appertaineth to every private man to judge of doctrine concerning Religion, and to discern true doctrine from false. So that now any Cobbler may be a competent judge of the true sense of the Scriptures, or of any doctrine preached by his Pastor. But what seriously doth ensue of all this, but that every heretic and ignorant fellow, may at his pleasure, exempt himself from all authority of Scriptures, Counsels, Fathers, Pastors, and the Church itself, making his own fancy and conceit, the supremest judge of all. Whereby amongst other absurdities, it ever happeneth, that as yet could never be established any agreement in Religion amongst the Protestant faction: but rather to the contrary, the schism and division so long continued between Lutherans, Swinglians, Caluinists, Anabaptists, Brownists, Puritans etc. hereby to be most strongly uphoulden and maintained, & that which is most dangerous, without all hope and probability of any future unity and consent. Wherhfore I may conclude, that our Modern Protestants creating for their judge their our Conference of Scripture, do thereby only endeavour, as S. Austin affirmeth of all heretics, that (35) L 32. conc. Faust c. 19 Every man's mind may be his own guide, and, that he be not subject to the authority of Scriptures, but that, he may make subject the authority of Scriptures to himself. Add only hereunto what M. Hooker thinketh of this citing & conferring of Scriptures: (36) Eccl pol. l. 2. Sect. 7. fol. 113. Such are readiest (saith he) to city for one thing five hundred sentences of holy Scripture what warrant have they, that any one of them doth mean the thing, for which it is alleged? Is not their surest ground most commonly, either some probable conjecture of their own, or the judgement of others, taking those Scriptures as they do? which notwithstanding to mean otherwise then they take them, it is not still altogether impossible. So that now and then they ground themselves on humane authority, even when they most pretend divine. So fallible still is this Conference of Scriptures. But I will conclude with D. Fields judgement in this Case. (37) L. 4. c. 19 We confess (saith he) that neither conference of places, nor consideration of things precedent and subsequent, nor looking into the original; are of any force, unless we find the thing which we conceive to be understood and meant, in the places interpreted, to be consonant to the Rule of faith. And this Rule of faith (he teacheth) must be tried, (38) Ibid. either by the general practice of the Church, the renowned of all ages, or the Pastors of an apostolical Church. So unable is this pretended Conference to make a competent judge. I must needs yet observe how adventurous Protestants are for the maintaining the honour of their supreme judge the Conference of Scriptures. For whereas it is said, that S. Paul (39) Act. 9.20.21.22. Entering into the Synagogue, he preached jesus etc. and all that heard, were astonied etc. But Saul waxed mighty much more, and confounded the jews that dwelled at Damascus, affirming that this is Christ, Protestants translate those last words thus; (40) See the English Church Bible of Anno 1●77. Saul confounded them, proving (by conferring one Scripture with another) that this is very Christ. Here for affirming, they say, proving, but this not satisfying enough, they add to the text itself these words, By conferring one Scripture with another, which words are not to be found in any Original. And though some other Bible's have left out this impious addition in the Text, yet in their marginal (41) The Engl. great Bible of 1578. notes they are pleased to say, Proving by the conference of the Scriptures: whereas in the place cited, there is not the lest mention or intimation of any Scriptures; but directly otherwise it is said, that he preached in the Synagogues, and confounded the jews. If a Catholic should add but one word to the text, presently all the woes threatened in Scripture against such Adders, would be thundered against him. SECT. VII. An Examination of such Objections as are usually urged by Protestants against the Scriptures obscurity. MOst (1) Brentius in Prolegom. Cont. Petr. Sotum. Protestant writer's object those words in Deutronomy, (2) C. 30.11.12.14. This Commandment that I command thee this day, is not above thee, nor so far of, situated in heaven, that thou mayest say, which of us is able to ascend unto heaven to bring it to us, that we may hear and fulfil it in the work? etc. But the word is very near thee in thy mouth and in thy heart to do it. Answer. 1. Whereas the question is, whether the Scriptures be easy to be understood, here is not any mention made of the Scriptures at all. 2. The words objected do only prove, and that directly against Protestants, who teach that the Commandments are impossible to be kept, that indeed the Commandments may be easily performed. And in this sense, is this place understood by Ancient (3) Tertul. l. 4. cont. Martion. Orig. Ambros. & Chrysost. in. c. 10. ad R●m. Aug. l. de Perfectione justitiae Resp. penult. Fathers. 3. It may be understood with (4) Abulensis in hunc locum. others of the facility in knowing, not the Scriptures, which as then peradventure were none, but the Precepts only of the Decalogue, which being natural, are easily understood, & especially by those jews, who had heard Moses explicate the same: so that according to either sense, the Objection is impertinent. Secondly are objected these words of K. David; (5) Ps. 118.105. Thy word is a lamp to my feet; and a light to my paths. And those of S. Peter, (6) 2. Pet. 1.19. And we have the prophetical word more sure: which you do well attending unto, as to a candle shining in a darkeplace etc. Answer. 1. Neither of these places do speak of all the Scriptures, and therefore they cannot conclude that all the Scriptures are easy. Secondly though they were spoken of all the Scriptures, yet the Scriptures may be well called a lamp, light, or Candle, not that they be all easy to be understood, but because being once rightly understood, they do illustrate the understanding, and direct it in the working of good. And so K. David in the place objected, intended to show, that greater was the knowledge which was gotten by the word of God reveiled, then by his Creatures, and therefore he compareth the word of God to a lamp, which more availeth us for expelling the darkness of the night, than the light of all the stars. Thirdly though the Scriptures be as a lantern of themselves, yet we must consider withal how they do, as the Propet saith, enlighten our eyes: for what if a Candle be put under a Bushel? truly it will as then shine and burn, but it will not give light to the standers by, except the bushel be removed. Even so, if the light of holy Scripture, shallbe placed upon the authority of God's Church, it will illuminate the whole house, but if it be comprehended within the limits of every private man's wit & industry, as under a bushel, though it remain in itself evercleere, yet to the Readers it shallbe as extinguished. Thirdly, it is urged, that in the Prophet Isay it is said, that, (7) Isa. 29.11.12. The book was sealed: And in the Apocalypse we read that, (8) C. 5.8.9. The Lamb opened the book, therefore though in the old Testament the book of Scripture was sealed or obscute, yet now in the new, it is opened and easy. In sign whereof at the Death of Christ, (9) Mat. 27.51. The veil of the Temple was rend in two pieces. Answer. 1. The words of Isay are, The vision of all shallbe unto you as the words of a book sealed; which when they shall give to him that knoweth letters, they shall say, Read this: & he shall answer, I cannot, for it is sealed. And the book shallbe given to one that knoweth no letters etc. And he shall Answer, I know not letters. Hear the words do only import, that the vision should be obscure, as a book sealed, which neither the learned nor unlearned could understand: whereas the Scriptures of the old Testament were understood and expounded, by Moses, Esdras, the Priests, & the Prophets. Secondly the difference of the old Testament from the new, consisteth in this, that the mysteries of Christ were not then understood, and therefore the Book was said to be sealed, as well to the learned as unlearned, whereas now in the new, Christ having fulfilled the figures and Prophecies, though many do not understand the Sentences of Scripture, yet young Children and ignorant women, do know the mysteries of our Redemption. And that in regard of the Sentences of Scripture, the book is still sealed, even now during the time of the new Testament, learned Origen testifieth in these words: Hom. 12. in Exod. Let us see if not only when Moses is read, but also when Paul is read, the veil be put over our hearts. And it is clear, that if we hear negligently, if we do not add study to learning & understanding; not only the Scriptures of the Law and Prophets, but of the Apostles and gospels are covered to us with a great veil etc. From whence it appeareth that we are not only to study for the learning of the Sacred Scriptures, but we are also to pray to our Lord, and day and night to entreat, that the Lamb will come from the Tribe of juda, and taking the sealed book, will vouchsafe to open it: for he it is who opening the Scriptures, inflameth the hearts of the Disciples, in so much that they say, (11) 24 32. Was not our heart burning within us, when he opened unto us the Scriptures? With Origen agreeth S. Hierome, teaching that, (12) Ep. 13. ad Paulin. de iustitit. Monach. c. ● This veil is not only put upon the face of Moses (or the old Testament) but also upon the Evangelists and Apostles. Our Saviour spoke to the people in Parables, and witnessing that it was mystical which he spoke, he said, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. Unless all things which are written be opened by him, who hath the key of David, (13) Apoc. 3.7. who openeth, and no man shutteth, who shutteth, and no man openeth, they cannot be opened by any other: So clear it is, that even now during the time of the new Testament, the Scriptures remain obscure, without some special light & help from Christ, and our own pains, study and prayer. Fourthly, some object these words of S. Paul: (14) 2. Cor. 4.3.4. And if our Gospel he also hid, in them that perish it is hid, in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of the Infidels, that the illumination of the Gospel of the Glory of Christ▪ etc. might not shine to them: Wherefore to the faithful the Scriptures are easy. Answ. 1. The Apostle speaketh not here of the understanding of the Scriptures, neither is there any mention made of Scriptures, but of the knowledge and faith in Christ, which the Apostles preached. And so in the very next words following S. Paul saith; For we preach not ourselves, but jesus-christ our Lord: Now no man doubted, but that the Apostles preaching was easy to be understood. Secondly in the former Chapter S. Paul declareth this to be the difference between the Old and New Testament, that in the Old (as I noted before) men did not see the mysteries of Christ (which thing the (15) 2. Cor. 3.12. veil of Moses, wherewith he covered his face when he spoke to the people, signified) whereas in the new, they are generally known. Now because some might say, If this be so, wherefore after the preaching of the Gospel, so many as yet do not believe, nor see (especially the jews) any thing but shadows & figures? Therefore the Apostle annexeth, the Gospel to be hid to some, because the Devil hath blinded their understandings by wicked affections; to whom our Saviour also saith, (16) Io● 5.44. How can you believe that receive glory one▪ of another? Thirdly this place is so insufficient to prove the Scriptures to be easy, as that the Protestant Aretius answereth the same and saith, (17) Loc. Com. l. 53. f. 164. But many things remain obscure, even to the Godly etc. who did ever sufficiently express the matter of the Trinity etc. I pass over in silence the different understandings of the places of the Gospel, wherein thou mayest find among the Interpreters, almost so many opinions as there be Interpreters. So confessed is it, that not only during the time of the old Testament, but even now in the new, the Scriptures are difficult to be rightly understood. CHAP. FOUR The true State of the Question concerning the Interpretation of Scriptures, and deciding Controversies by the Private Spirit of every particular Man. Whether the Sacred Scriptures are made easy to be underderstood, or our judge of all Controversies, by the Spirit reveyling to every Private man the true sense and determination thereof. SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. CONCERNING the (1) Orat. joan▪ de Ragusio. certainty and security of things to be believed, it is taught in the Council of Basil, that the same is not had by private Inspiration, because seeing such Inspiration is hidden and supernatural, it aught to be manifested by some supernatural signs or miracles, even at the Doctrine of the Apostles was confirmed by signs and miracles. If therefore the doctrine of our adversary's be had by inspiration, let them show the signs and miracles, and we will believe them; which they will never do, seeing the chief Verity, to whom it belongeth to work miracles, cannot give testimony to a lie or falsehood. An the like is taught by the Council of Sens in these words; (2) Decret. 4. He that followeth the judgement of his own Spirit, the steps of the Orthodoxal Fathers contemned, as a Schismatic, and raiser & favourer of all heresies let him be restrained from so great temerity. In the second Nicene Council it is taught, that, (3) Act. 6. Seeing some do endeavour to pervert true doctrines, according to that which seemeth to them, let no man marvel if they use the words of Scripture: for all Arch-heretics do take occasion of their error from Scr pture divinely inspired. What are truly taught by the holy Ghost, malignant men do adulterate with their own senses: And this the chief trumpet of the Apostles foretold, to wit Peter, saying, (4) 2. Pet. 3. which the unlearned and unstable pervert according to their desires. For it is proper to heretics according to their desires, to pervert the knowledge of divine and true doctrine. And the like insufficiency of the Private spirit, for the deciding of Controversies, is (5) Bellar. de verbo Dei, l. l. 3. c. 3 Rhem. Test. p. 684. generally taught by all Catholics. Protestant Doctrine. I have (6) See before. c. 1. sec. 1. formerly shown that Protestants do finally make the Private spirit the judge of their Controversies. So Whitaker (7) De sacra script. p 127. Lub. de Princip. p. 573. Brent. Prolegom. count. Petrum Sot. Whit. the way to the Church. p. ●. 17. Roger's Def. of the Art art. 10. p. 103. confessed, that the ignorant in tongues, acknowledge and allow the Doctrine being instructed by the holy Ghost. And the like is to be seen in Lubbertus, Brentius, D. White, and M. Rogers. Protestants agreed with ancient Heretics. S. Epiphanius (8) Haer. 21. reporteth, that Simon Magus pretended for his errors the assistance of the holy Ghost. Only this holy Ghost he believed to be his Concubine Helena: even as Protestants make their Private fancies to be their private spirit. S. Austin observed that. (9) Tract. 45. in joan. There are innumerable who do not only boast that they are videntes or Prophets, but will seem to be illuminated, or enlightened by Christ, but are heretics. And (10) Ep. 222. all Heretics who receive the authority of the Scriptures, persuade themselves they follow them, whereas they rather follow their own errors. And (11) ●ug de Gen. ad lit. l. 1. c. 18. they contend not for the true meaning of Scriptures, but for their own opinions, making that which is the opinion of their own, to be the meaning of Scripture. Yea, Heresies have no other origen than this; that every Heretic prefers his own opinion, drawn from his own proper Spirit, before the Common opinion of the Church. Protestant Errors. The Protestant (12) See before Chap. 1. sec. 1. Libertines and Swenckfeldians do reject the written word, and rely wholly upon the internal spirit: and they differ from other Protestants in this, that though both of them rely upon the spirit, as the ground of their faith, yet these cast away Scripture, and rely only upon the spirit: whereas ordinary Protestants admit Scripture, but for the sense thereof, they subject it to their spirit, which is no less pernicious than the other. SECT. II. It is proved by Scriptures, that the said Scriptures are not made easy to be understood, or our judge of all Controversies, by the Spirit revealing to every Private man, the true sense and determination thereof. Against this illusion & Private fancy challenged by all Sectmaisters, Lutherans, Caluinists, Swinglians, Anabaptists, Puritans etc. we are specially forewarned by the sacred Scriptures saying; (1) Ezech. 23.2.3.4.6.9. Thou shalt say to them that prophecy of their own heart etc. woe to the foolish Prophets, which follow their own Spirit, and see nothing etc. they see vain things, & they divine lies, saying: Our Lord saith, whereas our Lord sent them not. (2) Hier. 23.16. Hear not the words of the Prophets that prophecy unto you, and deceive you, they speak the vision of their own hart, not from the mouth of the Lord. (3) Hier. 14.14. The Prophet's prophecy falsely in my name: I sent them not, and I commanded them not, neither have I spoken unto them: lying vision and deceitful divination, guilefulness and seduction of their own hart, they prophesy unto you. These places show that it is usual with false Prophets, and lying teachers, under pretence of being sent, or instructed by the Spirit, to broach their own Private conceypts, and foolish fancies: for this Spirit is said to be the Spirit of their own hart, the effects whereof are blindness, they see nothing; vanity, they see vain things; lies, they divine lies; fraud, as foxes in the deserts; and finally punishment, woe to the foolish Prophets, which follow their own Spirit etc. My hand shallbe upon the Prophets etc. Let any man judge whether these things do not agreed with our modern Spiritualists. I will show a lively Pattern of this proud Spiritualist in Eliu the Busit, who opposed holy job, saying, (4) job. 32.6. etc. I am younger in time and you more ancient, therefore etc. I was afraid to show you my sentence. For I hoped that longer age would speak, and that a multitude of years would teach wisdom. But as I see there is a Spirit in men, and the inspiration of the Omnipotent giveth wisdom. They of many years are not the wise men, neither do the ancients understand judgement. Therefore will I speak; hear ye me. I also will show you my wisdom etc. I am full of words, and the Spirit of my belly straingeth me etc. and sundry such like. Here you see a Puritan in his lively colours, who though he be but of a late birth, yet by the presumed inspiration of the omnipotent, he preferreth himself before the ancient, for wisdom and judgement. And his reason is, because his very belly is full of the Spirit: as this proud young fellow against just job, doth not every new Ghospeller speak the like against the Church, Counsels, and Fathers, and all upon conceit, that his brains and belly are full of the Spirit? S. Paul affirmeth that (5) 1. Cor. 12.8.10. To one by the spirit is given the word of wisdom; and to another the word of knowledge, and to another Prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another kinds of tongues; to another interpretation of languages. And all these things worketh one and the same spirit, deviding to every one according as he william. Hear it is expressly taught, that God giveth not to every man the gift of knowledge, but to one that, and to others other gutftes; wherefore every private man may not presume that he is endowed therewith. For which we must note that these gifts do not necessarily depend or follow justifying Grace, and so common to all the faithful and just; but are special gifts freely given, some upon one, some upon another, as the text saith. S. Peter having compared (6) 2. Pet. 1.19.20.21. the Prophetical word, to a Candle shining in a dark place, immediately addeth, understanding this first, that no Prophecy of Scripture is made by private Interpretation, for not by man's will was Prophecy brought at any time, but the holy men of God spoke, inspired with the holy Ghost. Here by Prophecy of Scripture, is understood the sense thereof, for so they are called (7) Eph. 4.11. Some Prophets, because they did foretell and expound hidden mysteries of Scripture; which Prophecy or sense is not to be made by Private Interpretation, because not by man's will, or self seeming humane conceit, was prophecy, or the true sense of Scripture brought, or made at any time; but the holy men of God, Prophets and Apostles, inspired by the holy Ghost, spoke and expounded the same, not leaving it to the private interpretation of every particular man. S. john's advice is, that, we (8) 1. john. 4.1.6. believe not every Spirit, but prove the Spirits if they be of God: because many false Prophets are gone out into the world etc. He that knoweth God, heareth us, he that is not of God, heareth us not. In this we know the Spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. Here we are admonished not to believe every one that pretendeth the spirit, because many false teachers will challenge the same, but we are to try them by this, that those which be of God, will hear and obey their Apostles and lawful Pastors, succeeding the Apostles, and submit themselves to the Church of God, the other that be not of God, will not hear either Apostle, Pastor, or Church, but be their own judges, pretending their Instruction by the spirit. S. Paul, as it were, for the first conceiving of true faith, requireth these helps amongst others, of hearing and preaching: (9) Rom. 10.14. How shall they believe him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a Preacher? But for the nourishing and preserving thereof, he further exacteth obedience to Pastors, saying, (10) Heb. 13.17. Obey your Prelates and be subject to them, for they watch, as being to tender account for your Souls: Yea he affirmeth that these Pastors were placed by Christ in the Church, to this end, that, (11) Eph. 4.14. Now we be not Children▪ wavering and carried about with every wind of doctrine, in the wickedness of men, in craftiness, to the circumvention of error. Now, if the holy Ghost by himself alone, did infallibly teach every Private man, inspiring into him the true sense of all the Scriptures, and consequently true knowledge, for the infallible deciding of all doubts and controversies, to what end is preaching commanded? to what end are Pastors appointed in the Church of God, for the teaching and guiding of the people? But to these, who every one so much glory of their own spirit, I may justly say, as Christ our Saviour said unto the jews, (12) Io. 8.44. You are of your Father the Devil, and the desires of your Father you will do etc. He stood not in the verity, because verity is not in him; when he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, because he is a liar, and the Father thereof. For so every private Protestant expounding the Scriptures according to his own spirit, speaketh of his own, and consequently speaketh lies. But some Protestants will reply, that all these Scriptures alleged, are only meant against those, who in truth having not the Spirit of God, do yet ever pretend and challenge the same; whereas all faithful Protestants have the true Spirit of understanding and judging: But besides that this is barely begged, not proved, I demand whether Luther, Swinglius, Caluin, or any other Prorestant now in rerum natura, be a faithful Protestant, and consequently had, or hath the true spirit of God, ever infallibly directing him, in the true understanding of the Scriptures? If they affirm, than not only all Catholics, who have equal Privilege of challenging the spirit, but even others of the learnedst Protestants, will contest, that he erred, and that grievously in sundry points of faith, and so was not infallibly directed by the spirit of God. If they say, that the faithful Protestant is not at all times, and in all points of Religion so infallibly assisted by the holy Ghost, but that sometimes he may err; than it followeth evidently, that no Protestant pretending to be assisted in that sort, can be to himself or others an infallible judge, in all the weightiest matters of faith and Religion. SECT. III. It is proved by the Ancient Fathers, that the Private spirit is not a judge sufficient, for the deciding of Controversies, and interpreting the Scriptures. Whereas we have seen from S. Peter, that no Prophecy (or sense) of Scripture, is made by Private Interpretation: th●● is according to S Chrisostome, (1) Hom. de Spir. Sancto adorando. not by the Spirit which many brag of, as the spirit of God, but falsely pretending it, do speak that which is their own. According to S. Clement, (2) L 10. Recog. It is to be observed, when the Law of God is read, it aught not to be read or understood, according to the meaning of every man's own wit; for there are many things in holy Scripture▪ which may be wrested to that meaning, which every one of his own accord presumes to himself: but this cannot be. S. Hierome affirmeth that, (3) Ad Poulin Ep. 2. whatsoever heretics speak they think it to be the Law (or word of God.) Neither do they vouchsafe to know what the Apostles, what the Prophet's thought, but do apply incongruous testimonies to their own meaning: as though it were not a great and most wicked manner of teaching, to deprave the Sentences, and to draw the contrary Scriptures to their own will. (4) In Ose c. 8.60. They have turned the sacred words and senses into Idols, which they have framed out of their own heart. (5) Ep. ad joan. Hieros. The testimonies which the Manichees, Martion, Ebion, Gnostickes do take from the purest fountain of Scriptures they do not so interpret as they are written, but they will have (simplicitatem sermonis Ecclesiastici) the plains of God's word to signify that which themselves do think. S. Austin reprehendeth the Pelagians, (6) De Nat. & Gra. c. 42. For that they read all the Scriptures according to their private Senses. And he saith to the Manichees, (7) Cont. Manich. You see that your work is, that the authority of Scriptures may be taken away, and that every man's mind may be author to himself, what he approveth or disaproveth in any Scripture, that is, not that he should be subject to the authority of the Scriptures, but that he should subject the Scriptures to himself. S. Bedes direction is, that, (8) In 2. Pet. 1, The Prophets did writ, deliver, and preach, not their own words, but the words of God: So also the reader of them must not use his own proper Interpretation, lest he decline from the sense of the truth. Therefore we affirm that no man presume to expound Scriptures according to his own pleasure. SECT. iv It is proved by Protestants that the Private Spirit is not our judge of Controversies. THis point is so clear and undeniable, that sundry Protestants do agreed with us herein against their other Brethrens. D. Luther teacheth that, (1) De Potest. Papae. we are not certain of any Private man, whether he hath the Revelation of the Father or no: but the Church it is whereof it is not lawful to doubt. (2) Ep. ad Antwerp. Tom. 2. Ger. jenae. And, there is no Ass in this time so sottish and blockish, but will have the dreams of his own head, and his opinion accepted for the instinct of the holy Ghost, and himself esteemed as a Prophet: whereof ensueth, as himself complaineth a little before, That there are as many Sects & Religions among us, as there be men. Caluin calleth them, (3) In Ep. ad. Eph. 4.12. Fanatical, who fain to themselves secret Revelations of the Spirit; and proud, who think the private reading of Scripture to suffice them, that they need not the Common Ministry of the Church. (4) In. 1● joan. Many false Doctors belie (or counterfeit) the title of the Spirit: many madmen start up, who rashly boast themselves to be endowed with the Spirit of God etc. They speak in their own Private name, go out in their own name, utter out of their own sense. Yea writing against Swenckfeldius, who contemning the Scriptures, challenged only the Spirit for his judge, he disputeth thus, (5) Instit. l. 1. c. 9 § 1. If that were a good Spirit, it were the same with the Spirit of the Apostles, and first believing Christians; but the Spirit of the Apostles, and first believing Christians did not make itself judge contemning the Scriptures: Ergo, it is not a good Spirit. Now in like manner may I argue against Caluin, and our English Protestant's; If the Spirit which they make their judge, were a good Spirit, it were the same with the Spirit of the Apostles, and the first Christians: But the Spirit of the Apostles, and the first Christians, did not make itself judge, but made recourse in their Controversies to S. Peter, and other Apostles, and Priests, sitting in Council at Jerusalem, and obeyed their sentence. Ergo the Spirit of Protestants is not a good Spirit. Chemnitius having taught, that, (6) Exam. part. 1 f. 63. The gift of Interpretation is not common to all, no more than the gift of healing or miracles, he addeth that, No man aught to stay upon his own wit, in the Interpretation of Scriptures, not (so much as) in plain places, for it is written, that no Scripture is of Private Interpretation. 2. Pet. 1. D. Whitaker avoucheth that, (7) Aduersus Staplet. l. 2. c. 6. p 370. 357. See Hook. Eccl. Pol. Sec. 8. p. 147. The testimony of the Spirit being Private and Secret, is not fit to teach and refel others; And that as often therefore as controversy of the Scriptures doth arise, we must fly to common arguments taken from the Scriptures themselves and the perpetual testimony of the Church. So enforced is he to appeal from his Private Spirit, to the Scriptures themselves, and the Church. M. Hooker and others do avouch that, (8) Eccl. pol. l. 1. sec. 14. l 2. sec. 8. l. 3. Sec. 3 l. 2. Sec. 7. Whitak. adverse. Stapl. l. 2. c. 4. Zanchius in confess. c. 1. Bren. in Proleg. The outward letter sealed with the inward witness of the Spirit, it not a sufficient warrant for every particular man to judge and approve the Scripture to be Canonical, the Gospel itself to be the Gospel of Christ: but the authority of God's Church (as he acknowledgeth) is necessarily required thereunto. So that Protestants themselves teach from the Scriptures, that the Private Spirit is not a sufficient judge for the deciding of Controversies, or interpreting the Scriptures. SECT. V It is proved by reason, that the Private Spirit, is not our judge of Controversies. IN Common Sense and reason we see, that in the temporal Common wealth, men generally have that natural light wherewith the Law was made, & which is sufficient to expound the same, and yet the interpretation of the Law is not permitted to the Private judgement of every man, though they pretend never so much skill, or special assistance of any revealing spirit: And if it were, the Commonwealth could not long continued in peace. How much less is the interpretation of Scripture, to be permitted to every man, seeing all have not that supernatural light, wherewith the Scripture is to be understood, as I proved before from S. Paul 1. Cor. 12.10. Again, the holy Ghost which directeth another, is neither seen nor heard of me; whereas a judge must both be seen & heard of the parties in strife, they being corporal men. A judge likewise must have authority to compel both parties to stand to his sentence, otherwise his judgement or Sentence would be idle and unprofitable. But this authority Private men (though never so much replenished with the Spirit) altogether want. Again, if this Private Spirit of every man, might be approved for a competent judge, never could heretic be convinced or converted, or any Controversy ever ended, every heretic preferring his own Spirit, before the Spirits of others, yea every one demanding with Sedecias the false Prophet, against the true Prophet Micheas, (1) 2. Paral. c. 18. 23. Which way passed the spirit of our Lord from me, that it should speak to thee. Lastly, seeing Prot. ground their salvation upon only Faith, which say they, doth only justify; & Faith upon only Scripture, which according to them, contains all things necessary to be believed; and the Scripture and sense thereof, only upon the Private Spirit, by which (excluding Church, Counsels, & Fathers) they expound the Scripture; it thereof followeth that the Private Spirit is the principal, or sole ground to them of their sense of Scripture, the Scripture sense the like ground of their faith, and this their faith the like ground of their salvation: wherefore no Protestant can have greater certainty of his faith or salvation, than he hath of this Private spirit; whereof seeing he hath none, either from Scripture, Church, Counsels, Fathers, common sense, or experience; it must needs follow, that his sole relying upon the Private spirit, must perforce bring him into infinite & inextricable Errors. So many ways is this Private Spirit altogether insufficient for the final deciding of all Controversies. SECT. VI Objections from the Scripture, for the Private Spirit, answered. SOme object such places of Scripture as seem to affirm, that God himself will teacheth us all things, if we ask it of him: (1) Luc. 11.13. How much more will your Father from heaven, give the good Spirit to them that ask him? (2) jac. 1.5. If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men abundantly etc. And it shallbe given him. And sundry such like. Answer. 1. Hear is not the lest mention made of the spirit of Interpreting the Scriptures, which is a gift gratis given, and whereof we only speak in this question; but of the spirit of Faith, Hope, Charity, and wisdom necessary to Salvation: for according to S. Augustine, (3) Tract. 73. 81 & 103. in joan. Prayer doth not infallibly obtain, but that which is necessary or profitable to the salvation of him that prayeth. Now the gift of Interpreting as also the gifts of tongues, and miracles, and such like numbered together by S. Paul, are not always profitable to him that hath them. Therefore as by prayer we cannot ever infallibly obtain the spirit of tongues, miracles etc. Though it be said, he will give the good Spirit to them, that ask him; so neither the spirit of Interpretation. Secondly, although the places objected, were to be understood of the spirit or gift of Interpretation, yet no man that prayeth for it, can be certain that he obtaineth it, because no man can be certain that he prayeth as he aught, (4) C. 4.3. You ask (saith S. james) and receive not, because you ask amiss etc. And this we see verified in all heretics, Lutherans, Caluinists, Swinglians, Anabaptistes, Puritans etc. all whom pray for the spirit, and yet they are possessed with most different & contradicting Spirits. Such places also may be urged, as seem to insinuate that God teacheth all truth to every man, (5) Hier. 31.33.34. I will give my law in their bowels, and in their heart I will writ it etc. and a man shall no more teach his Neighbour etc. saying: know our Lord; for all shall know me, from the lest of them even to the greatest. (6) Io. 6.45. It is written in the Prophets, And all shallbe docible of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me. (7) Io. 10.27. My sheep hear my voice etc. and they follow me, and sundry such like. Answer. 1. I answer in general, that both is true, that we are taught by God, as the places objected do insinuate, and yet ordinarily we are not taught immediately by himself, but by man's ministry, for it is usual in the Scriptures, that those things which God doth work as the Principal Cause, are attributed to him as though he effected them without any instrumental cause; and that for this cause also, because he giveth virtue and power to the Instruments, that they may work: So S. Paul affirmeth that, (8) 1. Cor. 3 7. Neither he that planteth is any thing nor he that watereth, but he that giveth the increase, God. And Christ himself said to his Apostles, (9) Mat. 10.20. It is not you that speak, but the spirit of your Father that speaketh in you. And yet it is clear, that men as God's Instruments do plant, water, and speak; therefore though it be said, that God doth teach us, yet this is understood ordinarily to be by man's Ministry, by whose mouth he speaketh, and is heard, according to that of S. Zacharie, (10) Luc. 1.70. he spoke by the mouth of his holy Prophets, that are from the beginning. And agreably hereunto Christ, not by himself alone, but by Ananias (11) Act. 9.7.10. etc. taught Paul, by (12) Act. 8.26. etc. Philip the Eunuch, & by Peter (13) Act. 10.6.22.34. Cornelius. Secondly, in particular I answer to the first place with S. Augustine, that (14) L. de spiritu & lit. c. 24. by those words, I will give my Law etc. is understood the Grace of the New Testament, that is, Faith working by Charity, which God poureth into our hearts, not only that we may know him, but withal may fulfil his Commandments. And by these words, A man shall no more teach his Neighbour, is signified the reward of faith, to wit, Beatitude; in which all the Elect shall see God face to face. And though we should understand these last words of this present time, yet they only speak of knowing of one God, which not only the Gentiles converted, but even jews, Turks, and heretics do acknowledge. To the second text, And all shallbe docible of God, I may either answer with S. Cyril, (15) Cyril. in hunc. loc. that this is meant of the doctrine of the Gospel, which Christ, not by Prophets, but by himself, taught & preached, according to that of S. Paul, (16) Heb. 1.1.2. Diversely and many ways in times past God speaking to the Fathers in the Prophets, last of all in these days hath spoken to us in his Son: Or I may answer with S. Augustine, (17) De gratia Christi c. 12. 13. 14. that this is understood of the Grace of the holy Ghost, whereby a man is inwardly & sweetly moved by God to believe and love. To the third text, My sheepheare my voice, I answer with S. Augustine, (18) In hunc locum. that Christ here speaketh of the Predestinate, who before their death hear God's calling, and follow him. Besides, God speaketh to his Sheep, not only by the Scriptures, but also by internal inspirations, and by the mouths of their Pastors, of whom he saith expressly, (19) Luc. 10.16. He that heareth you, heareth me. So not excluding by those words (My sheep hear my voice) his Vicars and Pastors, but only enemies, as himself directly saith, (20) joan. 10.5. But a stranger they follow not, but fly from him, because they know not the voice of strangers. In like sort it is urged, that S. john saith, (21) Io. 2.27. You have no need that any man teach you; but as his unction teacheth you of all things. Answer. 1. It is not here spoken absolutely of the knowledge of all heavenly things, in such sort, that those who have received the holy Ghost, should not need a master or teacher in any thing: for then to what end should S. john have written this Epistle, instructing them thereby, whom the unction of the holy Ghost did still instruct in all things? Or to what end should God have placed in his Church Pastors and Doctors? It is therefore here only spoken of such Doctrine, as they had learned from the Apostles; wherein that they should persist, and not attend to teachers of the contrary, S. john warneth them, as is manifest by the verses precedent, (22) Ver. 21. I have not written to you, as to them that know it. (23) Ver. 24. That which you have heard from the beginning, let it abide in you. (24) Ver. 62. These things have I written to you concerning them that seduce you. Secondly this place is answered by S. Augustine, speaking thus to S. john. (25) Tract 3. in 1. Ep. joan. They had the unction to whom thou didst speak: thou saidst (1. Io. 2.) Because his unction teacheth you all things: wherefore then dist thou writ that Epistle? why didst thou teach them? why didst thou instruct them? why didst thou erect them? And now he answereth for S. john, Brethrens here you now see a great Mystery. The sound of our words beateth the ears; the master is within. Do not think that any man doth learn any thing of man: we may admonish with the noise of our voice. If he be not within who teacheth, in vain is our noise etc. He hath his Chair in heaven who teacheth the hearts. The Prophet said, and he in the Gospel, Mat. 23. Neither be ye called masters, for one is your master, Christ. So learnedly teaching, that the Doctrine of faith aught to be attributed to God, not that he alone without man's ministry, doth ordinarily teach us all things, but because he is the principal master of this Doctrine. Others object those words of S. Paul, (26) 1. Cor. 2.15. The spiritual man judgeth all things, and himself is judged of no man. Ergo he is to judge of the sense of the Scriptures. Answer. 1. Though there be some spiritual men, which do truly Interpret Scriptures, as there be some who Prophecy, and who work miracles, yet to them doth not pertain the definitive Sentence of the true sense of Scriptures, or other Controversies; because we neither have certainty of faith, who these spiritual men be, as also it is most clear, that the most spiritual are ignorant of some things. So Eliseus who had received the double spirit of Elias, acknowledged of himself, (27) 4. Reg. 4.17. Our Lord hath hid it from me, and hath not told me. And sundry learned Fathers had excellently the gift of Interpretation, yet neither did they assume, or others attribute to any of them in particular, the infallible knowledge of the true sense of all Scripture; wherefore, whereas it is said, that the spiritual man judgeth all things; the meaning is, That he judgeth as well spiritual things as temporal, aswell heavenly as earthly; according to which S. Paul had said before, (28) Ver. 14. The sensual man perceiveth not those things that are of the spirit of God: But from hence it will not follow, that the spiritual man is able to judge either all divine and spiritual things, or all temporal and earthly matters. D. (29) Against the Rhem. Test. in Act. 17.11. Whitak adversus Stap. l. 3 c. 7. p. 529. Fulke, D. Whitaker, and others do urge, that it is written of the People of Beroea, that, (30) Act. 17.11. They were daily searching the Scriptures, if these things were so as Paul taught. Ergo, the people may judge by the Scriptures, whether the Church teacheth truly or no. Answer. Though S. Paul was an Apostle, & could not preach false Doctrine, yet this was unknown to those of Beroea, and therefore they were not bound presently to believe, except they had seen first some miracle, or other credible motives of belief: when then S. Paul proved to them Christ, by the predictions of the Prophets, deservedly they searched the Scriptures for the same. But Christians, to whom it is certain, that the Church cannot err in matters of faith, are bound to receive her decrees, without all doubt thereof. And if (as some think) the Beroeans formerly believed, them their searching of the Scriptures, might be for their Comfort and Confirmation. But this Objection is so weak, that D. Bilson answereth the same against M. jacob saying, (31) Survey of Christ's sufferings. p. 84. Where you say the Beroeans are commended by the holy Ghost, for not believing that which Paul spoke of Religion, till they had examined by Scriptures, and seen whether the truth were so as he uttered, you speak not only unwisely, and untruly, but if you would have Christians to follow that Course, you show intolerable pride against the word of God: for the Beroeans were commended, (whereas yet they neither believed in Christ, nor acknowledged Paul's Apostleship) for their readiness to hear, and care to search, whether Paul spoke true or no. This if you now assume to yourself over Paul's words or writings, you incur the crime of flat impiety: Paul's words to us that believe without further search or other credit, are of equal authority with the rest of the Scriptures, and not to believe him, till we examine and see the truth of his Doctrine, is mere infidelity; So confessedly impertinent is this common objection. Some object that the Church receiveth from God inspiring her the right sense of Scripture, and so first decydeth the Controversy in her mind, before she can exteriorly decide what is to be believed: therefore the Spirit speaking in her hart is the supreme judge, even to Catholics. Anwere. The motions of the Spirit inspiring the Pastors of the Church, are unknown to others, and to themselves are uncertain, until they be outwardly decreed and subscribed by the head and members of the Church, and so are no judicial sentences, or final decisions, or rules infallible, either to themselves, or others. (32) Saunder. de vision. Mon. l. 4. c. 3.4. Others urge, that in the law of Nature there was no other judge but only the Spirit instructing. Answer. (23) Adam during his life was the Chief head and director of God's people in points faith: then Seth, Enos etc. And so in succeeding ages, the first borne by Prerogative of his Primogeniture, or some other by God's special Election, discharged that Office. Some object that the believing Gentiles were not subordinate to the high Priest of the jews, nor had any other appointed over them, and so were only guided by the spirit. Answer. The faithful Gentiles were not subject to the high Priest of the jews; because they had no such positive Precept imposed upon them, but the necessary mysteries of faith were revealed unto them, either by God himself, or by an Angel, or by some other infallible Tradition. But all this being Extraordinary, can be no warrant for paricular men to challenge the like, nor prejudice the ordinary Course prescribed by God's wisdom: especially now in the Law of Grace, when both jew and Gentile are subjected to one head, according to that of Christ our Saviour, (33) Io. 10.16. Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also must I bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shallbe made one fold and one Pastor. This cannot be understood of Christ, as invisibly governing, for so there was always one fold and one Pastor; but of his invisible headship, and of his secondary visible Pastor, who is his Vicar upon Earth; and of whom (34) L. 1. ep. 6. ad Magnum. S. Cyprian interpreteth these very words. CHAP. V The true State of the Question concerning the books of Scripture Canonical, or Apocryphal. Whether the books of Toby, judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the first and second of Maccabees, be Scriptures truly Canonical, or Apocryphal. SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. THE Catholic Church (1) Concil. Trid. Sess 4. Decret. de Canonicis Scriptures. Setting always this before her eyes, that errors being taken away, the very Purity of the Gospel may be preserved in the Church; what was promised before by the Prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord jesus-christ the son of God, first published by his own mouth, and afterwards commanded to be preached to (2) Mar. vlt. every creature by his Apostles, as the fountain of all wholesome truth▪ and of the discipline of manners: And seeing that this truth and discipline is contained in the written books, and in the Traditions not written &c. following the examples of Orthodoxal Fathers, with like affection of Piety and reverence, it receiveth and honoureth all the Books both of the Old and new Testament, seeing one God is the Author of both etc. It hath further ordained that the Table (or Catalogue) of the sacred books, should be adjoined to this decree, jest doubt might arise to any, which books they are, which are received by the Synod. They are these following of the old Testament, five of Moses▪ that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deutronomy; joshua, judges, Ruth, four of the Kings, Two of Paralipomenon, the first & second of Esdras, which is called Nehemias', Tobias, judith, Fsther, job, David's Psalter of 150. Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Hieremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, twelve lesser Prophets, that is, Ose, joel, Amos, Abdias, jonas, Michaeas, Naum, Abacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias, the first and second of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament, four Ghospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and john: the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist: fourteen Epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galathians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews: two of Peter the Apostle, three of john the Apostle, one of james the Apostle, one of jude the Apostle, and the Apocalypse of john the Apostle. But if any man shall not receive for sacred and Canonical, these whole books with all their parts, as they are accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are in the old Vulgar Latin Edition etc. let him be accursed. In the third Carthage Council it is defined, (3) Can. 47. that nothing be read in the Church under the name of divine Scriptures, but Canonical Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are Genesis, Exodus etc. And so the said ancient Council proceedeth, making particularly the same Catalogue of the Books of sacred Scripture, with the next before recited out of the Council of Trent. And the same with these Counsels do (4) Bellar de verb. Dei. l. 1. c. 4. etc. The Translators of the Old Test. in the Argum. of the Macab. and the other Books. And in the Prooemiall Annotations. Catholics now believe. Protestants untruths. Luther affirmeth, that the (5) ●. de Coneil. & Ecclesia. Pope doth bury the sacred Scripture in dirt and dust, and hath almost abolished the whole Christian doctrine. (6) Exam. Sess. 4, Chemnitius avoucheth, that Catholics are of opinion, that the Pope at his pleasure, without all testimonies of Ancient writers, may of a Book not Canonical, make it Canonical, and of the Contrary. And that if the Pope would, the sacred Scripture would be of no more authority, than Aesop's Fables. Ochinus speaking of the Books of Maccabees, saith, (7) Dialog. de Purgatorio, that they are Apocryphal, it is manifest by the Laodicene, and the African Counsels, yea by all holy Doctors, who making a Catalogue of the Scriptures, make no mention of the Maccabees. But the contrary is evident by the third Carthage Council cited, and by sundry (8) Aug. l. 2. de doct. Christ. c. 8. & de Ciu. Dei. l. 18. c. 36. Innocent. 1. Ep. ad Exsuperium. c. vlt. Isidor. l c. Etymol. c. 1. ancient writers. And though the Laodicene Council doth not mention the Books of Maccabees, as neither doth it mention the Apocalypse, yet doth it no where censure them for Apocryphal. So that all here said by Protestants are mere impostures, and utterly detested by the Catholic Church. Protestant Doctrine. The English Church hath decreed, that, (9) Article 6. In the name of the holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church: and then followeth, of the names and number of Canonical books, Genesis, Exodus etc. For Apocryphal, they number these following: the 3. book of Esdras, the 4. book of Esdras, the book of Tobias, the book of judith, the rest of the book of Esther, the book of Wisdom, jesus the son of Syrach, Baruch the Prophet, the song of the 3. Children, the story of Susanna, of Bell and the Dragon, the Prayer of Manasses, the first book of Maccabees, the second book of Maccabees. And these their Apocryphal, they say, the Church doth read, for example of life and Instruction of manners, but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine. Of the books of the New Testament, they only say in general, All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and accounted them Canonical. To this Rule of making such books Canonical, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church, D. Whitakers addeth 2. more, whereby he discardeth the Maccabees, and sundry others: (10) Answer to Reinolds. p, 22. 23. They were written (saith he) in Greeke, or some other foreign language, and not in Hebrew; nor had for their known Authors, those whom God hath declared to be his Prophets. So that no books must be Canonical with our English Church, but such as were never doubted of in the Church, such as were originally written in the Hebrew, & such as had their authors known to be Prophets. The Lutherans hence teach, that (11) In Enchirid. p. 63. & Exam. part. 1. p. 55. The 2. Epistle of Peter, the 2. & 3. of john, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of james, the Epistle of jude, and the Apocalypses of john are Apocryphal: as (12) Exam. part. 1. p. 56. not having sufficient testimony of their Authority. And therefore, that (13) Ibid. p. 57 nothing in Controversy may be proved out of these books. Protestants agreed with jews, and Heretics. S. Hierome (14) In Proleg. Galeat. relateth, that the Hebrews rejected the books of Toby, judith, Sapientia, Ecclesiasticus, and Maccabees. Eusebius (15) Hist. l. 3. c. 25. and S. Hierome (16) L. de viris illustr. in jacobo, juda, Patro, joanne. report, that some before their times doubted of the Epistles of james, jude, 2. of Peter, 2. & 3. of john. The Anomeans (17) Epiphan. haer. 76. Hieron. in c. 5. Michae. & Praefat. in Ep. ad Philem. Aug. l. 2. cont. Adverse. Leg. & Proph. c. 2. and other heretics taught, that all things in S. Paul's Epistles, were not inspired by the holy Ghost, but some things written only by humane wisdom: the same and worse do Protestants teach here next hereafter. Protestants Errors. Whereas Moses was the first that writ any part of Scripture, and he who writ the Law of God, or ten Commandment, Luther thus rejecteth him, and his ten Commandments. (18) Tom. 3. Germ. f. 40, 41. & in Colloq. Mensal. Ger. fol. 152.153. We will neither hear nor see Moses, for he was given only to the jews, neither doth he belong any thing to us. (19) In Colloq. Mensal. c. de lege & Euang. I will not receive Moses with his Law, for he is the Enemy of Christ. (20) Ib. fol. 118. Moses is the Master of all hangmen. (21) Serm. de Moyse. The 10. Commandments belong not to Christians. (22) In Conuival. Colloq. cited by Au●● fab. cap. de lege. Let the 10. Commandments be altogether rejected, and all heresies will presently cease, for the 10. Commandments are as it were the fountain from whence all heresies spring. Islebius Luther's scholar taught, (23) See Osiand Cent. 16. p. 311. 312. 310. That the Decalogue was not to be taught in the Church. And from him came (24) Sleidan. hist. l. 12. fol. 162. the Sect of Antinomans, who publicly taught, that, (25) See Confessio Mans● feildensium Ministrorum. Tit de Antinomis, f. 89. 90. The Law of God is not worthy to be called the word of God. If thou be'st a whore, if a whoremonger, if an adulterer, or otherwise a sinner; believe, and thou walkest in the way of salvation: when thou art drowned in sin, even to the bottom, if thou believest, thou art in the midst of happiness. All that busy themselves about Moses, that is, the 10. Commandments, belong to the Devil, to the Gallows with Moses. Luther (26) In serm. Conuival. Tit. de Patriarch. & Proph. doth not believe all things to be so done as they are related in the book of job: and with him it is, (27) Tit. de libris Vet. & nou. Test. as it were the Argument of a fable. He saith of Ecclesiastes, (28) Petrus Rebeastock. l. 2. Colloq. Latin. Lutheri. cap. de vet. Test. This b●●ke is not perfect, many things are taken away, it wanteth boots and spurs, that is, it hath no perfect sentence. Castalio (29) See Beza in vita Caluini. commanded the Canticles of Solomon to be thrust out of the Canon, as an impure and obscene song, reviling with bitter reproaches such Ministers, as resisted him therein. Caluin (30) Instit l. 2. c. 16. § 10. doubted whether the Apostles Creed, was made by the Apostles. He argueth (31) In Math. 27.9. S. Matthew of error, he rejecteth (32) Harm in Math. 20.16. these words, Many are called, but few are chosen. Clebitius opposeth the Evangelists one against another, (33) Victoria veritatis, & ruina, Papatus, Arg. 5. Mark and Matthew deliver the contrary, therefore to Matthew and Mark being two witnesses, more credit is to be given then to one Luke, who was not present at the last supper, as Matthew was. Swinglius (34) Tom. 2. Elenc. f. 10. Fotherbie in his 4, Sermons ser. 2. p. 50. Magdeburg. Cent. 1. l. 2. ca 10. Col. 580. Gualther. in Act. 21. and other Protestants affirm, that all things in S. Paul's Epistles are not sacred, and that in sundry things he erred. Other (35) Caluin. in omnes Pauli Ep. in Gal. 2. p. 510. 511. Goad in the Tower's Disp. 2. days confer. Arg. 6. Whit. de Eccles. Contr. 2. q. 4. p. 223. Protestants charge S. Peter to have erred in faith and manners, even after the descending of the holy Ghost. Rogers confesseth and nameth sundry of his Brethrens Protestants rejecting for Apocryphal (36) Def. of the Articles, Art 6. p 32. the Epistle unto the Hebrews, of S. james, the first and second of john, of jude, and the Apocalypse. I desire the indifferent Reader here to judge, whether any men living, but professed Atheists, did ever like unto our Protestants so reject, deride, discard, and censure the Scriptures themselves, so generally received. SECT. II. It is proved by sundry reasons and authorities, that the foresaid Books are truly Canonical. IN Confutation of the foresaid Rules given by Protestants for the discerning of Canonical Scriptures from Apocryphal, I will begin with such books as were rejected or doubted of by some Ancient Fathers. It is evident that the Book of Hester was not admitted within the (1) Athanas. in Synopsi. Greg Naz. in carmine quod scripfit de geminis Scriptures. Melito apud Euseb. l. 4. hist. c. 26. Canon by S. Athanasius, S. Gregory Nazianzene, & Melito Africanus. And (2) Praefat. in Hester. S. Hierome rejecteth the last 7. Chapters thereof. Baruch is not expressly named or placed by such Ancient Counsels and Fathers, as did make a Catalogue of the several Books of Canonical Scripture. The ancient believing jews rejected (3) Hier. Praefat. in Daniel. the Hymn of the three Children, the history of Susanna, (which also was refused by (4) Apud Euseb. Hist. l. 6. c. 23. julius Africanus) and the History of the Dragon, as also the books of Tobis, judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and Maccabees. Neither do Melito, Amphilochius, Nazianzenus, or the Council of Laodicea, number Toby, judith, Ecclesiasticus, or the Maccabees, in the Catalogue of their Canon; of all which also S. Hierome (5) Praef. in judith. & l. 10. ad Furiam. c. 6. in Prolego. Galeat. & Praef. in libros Salomonis. Praef. in Daniel. seemeth to doubt. Some ancient writers doubted also of the (6) See in S. Hier. Ep. ad Hedibiam. q. 3. last Chapter of S. Marks gospels; others of some part (7) See Hilar. l. 10. de Trinit. & Hier. l. 2. cont. Pelagianos. of the 22. Chapter of S. Luke; others of the (8) See Euseb. hist. l. 3. c. 39 beginning of the 8. Chapter of S. john, others of the (9) See Euseb. hist. l. 4. c. 3. Hier. l. de viris illust. in Paulo. Epistle to the Hebrews, others of the (10) See Eus. hist. l. 3. c. 25. Hier. l. de viris illust. in jacobo, juda, Petro, & joanne. Epistles of james, jude, the second of Peter, the 2 and 3. of john, and the (11) See Eus. hist l. 3. c. 28. & l. 7 c. 23. Hier. Ep. ad Dardanum. Apocalypse. And it is so certain that these books and parcels of Scripture were doubted of by some Doctors of the Ancient Church, as that M. Rogers who defendeth the foresaid canonising of Scripture, by being never doubted of in the ancient Church, is enforced yet to say, (12) In his defence of the 39 Articles, p. 31. Although some of the ancient Fathers and Doctors, accepted not all the Books contained within the volume of the new Testament, for Canonical: yet in the end, they were wholly taken and received by the common Consent of the Church of Christ in this world, for the very word of God etc. D. Bilson avoucheth, that, (13) Survey of Christ's sufferings p. 664. The Scriptures were not fully received in all places, not not in Eusebius time: He saith, the Epistles of james, jude, the 2 of Peter, the 2. & 3. of john, are contradicted as not written by the Apostles. The Epistle to the Hebrews was for a while contradicted etc. The Churches of Syria did not receive the 2. Epistle of Peter, nor the 2. & 3. of john, nor the Epistle of jude, nor the Apocalyps' etc. The like might be said for the Churches of Arabia: will you hence conclude (saith D. Bilson) that these parts of Scripture were not Apostolic, or that we need not to receive them now, because they were formerly doubted of? The Deans of Paul's and Windsor, in the Tower's disputation had with the most illustrious Martyr Campian, in proof of this point, do thus report of themselves. (14) The 1. days Conference. D. 1. For proof hereof, we alleged the testimonies of Hierome in Catal. where he thus writeth, The Epistle of james is said to be published by some other under his name; and of the 2. of Peter he saith, that it is denied by many to be his. We also alleged Eusebius writing thus; Those books that be gainsaid, though they be known to many, be these; The Epistle attributed to james, the Epistle of jude, the later of Peter, the 2. & 3. of john. With these agreeth D. Walker, affirming in the same Disputation, that (15) 4. Day's Conference f. 2. B. S. Hierome saith; Concerning that (Epistle) which is written to the Hebrews▪ many have doubted of it: and also concerning the 2. of Peter, he saith, It was doubted of by many, and so with some were the 2. last Epistles of john etc. By all which it is clear, and for such confessed, that if nothing must be admitted for Canonical Scripture, whereof any doubt was made in the Primitive Church, as Protestants formerly exacted; then must not only the Maccabees, Toby, judith, and other Books of the Old Testament be discarded out of the Canon, but a farewell also must we give to some parts of the Ghospels, written by S. Mark, S. Luke, and S. john, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the other of S. james, S. jude, S. Peter; S. john and the Apocalypse; all which yet contrary to their former Rule, our English Pro●. are content to accept for Canonical. So that the foresaid Rule prescribed by Prot. must be accepted for good against Toby, judith etc. but it must be rejected for a most false Rule, in regard of the Epistles of S. james, Peter, john etc. And what it is that maketh this incredible or rather impossible difference, in one and the same Rule? Certainly nothing else, but that some Books so doubted of, spoke over plainly against Prot. Doctrine; and others no less doubted of, they hoped they could evade with better colours, and less difficulty. But it is to be observed yet further, that the foresaid Books were never so doubted of in the Primitive Church, but ●hat some then there were, who could testify, that they were set forth by Prophets or Apostles: for the want whereof, the book of Enoch was never received by the Church. And although some others doubted, and the Church then did not determine the truth; yet, that no more inferreth that the Church since cannot determine it, then that the Council of Nice could not decree the book of judith to be Canonical, being formerly doubted of. Add lastly that although the Lutherans said, (16) In Confession Wittenberg. We call sacred Scriptures those Canonical Books, of the old and new Testament, of whose authority it was never doubted in the Church: Yet the Divines of Geneva add to those words, thus, Although in the Catalogue of the new Testament some books may be found, whereof sometimes doubt hath been made by certain Ancient Doctors of the Church: yet at length, by the consent of the whole Catholic Church, they also were accounted and received for Canonical; therefore undeservedly, for the doubts of some, are cast behind. So crooked, imperfect and wanting is that Rule of making only such books Canonical, as were never doubted of, in the Primitive Church. To come now to the 2. Rule whereby true Scriptures must be discerned from false, which is the restraining the Old Testament to have been written only in the Hebrew, so that whatsoever is not found in the Hebrew, must be rejected as Apocryphal: But besides that, it is no little temerity to restrain the holy Ghost, to one only language in the writing of the Scriptures; the falsehood and vanity hereof is clearly discovered, by example of Daniel a good part, whereof, (17) To wit, from Chap. 2. ver. 4. to the end of the 7. Chapter. though not written in Hebrew, is ●et by our (18) See all our English Protestant Bibles. Adversaries themselves acknowledged for Canonical. In like sort concerning the third Rule, it is most untrue, that God would direct by his holy Spirit, no authors in their writings, but such as were known, and also further declared by certain testimony to be Prophets: for Protestants themselves cannot yet tell, who were Anthours of the several Books of judges, the 3. and 4. of Kings, the two of Paralippomenon, and the Books of Ruth, and job. In so much as D. Whitaker himself doth directly answer his own objection, saying, (19) De sacra Script. p. 603. The authors of many Books are not known; as of joshua, Ruth, Paralippomenon, Hesther etc. And (20) Synops. p. 4. we receive (saith D. Willet) many Books in the Old Testament, the Authors whereof are not perfectly known. Yea Caluin, Beza, and the (21) Of Anno 1584. and 1579. See Caluin. in Heb. 2.2. publishers of certain of our English Bybles, in the Preface or Argument upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, do all of them profess to rest doubtful of the Author thereof: Caluin and Beza there affirming, that it is not written by S. Paul So that though some parcels of the Bible have not their Authors or Penners known, much less known to be Prophets, yet by like examples of other approved Scriptures, it maketh nothing against their sacred and divine Authority. Lastly, whereas Protestants make the written word of God, or the revealing Spirit, their general Rule whereby to square them in all doubts; it is foe manifest, that by neither of these means, the Canonical Scriptures can be discerned from the Apocryphal, as that M. Hooker teacheth to the contrary, that, (22) Eccl. Pol. l. 1. sec. 14 pag. 86. Of things necessary, the very chiefest is to know, what books we are bound to esteem holy, which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture itself to teach: for (23) Ibid. l. 2. c. 4. p. 102. (saith he) If any one Book of Scripture did give testimony to all, yet still that Scripture which giveth credit to the rest, would require another Scripture to give credit unto it. Neither (24) Ibid. p. 103. could we ever come to any pause whereon to rest, unless besides Scripture there were something else acknowledged. Herein M. Hooker writeth so Catholikly, that he is therefore reproved by a Puritan (25) See the Christian letter to that Reverend man M. R. Hook. p. 9 Brother. In like sort D. Whitaker teacheth, that true Scriptures cannot be discerned from counterfeit, by the (26) Aduersus Staplet. l. 2 c. 6. p. 370. & p. 357 and see Hook. in his Eccl. pol. sec. 8. p. 147. testimony of the Spirit: the which (saith he) being private and secret, is not fit to teach and refel others. Wherefore the only means remaining, whereby infallibly to discern true Scriptures from false, is (as all Catholics teach) the Church of Christ. A truth so clear, as that forbearing all other proofs, I may well content myself with the manifold acknowledgements of Protestants themselves. To this purpose then D. Fulke avoucheth, that, (27) Answer to a Counterf. Cath. p 5. The Church of Christ hath judgement, to discern true writings from counterfeit, and the word of God from the writings of men, and this judgement she hath of the holy Ghost. With him agreeth D. jewel, affirming, that, (28) Defence of the Apology. p. 201. The Church of God hath the spirit or wisdom, whereby to discern true Scriptures from false. M. Hooker having before taught, that true Scriptures cannot be known, unless besides Scripture there were some thing which might assure us; this Something afterwards he acknowledgeth (29) Eccl. Pol. p 146. & 116. And see Aret. his Examen. p. 24. Bachmanus his Centuriae tres. p. 267. To be the authority of God's Church, or (as D. Whitaker termeth it) (30) Aduersus Stap. p. 300. 298. 24. 25. and against Reinolds. p. 44. The Ecclesiastical Tradition: An argument (saith he) whereby may be argued and convinced what Books be Canonical and what not. With whom accordeth another Protestant writer (31) Author of the Script. and the Church. f. 71. 72. 74. 75. much commended by Bullinger, (32) Ibid. in the Preface. affirming that, The Church is endued with the spirit of God, and that the diligence and authority of the Church is to be acknowledged herein, which hath partly given forth her testimony of the assured writings, and hath partly by her spiritual judgement refused the writings which are unworthy. Yea he further assureth us, with S. Austin (33) Tom. 6. cont. ep. Fundam. c. 5. Tertul. l. 1. de Prescript. c. 6. and Tertullian, that, we could (34) Scripture and the Church. p. 72. 74. 75. And see Melancton in Ep. ad Rom. c. 14. pa. 358. 359. not believe the Gospel, were it not that the Church taught us, and witnessed that this Doctrine was delivered by the Apostles. And the like might be showed by sundry other (35) See Pet. Mart. in his come. Pla. in English. part. 1. c. 6. Sec. 8. p. 42. Chemn. Exam. part. 1. p. 69. Lubb. de principijs Christ. dog. l. 1. c. 4. p. 18. Protestant writers. Wherefore to conclude, seeing the sacred Scriptures of God cannot be discerned from the Apocryphal writings of men, either by that they have been never doubted of, or because they were originally written in Hebrew, or had for their penners known Prophets, or by any Proof from the Scriptures themselves, or the revealing spirit, but only in that the true discerning thereof, is confessed by the sentence and determination of the Church of Christ; it remaineth next to be examined, whether the foresaid books of Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Toby, judith, Maccabees &c. rejected by Protestants as counterfeit, and believed and defended by Catholics as Canonical, were ever admitted, acknowledged and approved by the Church of Christ, as sacred, divine, and the true word of God. SECT. III. That the Primitive Church of Christ, and the Counsels therein celebrated, have admitted and approved for Canonical, the foresaid Books of Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Toby, judith, Maccabees etc. Having elsewhere proved from the ample Confessions of the learnedst Protestant Doctors, that the Primitive Church continued the true Church of Christ, during the first 500 or 600. years; I will now only make manifest, that the said Church admitted and approved the foresaid Books, as truly sacred, divine, and Canonical. Which though I might convince at large, by producing the particular sayings of Fathers, and Decrees of Counsels, yet seeing the Case on our behalf is so clear, as that our Adversaries themselves do confess what I intent to prove, I will only set down such grants as they afford in our behalf. Whereas in the third Carthage Council, whereat S. Austin and sundry other Fathers and Bishops were present and subscribed, it is expressly defined, that (1) Can 47. Nothing be read in the Church, under the name of divine Scriptures, besides Canonical Scriptures. And, the Canonical Scriptures are Genesis, Exodus etc. five books of Solomon &c. (whereof Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom are two) Toby, judith, Esther etc. two books of Maccabees etc. Whereas also the same Canon of Scripture is made and numbered particularly by (2) De doct. Christ. l. 2. ca 8. Innocent. Ep. ad Exuperium. c. 7. Gel. Tom. 1. conc. in Decret. cum 70. Epis. Isid. l. 2. Etymol. c. 1. Rabanus l. 2. Instit. cleric. Cassiodorus l. 2. divinarum lectionum. S. Austin himself, as also by Innocentius, Gelasius and other Ancient writers; the truth hereof is so manifest, that the same is confessed by sundry Prot. writers, and the same Council and Fathers (instead of better Answer) are severely reprehended for the same. Mathaeus Ho reproveth the Carthage Council in these words, (3) Hist. Tripar. Theol. p. 46. The Council of Carthage hath decreed for Canonical, all the books of the old Testament, excepting the 3. and 4. of Esdras, the 3. of Maccabees etc. I add, that the Council aught not to have Canonised more books, because it had not authority. Poliander likewise saith, (4) In his Refutation p. 44. To come now to the Error of some Counsels, the Counsels of Carthage, and Florence have enroled for Canonical Books, and as divinely inspired etc. the books of Toby, judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the Maccabees etc. And the Pope's Innocentius and Gelasius, have reckoned these books among the Canonical. Hiperius avoucheth, that (5) Method. Theol. l. 1. p. 64. In the third Carthage Council there are added to the Canon etc. Sapientia & Ecclesiasticus, two books of Maccabees, Toby, judith etc. All which books in the same order numbereth Austin, Innocentius, and Gelasius, for which he at large afterwards rejecteth their judgement. I grant (saith (6) De princip. Christ. dogm. l 1. c. 4 p. 8. Lubbertus) certain of these books to be admitted by the Carthaginians, but I deny that therefore they are the word of God, for no Counsels have that authority. So confessed it is that the foresaid Books were holden Canonical by the Counsels and Fathers of the Primitive Church. Now, where our English Doctors in the Disputation (7) The first day's Conference. had in the Tower Anno 1581. with Fa. Ed. Campian Martyr, did publicly and seriously answer, that S. Austin numbering the foresaid Books▪ within the Canon, used the word, Canon, improperly, as not meaning thereby that the books now in question were properly Canonical, but only that they were in the Canon of manners, not of Doctrine; first, this appeareth to be most untrue, in that S. Austin ranketh these books in the same order with Genesis, & the rest of undoubted authority, & therefore by the same reason according to S. Austin, these other books should not be properly Canonical. Secondly S. Austin was one who subscribed to the foresaid Carthage Council, and his meaning with the said Council and other Fathers, is so Roman Catholic, as that they are therefore all of them reproved by sundry Protestant (8) Reinolds in his Conclusions, annexed to his Conference. p. 699. 700. Zanchius de sacra Script. p. 32. 33. Hospi●. hist. Sacram. part. 1. p 160. Trelcatius loc. come. p. 15. Ho Tract. Tripart. Theol. p. 46. Parker ag. Symbol. part. 2. pa. 60. Field of the Church. p. 246. 247. writers, which had been blameless, even according to Protestants, if they had taken the word (Canonical) only improperly. But Brentius avoucheth more in general, that (9) Apol. Confess. Wittemb. And see Bucers' scripta Anglicana p. 713. There are some of the Ancient Fathers who receive (saith he) these Apocryphal books into the number of Canonical Scriptures: and in like sort some Counsels command them to be acknowledged as Canonical. I am not ignorant what was done, but I demand whether it was rightly & Canonically done? D. Covell ariseth yet higher, not only confessing S. Augustine's like judgement had of the Book (10) Against Burges p. 76. 77. of Wisdom, but withal further affirmeth of all these Books, that. If (11) Ibid. p. 87. Ruffinus be not deceived, they were approved as parts of the Old Testament, by the Apostles. And if you desire to ascend yet higher, you shall found (12) Of the Church. p. 245. 246. Hut. 2. part of his answer. p. 176. D. Field, and M. Hutton both of them to acknowledge, that some of the Ancient jews received the foresaid Books for truly Canonical. But though all the jews had rejected the foresaid books, yet we Christians are to be directed herein (as is confessed (13) See before Chap. 5. sec. 2. before) by the Church of Christ. And according to this (14) De Ciu. Dei. l. 18. c. 36. S. Austin saith of the Books of Maccabees, not the jews, but the Church accounteth (them) for Canonical. Saint Hierome also maketh the like opposition, between the judgement of the Hebrews, & the Nicene Council concerning the book of judith, saying, (15) Praef. in judith. With the Hebrews the book of judith is read among the Hagiographall &c. (which they received into their Canon) but because we read that the Nicene Council accounted this in the number of holy Scriptures, I have yielded. In like sort writeth S. Isidore, (16) L. 6 Etymol. c. 1. Though the Hebrews do not receive (the Maccabees) into their Canon, yet the Church of Christ doth honour them among the divine Books: So little forceth it, what the jews thought, but what the Church determineth concerning the Canonical Scriptures: And so clear it is, that the foresaid Books reproved by Prot. for Apocryphal, were confessedly approved by the Fathers and Counsels of the Primitive Church for Canonical. SECT. FOUR That Protestants themselves do defend the foresaid Books. Whereas many of the Ancient jews would not admit the foresaid Books into their Canon, the Protestant Bibliander censureth this to be, The rashness of the jews; In which his Censure, he is approved by the Protetestant Sceltco in his book of the second coming of Christ, englished by (1) fol. 6. M. Rogers, for the supposed worth thereof. Concerning all the foresaid Books pretended now to be Apocryphal, the Caluinists of Geneva do teach that, (2) Admonitio ad lectorem ante Biblia Calu. Anno 1551. per joan. Tornesium in folio edita. We are not to stand to the Censure of the jews, in regard of this maiming of the Canon of the Scriptures: and in these books there are true Prophecies, and hidden mysteries, which could not be spoken but by the holy Ghost, who for preservation of that Church which he governeth and assisteth, hath moved the mind, and directed the hand of writers to writ these things. D. Bancroft in the very (3) Pag. 60. Conference before his Majesty, rejecteth the objections of the jews made against these Books, calling them, The old Cavils of the jews, renewed by Hierome, who was the first that gave them the name Apocrypha, which opinion upon Ruffinus his Challenge, he after a sort disclaimed. Yea D. Bancroft so fully defendeth the foresaid Books, that other of his Brethrens charge him to say that, (4) The 2. part of the Ministers defence. pag. 108. The Apocrypha were given by inspiration from God: which is all one, as to affirm them to be truly divine and Canonical Scriptures. And as concerning the book Ecclesiasticus, it is defended to be truly Canonical by the Prot. writers (5) Ep. ad Volanum. Lascicius, and M. Parker: of which latter D. Willet saith, (6) Londoromastix. p. 69. How audacious is this fellow, that contrary to the determination of this Church (of England) dare make Ecclesiasticus a book of Canonical Scripture. (7) In Phychopannichia propè initium. Caluin calleth the author of this book A Saint. And other Prot. (8) Clypaeus Calu. fides dial. 2. city it, and ascribe it to Solomon. And also affirm, (9) Admonitio Minist. ante hunc librum edit. 1563. & 1570. that therein are contained divine, singular, and ancient histories of men approved by God. D. Covell in answer to some that impugned these Books, saith thus, (10) Answer to Burges p. 85. We could without violence have afforded them the reconcilement of other Scriptures, and undoubtedly have proved them to be most true. In like sort Conradus Pelican Professor at Tigure, writing his Commentary upon the foresaid Books, saith, (11) Ep. Dedic. I easily yielded &c. especially seeing those books were always accounted so Ecclesiastical and Biblicall, that even from the Apostles times they were read in the Catholic Church, with much reverence, although they were not produced in authority against the jews as Canonical, who received not these into their sacred Canon: whereas they do not only not contradict in any thing, the writings of the Law and the Prophets, but also etc. for the most part they clearly carry the right style of the holy Ghost; certain knots (or difficulties) being intermingled, which are found more easy to be loosed then some have thought etc. Whereupon they were reverenced and read by holy men, yea the sayings thereof are found to be alleged by the Apostles. So clear it is that the foresaid Books are truly Canonical Scriptures, even by the Confessions of Protestants themselves. SECT. V Sundry Objections produced against the foresaid Books, answered. Where it is usually objected by many Protestants, that in the foresaid Books there are many repugnancies or Contradictions, and Consequently that they are not inspired by the holy Ghost: To omit that in those Scriptures, which are believed by all to be Canonical, there are many hidden difficulties and seeming (1) 1. Reg. 8.9. 2. Paral. 5.10. & Heb. 9 4. Act. 9.7. & Act. 22.9. Mat. 10.10 & Mar. 6.8. Mat. 26 34. & Mar. 14.68. Mar. 15.25. & Io. 19.14. Luc. 3.35.36. & Gen. 11.12. And see jewels Def. p. 36●. repugnancyes, which yet notwithstanding, we are bound to acknowledge the same Scriptures to be true and sacred; I will for brevity only allege, what other Protestants think, and answer themselves, to the foresaid pretended Contradictions in the Books of Maccabees, Toby, etc. D. Covell (as before) answereth thus, (2) Answer to M. Burges pa. 85. We could without violence have afforded them the reconcilement of other Scriptures, and undoubtedly have proved them to be most true: And he (3) Ibid. p. 87. 88 89. 90. particularly answereth certain of the pretended repugnancyes. Conradus Pelican confesseth, that in these book, (4) Ep. Dedic. certain knots (or difficulties) are intermingled, which are found more easy to be loosed, than some have thought etc. Whereupon they were ever reverenced and read by holy men, yea the sayings thereof are found to to be alleged by the Apostles. And agreably hereunto M. Hutton at large answereth and cleareth the common Objection against (5) 2. part. of the Answer p. 238. 239. judith, and the like in behalf of (6) Ibid pag. 247. Ecclesiasticus & (7) Ibid. pag. 246. And see Bucers' Scripta Anglicana. Daniel. And where it is objected that these books were rejected, omitted, or doubted of by S. Hierome, & some others of the Fathers of the Primitive Church, as also that they were not first written in the Hebrew; these are at large cleared and answered (8) See heretofore. sec. 2. p. 117. etc. heretofore by sundry Protestant writers. But yet more in particular against the Book of Toby, it is objected, that in the third Chapter it is said, that Sara whom younger Toby was to marry dwelled in Rages a City of the Medes, where also Gabel was, Tob. 4. and yet in the ninth Chapter it is said, that when Toby came to the place where Sara was, he sent from thence the Angel to Gabel in Rages: therefore Sara's house was not in Rages, as it was said in the third Chapter. Answer. In the third Chapter, not the City itself of Rages is there so called, but some place there near unto it, as he is said to devil in London, who dwelleth in Westminster, or other place near adjoining. Against the Book of Wisdom, Caluin (9) Inst. l 1. c. 12. §. 8. objecteth, that it erreth in affirming that Idolatry begun by superstitiously honouring the Images of the dead, seeing Laban's Idols and others more ancient, were before any Images of dead men were honoured. Answer. Caluin supposeth that which is false, to wit, that Laban's Idol was not the Image of a man: for the Hebrew word Teraphim, so signifieth, and the English Bibles of 1552. and 1578. translate Images. But because they were Images of false Gods, and for that Laban called them his Gods, the Bible of 1603. translateth it better, Idols, as the Latin and Greek have. It is also certain, that (10) See Eusebius initio Chron. Cyril. l. 3. in jul. propè fin. Ninus king of the Assyrians long before Laban, set up the Image of his Father Belus (called jupiter) to be publicly honoured by the people for a God: which though it be the first that is recounted, to be publicly set up to be adored, yet this doth not hinder, but that the first private Idolatry, was the Image of the Son dead, made by his Father, and by him privately honoured, as the book of Wisdom mentioneth, (11) Cypr. l. de Idol. vanit. init. Chrisost. ho. 87. in Mat. Egesip. apud Hier. l. de viris illust. and several good Authors teach. Sundry things are urged against the Books of Maccabees, as first by D. Fulke, that, (12) Against Purge pa. 208. the author commendeth one Razis for killing himself, which is contrary to the word of God. But S. Austin shall answer him, saying, (13) l. 2. cont. Ep. Gaud. c. 23. & ep. 61 ad Dulcit. Touching this his death, the Scripture hath told how it was done, (but) it hath not commended it as shove it were to be done: for though the Author reporting the truth of the fact, say, that he ran boldly, & threw down himself manfully, yet doth he not commend it, as done virtuously. The Book of judges (14) C. 16.30. reporteth how Samson killed himself and others, saying, Let me die with the Philistines; and the Apostle yet numbereth (15) Heb. 15.32. him among the faithful, and S. Austin (16) De Ciu. Dei. l. 1. c. 21. affirmeth that he was commanded hereto, by peculiar inspiration: therefore though Razis had been commended, yet had it hereby been sufficiently answered and explained. Fulke (17) Agnostus Pur. pag. 209. and others further urge, that the Author craveth pardon for his writing, a thing (think they) far from the Majesty of God's spirit. Also that his Book is an Abridgement (18) 2. Mach. 2.24 27. of the five Books of jason the Cyrenean, whereas the holy Ghost maketh (as Fulke thinketh) not abridgement of other men's writing. And that he showeth, what labour and sweated it was to him, in making this Abridgement, which savoureth not of that spirit, by which the Scriptures were written. Answ. He doth insinuate for pardon, not of errors, but elocution, if he hath not spoken so worthily. In which sense S. Paul said, (19) 2. Cor. 11.6.17. Though rude in speech, yet not in knowledge. And, (20) Rom. 15.14.15. I speak not according to God, but as it were in foolishness. And he affirmeth the Romans to be (21) Ro. 15.13. Replenished with all knowledge, insinuating therefore his own excuse in writing to them, saying, I have written to you more boldly in part, as it were putting you in remembrance: he requesteth also the Corinthians, (22) 2. Cor. 11.1. to bear some little of his folly. D. Morton would further evade, by affirming, that (23) Apol. part. 2. l. 1. c. 3. the Apostle speaketh upon the adversary's supposal, but this Author (of Maccabees) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and upon the knowledge of his own weakness: as also the holy Ghost never willeth what he cannot, neither doth he ever doubt that he cannot what he william. But it is untrue, that the Apostle speaketh in the foresaid places, only upon his Adversary's supposal, for his words are much more absolute, than these other of the Author of the Maccabees, If well, and as befitteh the History, this is that which I would: but if less worthily, I am to be pardoned. Whereas S. Paul acknowledged, that he was rude in speech; that he spoke not according to God, but as it were in foolishness, and requested the Corinthians to bear some little of (his) folly: neither can the pretended doubtfulness of the Author of the Maccabees, be more imputed to the want of the holy Ghost directing, than the confessed rudeness and folly of the Apostle; none of these arguing any want of truth in that which was written, but only want of Elocution in the writers. As to the second, the Book of Kings signifieth in diverse places, that it abridgeth stories, telling where they be written more at large in other books not Canonical. S. Mark is called the (24) Aug. de consensu Euang. l. 1. c. 23. Abridger of S. Matthew: and every Sermon & Letter in the Acts of the Apostles, is but an Abridgement. To the third, S. Luke writ his Gospel, (25) Luc. 1.3. Having diligently attained to all things from the beginning. And Whitaker acknowledgeth most clearly, that an (26) Against Reinolds. p. 393 And see count. Duraeum l. 4. p. 347. Endeavour to learn & writ the certain truth, (and) to inquire the truth with all diligence, detracteth nothing from the wisdom and majesty of God's spirit: And as for the labour taken in writing thereof, it is nothing more prejudicial to him, then to S. Paul, who in the inditing of his Epistles, did sometimes (27) Rom. 16.22. 2. Thess 3.15. for his ease, use another man's handwriting. Others object a contrariety through ignorance of the story, as that in some places it is said, Antiochus did die in Babylon, and in others, that he died in Nanca, and yet again, that he died by the way, so that This one man (as Willet (28) Synop. p. 11. urgeth) died thrice. Answer. Thc Books of Maccabees make mention of sundry Princes, Enemies to the jews, who bore the name of Antiochus, as Antiochus (29) 1. Machab. 1.11. & 8.9. the great, Antiochus (30) 1. Mach. 1.11. the noble, & Antiochus the son of Demetrius (31) 1. Mach. 15.1. . But though the before mentioned chances should all of them concern one & the same Antiochus, yet they may be well taken to signify his one death in one place: For in the chance at (32) 2. Mach. 1 13.14, 15. etc. Nanca, Antiochus and the Captain there mentioned, were two several persons, & the Captain only is there said to be slain. And as for the death of Antiochus mentioned (1. Mach. 6.16.) & his death elsewhere (2. Mach. 9.5.28.) mentioned to be by the way in a strange Country, this last signifieth one and the same death with that of 1. Mach. 6.13. where he likewise mentioneth that he must die in a strange land, the presence of his friend Philip being alike also mentioned in (33) 1. Mach. 6.14. & 2. Mach. 9.29. both the said places. But to answer in general, whereas Perkins professeth to (34) Reform. Cath. p. 304. reverence the Books of Macha●bes, and the rest of the Apocrypha, preferring them before any other books of men, if Protestants did but reverence them as Sallust, or Livy, they would never think them to be so grossly repugnant, as their foresaid objection pretendeth. (25) See heretofore Cap. 3. sec. 5. And though some (25) examples of seeming incongruity (which we could not thus easily avoid) should appear in any of the Scriptures, yet aught we religiously to impute the difficulty to our own ignorance, rather than to charge the Scriptures with untruth. Others yet object, that those persons for whom judas Machabeus caused sacrifice to be offered, had (36) 2. Mach. 12.40. under their Coats etc. some of the Donaries of the Idols etc. from which the law forbiddeth the jews: and therefore judas might not lawfully pray for them. Answer. All may be prayed for, saving such as are known to die in final impenitence, and therefore judas Machabeus (not knowing the contrary) might charitably hope, that many of those that were slain, did repent them of that offence before their death, according as the Prophet saith, (37) Ps. 78.34. when he slew them, they sought him, and returned. And that judas had this opinion of them, is most plainly signified by these words, (38) 2. Mach. 12.45. Because he considered, that they which had taken their sleep with goodliness, had very good grace laid up for them. So childish and weak are these objections, in regard of the greatest power and authority of the Church, decreeing the foresaid Books to be truly Canonical. CHAP. VI The true State of the Question, concerning the Translation of the Bible. Whether the Translation of the sacred Scriptures, ordinarily called the Old Vulgar Latin Translation, be to be used, & preferred before all Translations made by Protestants. SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. THE Catholic Church, (1) Concil. Trident. Sess. 4. Decret. de Editione & usu sacrorum Librorum. considering that no little profit might come to the Church of God, if it were made known amongst all the Latin Editions of the Scriptures which are published, which were to be holden for authentical; decreeth & declareth, that this Old and Vulgar Edition, which by the long use of so many ages, is approved in the Church, in public Lectures, Disputations, Sermons and Expositions, should be holden for authentical, & that no man under any pretext dare, or presume to reject the same. And in the Council of Basil it was taught, that (2) Orat. de punitione peccat. public. by the (Church) the Translation of Hierome, others omitted, is received. And again, (3) Orat. joan. de Ragufio. many have translated the Bible into Latin, whether from the Hebrew or the Greek, yet the Translation of our only most glorious Hierome, by the authority of the Church, is preferred. And the same is (4) Bellar. de verbo Dei l. 2. c. 10. Rhem. Test. in the Preface. still the constant Doctrine of the Catholic Church. Points Disputable. Some (5) See Morton Apolog. par. 2. l 1. c. 6. jacobus Episcopus Constantinop. Praefat. in Psalmos. Canus de locis Theolog. l. 2. c. 13. Catholic writers teach, that the jews in hatred of Christian Religion, did purposely corrupt and deprave many places of Scriptures. Others (6) Driedo l. 2. de Eccl. dogm. c. 1. Bel. de verb. Dei, l. 2. c. 2. §. His igitur. think that the Scriptures written in the Hebrew, were not generally corrupted by the meames and malice of the jews: neither yet, that they are altogether perfect and pure, but have in them certain errors, which have crept in, partly by negligence, partly by ignorance of the Printers; which yet are not of such moment, but that in those things which belong to faith and manners, the sacred Scriptures integrity, may not be thought to be wanting. And this is much more probable. Some (7) See Mort. Apol. part. 2. l. 1. c. 6. deny the Greek Copies to be most pure fountains: but others affirm that the Greek Copy which now is extant in the Church, to be the self same, which the Greek Church used in the time of S. Hierome, and long before even unto the times of the Apostles. Some (8) See Mort. Apol. par. 2. l. 1. c. 8. teach that our vulgar Edition was S. Hieromes' Translation, but others deny it. Some (9) Ibid. l. 1. c. 11. (as D. Morton reporteth) think, that there are therein some errors, through the ignorance or negligence of the Translator: but others think that there is not any error of weight therein. Protestants untruths. Caluin (10) Antidote. in Sess 4. Conc. Trid. avoucheth, that the Fathers of the Tridentine Council decreed, that such were not to be heard as produced liquor out of the fountain itself. But no such thing is to be seen in the Council. He also affirmeth, (11) Ibid. that there are not 3. verses together in the Vulgar Edition, which are not stained with some foul Corruption. And yet himself under taking to discover the Corruptions of the Psalter, doth not observe so much as one in the first Psalm: so unmindful is this Lyar. Chemnitius forgeth, (12) Exam. Conc. Tr●d. Sess. 4. that in the Index Librorum prohibitorum, published by Paul the fourth, all Editions of the Bible, even of the Old Interpreter, are condemned: whereas only such are there condemned, as were either made by Heretics, or suspected Printers. He also pretendeth, that therefore the Vulgar Edition is made authentical by the Council, because it maketh wholly for Popish doctrine. But in this, besides impudence, he showeth Imprudence, for Prot. (13) See hereafter in the 2. Section. do acknowledge the vulgar Edition to be most ancient, and most sincere: and so then consequently are our Catholic Doctrines most ancient and sincere. Protestant Doctrine. Although there be many Translations of the Bible made by Protestants, yet, we accounted (saith D. Whitaker (14) De sacra Scrip. Contr. 1. q 2. pa. 128. Piscator volume. Tbesium Theolo. p. 34. no Edition to be authentical, but only the Hebrew in the Old, and the Greek in the New Testament. And as for the Vulgar Latin Edition, it is, in Whitakers opinion, (15) Whitak in his Answer to Reinolds. Pref. p. 25. 26. an old rotten Edition etc. full of faults, errors, and Corruptions. (16) De sacra Scrip. q. 5. c. 11. p. 543. then which nothing can be more faulty or distained: and, of all (17) Answer to Reinolds. p. 213 318. others most corrupt. Yea (18) Way to the Church. p. 29. I think (saith White) the Sun never saw any thing more defective and maimed, than the Vulgar Latin. But I shall shortly show, that even in the sunshyne of the Reformed Gospel, there are many Protestants Translations published, most defective, and maimed, and the vulgar Latin Translation for sincerity, confessedly to be preferred before them all. Protestant Errors. Swinglians, (19) Praefat. ●igurinae Editionis Bil. Anabaptists, and Caluinists agreed in this, that they will have no Translation of the Bible to be authentical: and they think it unjust, that the Church should be tied to any one Translation. SECT. II. It is proved by sundry Arguments, that the Vulgar Latin Translation of the Bible, is to be preferred before all Translations made by Protestants. TO make trial with M. Whitaker, and that by jurors of his own pack, whether our Vulgar Edition of the Bible, for purity and sincerity, be not much to be preferred before any Edition Protestant that ever was; first concerning the Translation of the Bible made by Luther, Swinglius writing unto him concerning the corruptions thereof, saith, (1) Tom, 2, ad Luther. l. de Sacram. pag. 412. 413. Thou dost corrupt the word of God, thou art seen to be a manifest and common Corrupter, and perverter of the holy Scriptures: how much are we ashamed of thee, who have hitherto esteemed thee beyond all measure, & now prove thee to be such a man. Keckemanus affirmeth likewise, that (2) System. 8. Theol. l. 1. pa. 188. Luther's Dutch Translation of the old Testament, especially of job, and the Prophets, hath its blemishes, and those no small ones Some few of Luther's corruptions I will only touch, as where it is said, (3) ●. Io. 5.7. There be three which give Testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost & these three be one: this being a most evident place in proof of the B. Trinity, is wholly omitted, and left out by Luther in his Dutch Bible. In like manner where it is said, (4) Rom. 3.28. We accounted a man to be justified by Faith, without the works of the Law; Luther here translateth justified by Faith, alone, so adding to the text in maintenance of his error, the word, alone; yea being admonished of this so foul a Corruption, he persisted wilful, saying, (5) Tom. 5. Germ fol. 141. 144. So I will, so I command, let my will be instead of reason etc. Luther will have it so. And concludeth lastly, the word (alone) must remain in my new Testament, although all the Papists go mad they shall not take it from thence: I am sorry that I did not also add these two words, omnibus & omnium, to wit sine omnibus operibus omnium legum, without all works of all laws. Also where it is said, (6) 2. Pet. 1.10. Wherhfore Brethrens, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your vocation and Election; Luther here omitteth those words (by good works) which yet are acknowledged to be parcel of the Text by the Protestant (7) Redemption of Mankind. p. 382. Kinnedoncius, & by our English Translations. Luther in some requital to Swinglius, rejecteth the Translations of the Swinglians, terming them in matter of Divinity, (8) See Swinglius Tom. 2. ad Luther. l. de Sacram. f. 388. 389. Fools, Asses, Antichrists, deceivers, and of a like understanding: In so much, that when Froscheverus the Swinglian Printer of Zurick sent him a Bible translated by the Divines there, Luther would not receive the same, but sending it back, rejected it, as witness Hospinian (9) Hist Sacram. part. alt. fol. 183. Lavath. hist. Sacram. f. 32. and Lavatherus. The Tigurine Translation was in like manner so distasteful to other Protestant Divines, that (10) Hospin. in Concord. Discord f. 238. The Elector of Saxony, in great anger rejected it etc. and placed Luther's Translation in room thereof, though you have seen before how foul it was. The Translation set forth by Oecolampadius, and the Divines of Basill, is reproved by Beza, who affirmeth that, (11) In Respons. ad Defens. & Respons. Castal. The Basill Translation is in many places wicked, and altogether differing from the mind of the holy Ghost The Translation of Castalio (which D. Humphrey affirmeth to be (12) De Rat. Interpret. l. 2. p. 62. 63. 189. throughly conferred, examined, and polished, and which, as Gesnerus (13) In biblioth Seb. Castal. saith, doth far surpass all the Translations of all men hitherto set forth, in like commendation whereof other Protestants (14) See Castal. Defence p. 236. & Hipperius & Melancton set before Castalios great Bible of 1573. do agreed) is nevertheless condemned by Beza, as being (15) In Test. 1556. in Praef. & in Annot. in Mat. 3. & in 1. Cor. 1. & Mat. 4. & Luc. 2. & in Act. 8. & 10. Sacrilegious, wicked, and ethnical. In so much as Castalio wrote a special Treatise in defence of his own Translation, complaining there in his Preface, and saying, Some reject our Latin and French Translations of the Bible, not only as unlearned, but also as wicked, and dissering in many places from the mind of the holy Ghost. As Concerning Caluins' Translation, that famous Protestant Carolus Molinaeus affirmeth, that (16) In sua Translat. Nou. Test. part. 12. fol. 110. Caluin in his Harmony, maketh the text of the Gospel to leap up and down, he useth violence to the letter of the Gospel, & besides this, addeth to the Text. Touching Beza's Translation, the same Molinaeus chargeth him, that (17) In Testam. part. 20. 30 40 64. 65. 66. 74. 99 & part. 8 13. 14. 21. 23. He actually changeth the Text, and giveth further sundry instances of his Corruptions. Castalio also, that (18) Osiand. cent. 16. p 753. learned Caluinist, and most skilful in the tongues, reprehendeth Beza in a whole book of this matter, and further saith, (19) In. def. Translat. p. 170. I will not note all his Errors (in Translation) for that would require a volume over great. All which but confirmeth K. james his true and learned Censure in (20) Conference before the K Majesty pa. 46 thinking the Geneva Translation to be worst of all: And his further affirming, That in the (21) Ibid. p. 47. Marginal notes annexed to the Geneva Translation, some are very partial, untrue, seditious etc. Agreably to this also saith M Parks to D. Willet, (22) Apology concerning Christ's descending into hell. at Ddd. As for the Geneva Bibles, it is to be wished, that either they may be purged from those manifold errors, which are both in the Text, and in the Margin, or else utterly prohibited. Thus far of the confessed corruptions in the foreign Protestants Translations. But to come now to our English ones, the Puritans complain unto his Majesty, that, (23) A Petition directed to his Majesty. pa. 76. Our Translation of the Psalms, comprised in our Book of Common Prayer, doth in addition, subtraction, and alteration, differ from the truth of the Hebrew in 200. places at the lest. In so much, as they rest doubtful, (24) Ib p. 75. whether a man with a safe Conscience may subscribe thereto. Yea they have written and published a special Treatise entitled, A Defence of the Ministers reasons for refusal of subscribing; the whole Argument and scope whereof, is only concerning mistranslating, and the title upon the frontispiece of every page throughout the Book, is, concerning Translations: Yea whereas it containeth 26. Chapters, the Reader may see before the beginning of the Book, the title of every such Chapter pointing to the Mistranslating there in particular handled. M. Carlisle avoucheth, that the English Translatours have (25) That Christ descended into Hell p. 116. 117. 118. 121. 144. depraved the sense, obscured the truth, and deceived the ignorant; that in many places they do detort the Scriptures from the right Sense, and that they show themselves to love darkness more than light, filshood more than truth; wherun to D. Whitaker hath no better answer then to say, (26) Answer to Rainolds p. 255. what M. Carlisle with some others hath written, against some places translated in our Bibles, maketh nothing to the purpose; I have not said otherwise, but that some things may be amended, which yet to this day, remain not amended. Yea sundry Ministers have not forborn in their great Zeal, to signify unto his Majesty, that the English Translation of the Bible, is (27) The Abridgement which the Ministers of Lincoln Diocese delivered to his Majesty p. 12. A Translation that taketh away from the Text: that (28) Ib. p 11. 12. addeth to the text, and that sometimes to the changing or obscuring of the meaning of the holy Ghost: Calling it yet further. (29) Ib p. 13. A Translation which is absurd and senseless, (30) Ib p. 13. 14. perverting in many places the meaning of the holy Ghost. In regard of which perverting the meaning of the holy Ghost, Protestants of tender Conscience make great scruple to subscribe unto them: for so doth Burges excuse himself saying, (31) Apology sec. 6. And in Covels Answer to Burges. p. 93. How shall I approve under my hand, a Translation which hath many omissions, many additions, which sometimes obscureth, sometimes perverteth the sense, being sometimes senseless, sometimes contrary. Now, in prevention of so great an evil, and scandal following, Broughton, one of the chiefest of the Puritanical Linguists, wrote an Epistle to the Lords of the Council, desiring them to procure speedily a new Translation: because that (quoth he) which is now in England, is full of Errors. And in his Advertisements of Corruptions, he telleth the Protestant Bishops, that, their public Translation of Scriptures into English is such, as that it perverteth the text of the Old Testament in 848 places, and that it causeth millions of millions to reject the New Testament, and to run to eternal flames. A dreadful saying for all Protestant Professors. Now these our Protestant English Translations, being thus confessedly corrupt, absurd, senseless, contrary, and perverting the meaning of the holy Ghost had not his Majesty just cause to affirm, that he (32) Conf. before his Majesty pa. 46. could never yet see a Bible well translated into English? From all which then it further ensueth, that our Protestant Bibles being thus falsely translated, they can be no certain and infallible means, whereby to decide Controversies in matters of Faith; Translations (according to D. Whitaker) (33) Answer to Rein p. 235. being so far forth only the word of God, as they faithfully express the meaning of the authentical text. Which none of them do, but the direct contrary is clearly here made manifest by no weaker proofs, then by their plain Confessions, to their eternal shame, and like spiritual ruin to all that follow the said Translations. Who can now expect, but that Prot. inveighing thus bitterly against all their own Translations, which yet they, and their simple followers, do daily read and follow; but that they will make most serpentine Satyrs against the Vulgar Latin, which all Catholics approve? But have a little patience, and you shall see, that as they do thus agreed to disagree in their own Translations, mutually condemning (as before) each other: so also have they upon a second and more advised Consideration, affoardedd honourable testimony even of our Vulgar Latin Translation, had from Rome, and (34) See before. sec 1. approved since by General Council: for so Beza confesseth that, (35) Annot. in Luc. 1.1. The Old Interpreter seemeth to have interpreted the holy Books with greatest Religion. (36) In Praef. nou. Test. And, I do embrace, saith he, for the most part, the Vulgar Edition, and prefer it before all others. So that with Beza, all Protestants Translations, must come behind our Vulgar. D. Humphrey confesseth that, (37) De ratione Interpret. l. 1. p. 74. The old Interpreter was much addicted to the propriety of words, and that over scrupulously, which yet, I interpret him to have done upon Religion (or Conscience) not upon ignorance. Here is he free from malice and ignorance in translating. In regard of which integrity and learning, Molinaeus signifieth his like special liking thereof saying, (38) In Nou. Test. part. 30. I can very hardly departed from the Vulgar and accustomed reading, which also I am accustomed earnestly to defend: (39) In Luc. 17. Yea I prefer the Vulgar Edition before Erasmus, Bucer, Bullinger, Brentius, the Tigurine Translation, also before john Caluin, and all others. What could be spoken more honourably for our Vulgar? And yet Conradus Pelican (40) 2. part. of the Def. of the Ministers. pag. ●6. (A man much commended by Bucer, Swinglius, Melancthon, and all famous men about Basill, Tigure, Berne &c.) addeth a far higher Commendation, in these words, (41) In Praef. in Psalter. Anno 1584. I find the Vulgar Edition of the Psalter, to agreed for the sense, with such dexterity, learning, and fidelity of the Hebrew; that I doubt no● but the Greek and latin Interpreter, was a man most learned, most Godly, and of a Prophetical Spirit. Which certainly are the best properties of a good Translator. Now, in regard of these laudable premises, D. Dove giveth wholesome counsel, saying, (42) Persuasion to Recusants. p. 16. We grant it fit, that for uniformity in quotations of places, in Schools and Pulpits, one Latin Text should be used. And we can be contented for the antiquity thereof to prefer that (to wit the Vulgar) before all other Latin books. And if the Antiquity thereof may carry with it any good respect, D. Covell will tell you, that Answ. to Burges p. 94. It was used in the Church 1300. years ago, and himself doubteth not to (44) Ibid. prefer that Translation before others: In so much that whereas the English Protestant Translations, be many and among themselves disagreeing; he concludeth, that of all those, (45) Ibid pa. 91. The approved Translation authorised by the Church of England, is that which cometh nearest to the Vulgar, and is commonly called the Bishop's Bible. Add lastly hereunto, that S. Hierome by the appointment of Pope Damasus, was author, or rather Reviewer, of this our Common Edition: In so much, that in his Preface before the new Testament dedicated to Pope Damasus, he saith thereof; You 'cause me to make a New Work of an old, that I after so many Copies of the Scriptures, dispersed through the world, should sit, as a certain judge, and determine which of them agreed with the true Greek. (46) In Catal. fine See Heb. de verbo Dei. l. 3. c. 9 I have restored the New Testament, to the truth of the Greek, and have translated the Old according to the Hebrew. (47) Praef psalt. qua est ep. 134. & in Prologo ad lib Regum. Truly I will affirm it confidently, and will produce many witnesses of this work, that I have changed nothing from the truth of the Hebrew &c. ask any of the Hebricians, and you shall clearly see it. But peradventure S. Hierome with some Protestants, willbe thought partial in his own case, let us therefore see S. Austin's worthy testimony of S. Hierome and this Translation. (48) De ciu. Dei. l. 18. c. 43. & ep 80. add Hieron. c. 3. See Greg. l 20. Mor. c. 23. Isidor. l 6. Etym c. 5. 7. & de diuin. officijs. l. 1. c. 12. Beda in Martyrolog. Cashod. 11 Instit. ca 1 l. 21 Crispinus of t●e Estate of the Church. p. 137. Fulke. ag. Rhem. jest. in 1. Cor. 14. sec. 14. pa. 548. There was not wanting (saith S. Augustine) in these our days, Hierome the Priest, a man most learned, and skilful in all the three tongues, who not from the Greek, but from the Hebrew translated the same Scriptures into latin: whose learned labour the Jews yet confess to be true; yea the truth and due respect hereof is such, that D. Whitaker (upon a more sober and stayed judgement) doth altar the former vehemency of his style saying. (49) Answer to Reinolds p. 241. S. Hierome I reverence, Damasus I commend, and the work I confess to be godly & profitable to the Church. From all this I may conclude, that the sacred Scriptures translated by Prot. cannot be to them any certain judge in matters of faith, seeing all the said Translations are confessedly false, corrupt and impious: and further, that in all their Disputes, Pulpits, and Writings, they are bound to follow our Vulgar Edition, seeing themselves prefer it for truth and sincerity, before all others. SECT. III. Objections against the Vulgar Translation, answered. IT is objected, that we we are rather to have recourse to the fountains of the Hebrew and Greek, which were written by Prophets and Apostles, who could not err, whereas the latin Translations are of diverse interpreters, who may err. Answer. The fountains or originals are to be preferred before Translations, when it is certain that the fountains are pure, and not troubled or corrupt; but it is most certain, that they are in some places corrupted. And it may truly be thought, that as the Latin Church was ever more constant in keeping true faith, than the Greek: so it was always more careful in preserving the Scriptures from corruption. And though it be true, that an Interpreter may err, yet in that which the Church hath approved, he hath not erred in any matter of faith or manners, though some smaller errors of Printers I do not deny. Chemnitius objecteth that these words (Ipsa (1) Gen. 3. conteret caput tuum) are corrupted, that thereby we may prove the Intercession of the blessed Virgin Mary: And that instead thereof, we should read, Ipsum conteret caput tuum, seeing it was spoken of the seed, which ●as Christ, as all ancient writers do teach. Answ. 1. Some books of the Vulgar Edition have Ipsa, and some others ipse. 2. Though many Hebrew books have ipse, yet there hath not wanted some which have ipsa, and the points being taken away, the Heword may be translated ipsa. (2) L. 2. de Gen. cont. Manich. c 18. & l. 51 de Genisi ad Literam c. 36. Amb. l. de fuga saeculi. c. 7. Chrysost. hom. 17. in Gen. Greg. l. 1. Mor c 38. Beda & alij in hunc locum. And, ipsa, is read by S. Austin, S. Ambrose, S. chrysostom, S. Gregory, Bede, and sundry others. And though the word, Conteret, in the Hebrew be of the Masculine gender, and so should relate to Semen, which also in Hebrew is of the Masculine gender; yet it is not rare in the (3) Ruth. 1.8. Ester. 1.20. Eccles. 12.5. Scriptures to have Pronouns and verbs of the Masculine gender, to be joined with Nouns of the feminine. He likewise urgeth, that in these words, (4) Gen. 14. Melchisdech Rex salem proferens panem & vinum, erat enim Sacerdos Dei altissimi, the word obtulit, and the Conjunction enim, are not in the Hebrew, but so translated, in proof of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Answ. The Vulgar Edition hath not obtulit, but protulit, and the Conjunction is in the Hebrew equivalently. Lastly, he objecteth, that in these words (5) Eccles. 16. Misericordia faciet locum unicuique secundum meritum operum suorum, that the word merit, is not in the Greek, but added to prove the merit of works. Answ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth signify in Latin most properly, pro meritis operum, for the merit of their works. Such poor stuff do Heretics find against our Vulgar Translation. CHAP. VII. The true State of the Question, concerning Traditions. Whether, besides the sacred Scriptures, or written word of God, there be not another word of God, not written, which is called Traditions. And whether their authority be certain and infallible, in deciding matters of Faith. SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. HAVING hitherto proved, that neither the Scriptures of themselves, nor as conferred together, nor yet as expounded by the Private Spirit, can be our sole Rule of Faith, or judge of all Controversies; It now next followeth, that I speak of the word not written, but delivered from Christ or his Apostles, by word of mouth: In which the Catholic Church knowing, that the truth of the Gospel, which was first taught by Christ, and afterwards by his Apostles, (1) Concil. Trident. Decret. de Canon. Scriptures. is contained in the written Books, and Traditions not written, which being received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ, or from the Apostles themselves, the holy Ghost teaching them, as it were, from hand to hand delivered, have come unto us: The Church (I say) following the Examples of the Orthodoxal Fathers, receiveth and reverenceth with like affection of piety, all the Books aswell of the Old Testament as the New seeing one God is the author of both; as also the Traditions belonging both to faith and manners, as taught from the mouth of Christ, or from the holy Ghost, and by continual succession preserved in the Catholic Church. Here the Council receiveth & reverenceth, with like piety, the word written, and not written, to wit, Traditions. The second Council of Nice decreeth thus, (2) Act. 7. p. 686. Tom. 3. We confess with one consent, that we will keep Ecclesiastical Traditions, whether by writing or custom, being in force and decreed etc. Again, These things being so going the King's high way, and continuing in the Doctrine of the holy Fathers, and the Catholic Church, in which the holy Ghost dwelleth, observing Traditions we do define etc. who shall dare to think otherwise, or teach, or after the Custom of wicked Heretics to violate Ecclesiastical Traditions etc. If they be Bishops or Clergy men, let them be deposed, if monks or lay men, let them be excommunicate etc. If any shall not regard the Traditions of the Church being in force, whether by writing or Custom, let him be accursed. In the eight General Council it is defined, that (3) Act. 10. The great Apostle Paul doth clearly admonish us, To keep the Traditions which we have received, whether by speech, or by the Epistle of holy men, who have formerly shined. In the Council of Sens, it is taught that, (4) Decret. 5. It is dangerous to be in that Error, that nothing is to be thought to be admitted which is not drawn from Scripture: for many things are derived from Christ to posterity by the hands of the Apostles, from mouth to mouth etc. which though they seem not to be expressly contained in sacred Scripture, yet they come to be holden without all doubt. That sundry things are to be received, believed, and observed by Tradition, which are not expressly taught by the Scriptures, it is generally acknowledged by all (5) Bellar. de verbo Dei l. 4 c. 3. Rhem. Test p. 559. in 2. Thess. 2. Catholics. Protestants Untruths. Caluin affirmeth, that (6) Instit l. 4. c. 10. §. 19 The Romish masters will urge, that there is not any little Ceremony with them, which is not to be judged Apostolical: but Caluin cannot allege any one of those masters, so much as intimating any such thing. Chemnitius avoucheth us to teach, that (7) Exam. Sess. 4. p. 68 God appointed that the Doctrine of Christ, and his Apostles, should not be written in books, but only delivered by word of mouth: And (8) Ibid. pag. 18●. himself affirmeth, that the Apostles were commanded to writ. But both these are untrue, and the truth in the mean; for we do not teach that God prohibited the foresaid writing, for then the Apostles and Evangelists should have sinned in writing: neither can he prove, that God did command it, as shall appear hereafter. Again, speaking of some words in the Consecration of the Chalice, he saith, (9) Ibid. pa. 410. Popish writers have noted by what Roman Bishops they were added. But this is most false, for though they have noted, what other parts of the Canon of the Mass were added, and by whom, yet not any one is noted to have added any thing to the words of Consecration. Yet further, (10) Ibid. If any one shall but show himself to doubt, that all the Canon of the Mass is from Apostolical Tradition, he is to be accursed. But this is gross forgery, for though we say, that the chiefest part of the Canon is from Apostolical Tradition, yet we deny not, but that there is commemoration made of diverse Saints, who lived above 200. years after Christ. And again: (11) L. Theol. jesuit. etc. Reader, thou shalt observe in this place, what difference jesuites make between the Written Traditions of the Apostles, and those which themselves do invent under the name of the Apostles; They say, those that are written, are arbitrary (or may be changed at pleasure) but those that are feigned, to bind under peril of salvation. Who would think, that any man should run the peril of Damnation, for the belying of jesuits, not being able to show the lest proof thereof. john White very wisely thinketh, that Traditions (12) Way to the true Church. p. 3. being once admitted, every Friar's dream, and base Custom of the Romish Church shallbe thrust upon you for an Article of Religion necessary to Eternal life. It seems the poor man thought that Catholics are as simple as himself. Melancthon blushed not to say, (13) L. Concordiae. p. 188. In Apolog. Art 15. Great books are extant, yea whole Libraries containing not one syllable of Christ, of faith in Christ, of good works for every man's vocation, but only gathering Traditions. And (14) Lib. Concor. p. 263. in Apol. de Potest. Ecclesiast. they require their Traditions to be observed more exactly than the Gospel. The (15) Def. of the Articles Art 6. p. 29. Papists (saith M. Rogers) more cruelly do punish the violators of their own Traditions and Ordinances, than they do the breakers of God's Commandments. But certainly Rogers, and his lying Brethrens, willbe cruelly punished for feygning such Impostures, and broaching such incredible lies. Protestant Doctrine. The English Church hath decreed, that the (16) Art 6. holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation: So that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an Article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation. Hear it teacheth, that nothing is to be believed or thought necessary to salvation, which is not proved by Scripture. And now you shall hear what it thinketh of Traditions. Whitaker expressly saith, (17) Controu. 1. quaest. 3. c. 10. p. 327. We do not respect Traditions not written. (18) Reform. Cath. contro. 20. c. 2. We do acknowledge (saith Perkins) only the written word of God. According to Caluin, (19) In gratulat. ad Praecentorem. p. 377. Nothing is to be believed, which is not expressed in Scripture. Yea, saith Beza, (20) In Rom. 1.17. Christians do acknowledge no other object of that faith, than the written word of God. But I shown a little before how hardly they treated their sole object of faith, the written word of God: And I shall shortly make it appear, that they are enforced to acknowledge another object of faith, even unwritten Traditions. Protestants agreed with ancient Heretics. The (21) Donatists in their Disputations, (2) Aug l. de unitate Eccl. c. 19 urged only the Scriptures, and S. Austin objected to them Traditions, & the custom of the Church. For the same Error were the Arrians condemned by S. Epiphanius (22) Haer. 75. Aug. count. Maximin. l. 1. c. ●. & vlt. and S. Austin: the Eunomians by S. Basil: (23) L. de Spir. Sancto. c. 27. 29. the Nestorians, Eutichians, and others by the 7. (24) Act. 1. Synod; and the Apostolicks by (25) Hom. 66. in Cantic. S. Bernard. From such infamous Ancestors are our modern Sectaries descended, who deny all Traditions, and the word of God not written. SECT. II. It is proved by the Sacred Scriptures, that besides themselves, or the written word, there are certain Traditions of the Church or word of God, not written, which we are bound likewise to believe and observe. IT is evident, that Moses, (1) Exod. 24.4. Who wrote all the words of our Lord, was (as (2) Perk. Reform Cath. p. 133. Whitak. de sacra Scrip. p. 99 583. 752. Zanch. de sacra Scrip. p. 133. Perkins, Whitaker, and Zanchius confess) the first penman of holy Scripture: And yet before his time the Church continued two thousand years, only by Tradition without Scripture: whereby it is evident that during all that time before Moses, the true believers were not instructed, nor their differences decided by Scripture which was not then written, but otherwise by Tradition of the Church of those times. But (3) Reform. Cath. p. 133. Whitak de sacra Scrip. p. 752. Perkins and Whitaker do answer hereunto, that, God during all that time, supplied the want of Scriptures by apparitions to the patriarchs. But this is only imagined, for in the written apparitions, no such thing doth appear: for the patriarchs unto whom he so appeared before Moses' time, were (4) Gen. 14.6. Cain, at what time Abel was so religious, that he (5) Gen. 4.4. offered of the first begotten of his flock etc. and our Lord had respect to Abel and to his gifts. Also No, (6) Gen. 6.13. & 7.1. & 8.15. & 9.1. who being likewise faithful, (7) Gen. 8.20. built an Altar to our Lord etc. & offered holocausts upon the Altar. Abraham, (8) Gen. 12.1. & 13.14. & 15.1. & 17.1. & 18.13. at what time God made or repeated the promise to him, not then instructing him in any point of faith which Abraham had forgotten, for Abraham then believed, and (9) Gen. 12.7. builded an Altar to our Lord. Isaac, (10) Gen. 26.2.24. to whom he also rehearsed the foresaid promise, Isaac being then so faithful, as that (11) Gen. 26.25. he builded an Altar, and called upon the name of our Lord. Lastly he appeared to jacob, (12) Gen. 28.13. to whom he renewed the same promise, jacob being at that time so faithful, as that God then said to him, (13) Gen. 28.15. I willbe thy keeper whither soever thou goest. The Apparitions therefore of God unto the patriarchs before Moses' time, were not to supply the Scriptures want, by instructing them in any Points of their Religion then formerly forgotten, for it appeareth fully by the Premises, that the patriarchs, to whom these Apparitions were made before Moses' time, were at the time of the said Apparitions, not forgetful of God's Law, but faithful and Zealous therein: And therefore the Apparitions so made to them, were not to instruct them in Doctrine then forgotten, but to signify to them Gods other pleasure: which truth is yet more evident, in that aswell in (14) Exod. 3.4. & 4.1. & 6.1. Nu. 12.4. Moses' time, as also after (15) jos 1.2. & 4.1. & 7.10. judic. 6.39. & 7.2. & 10 10. & 20 23. & 1. Reg. 3 10.17. & 8 7. & 15.10. & 16. ●. & 23.4. & 2. Reg. 2.1. & 7.4. & 3. Re. 3.5. & 9.2. the same, when the Scriptures were extant, God used Apparitions, no less than before. After the law was written, it was yet for many years lost, during which time, yet the jews continued true believers, (16) 4. Reg. 22.8. Helcias the high Priest, said to Saphan the scribe, I have found the Book of the law, in the house of our Lord: Of which book (17) Marginal notes of the English Bible of 1578. in the 2. Reg. 22.8. And Sparks in his Answ. to Albin. pa. 56. Protestant's thus say, This was the Copy which Moses left them, as appeareth 2. Chron. 34.14. which either by negligence of the Priests, had been lost, or else by the wickedness of Idolatrous kings, had been abolished. It is likewise certain, that after the Captivity, (18) 4. Esdras 14.22. See Irenaeus l. 3. c. 25. Tertul. l de habit. mul. Esdras did either restore the Books of Scripture, as being before time lost for many years, or else (as some ancient (19) Chrisost. ep. ad Heb. hom. 8. Theodoret. Praef. in in Psalmos. Fathers think) did collect and gather the Scriptures, into certain Volumes, as being then before dispersed, and disordered, or (as D. Cowper (20) Chronicle fol. 50. thinketh) scattered and destroyed. And it is no less certain, that sundry parts of Scripture are yet to this day wanting, as the Book (21) Num. 21.14. of the wars of our Lord: (22) joshua 10.13. & 2. Reg. 1.18. The Book of the Just: (23) 2. Paral. 20.34. The book of jehu the son of Hanani; (24) 2. Paral 12.15. The Books of Semeias the Prophet, and of Addo: (25) 1. Reg. 10.25. The Book which Samuel wrote: (26) 1. Paral. 9.29. & see 2. Par. 26.23. & 2. Par. 33.19. The words of Nathan the Prophet: the Books of Ahias the Silovite: the vision of Addo, besides many Parables and verses of Solomon, for he spoke (27) 3. Reg. 4.32. three thousand Parables; and his songs were a thousand and five. It is also certain, that (28) Col. 4.16. S. Paul writ an epistle to the Laodiceans, and peradventure another (29) 1. Co. 5.9. to the Corinthians. Whereof Caluin upon these words, (30) 1. Co. 5.9. I wrote to you in an Epistle, saith (31) In 1. Cor. 5. This Epistle is not extant at this day, and no doubt, but that many others have perished. But it sufficeth, that there remain to us, those which the Lord foresaw to suffice And Luther upon these words, (32) Ose 10.14. As Salamana was destroyed by his house that took vengeance on Baal in the day of battle etc. teacheth that, (33) In Ose. 10. This History is no where else extant in the Scriptures, and many such like things have happened which are not written; as that which judas hath in his Epistle of Michael contending with Satan for Moses his body. Mention also is made in the Epistle of jude, (34) Ver. 14. of Enoch his Prophecy, which yet is not to be read in any other part of the Scripture: as neither the names of jannes' & Mambres the Egyptian Magicians, but only in (35) 2. Tim. 3.8. S. Paul This loss and want of these Scriptures, Is a thing so evident, that Zanchius confesseth that, (36) De sacra Script. p. 117. There were other Books inspired by God etc. of which we have most certain Testimonies in the Scriptures, but they have perished, especially at the burning of the Temple, and the destruction of the City, when the people were taken into Babylon: those that are wanting, are the Book of the wars of our Lord, the Book of the Just, the Book of Nathan the Prophet, the words of Ahias the Silonite, the visions of Addo, many Proverbs and verses of Solomon. Agreably whereunto saith Whitaker, (37) De sacra Script. p. 593. we grant somethings now to be wanting, which long since were in the Canon of Scriptures. And according to Willet, (38) Syno●. 1. Controu. q. 4. ●. 21. 36. It is not to be doubted, but that some part of the Canonical Scripture is lost. All this notwithstanding, such is the ignorant boldness of D. Morton, that he denyeth (39) Apol. pa●s 2. l. 1. e. ●4. Any Canonical Book of the Old Testament, or that Epistle of the New Testament to the Laodiceans, to have perished. But now from these clear and confessed Premises, I may strongly argue, that if the Church and true faith have for many years be●n preserved, before any Scripture was written, and after when it was lost, and yet to this day we have nor the entire and full Canon of the Bible, but still many books are wanting; than it evidently followeth, that by Tradition true faith and Religion hath been taught and preserved; and the written word, neither is, or can be our sole and perfect Rule of faith, seeing we have not the whole Canon ●hereof. And I will suppose for the present, that none willbe so absurd as to affirm, that any one Book, the Apocalypse for Example, is a sufficient square or Rule of all our faith. And if any one should be so mad, as to affirm it, then must I demand, what part that is, and why that, rather than another? To which demand the best answer willbe his deepest silence; and so the whole Canon of the Scripture cannot be the sole and perfect Rule of faith, seeing the whole Canon is not extant, neither will any one parcel be assigned, which containeth all matter of faith. Perkins and Hospinian perceiving how convincing this was in proof of Traditions, thought it still better, though over boldly, yet plainly to deny, that any Scripture was lost: I take it to be a truth (saith (40) Reform. Cath p. 145. Hospinian Hist Sacram. p. 463.464. Perkins) though some think otherwise, that no part of the Canon is lost etc. Again to hold that any Books of Scripture should be lost, calls into question God's providence: But this being directly contrary to the former Scriptures, and to the judgement of other more learned Protestants, I omit all further Confutation thereof. And will only add, that so many books thus perished, being all of them divine, and inspired by the holy Ghost, were not superfluous or less necessary, than these other parcels which we have, and therefore though these which are extant, be very profitable, yet they are not absolutely necessary, no more than those that have perished; wherefore it is the word which is placed in the mouths of Bishops & Priests, which shall never perish. (41) 1. Pet. 1, 25. The word of our Lord remaineth for ever, and this is the word which is evangelized among you. Agreeable to this are the ancient Prophecies, (42) Malach. 2.7. The lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge, and the law they shall require of his mouth, because he is the Angel of our Lord. (43) Isa. 59.21. And, this is my Covenant with them▪ saith our Lord: my Spirit that is in thee, and my words that I have put in thy mouth, shall not departed out of thy mouth, and out of the mouth of thy seed, and out of the mouth of thy seeds seed, saith our Lord, from this present and for ever; which certainty of continuance, we no where found to be promised to the written word. But to proceed yet further, though Moses writ the Law, yet somethings did he deliver by Tradition, where of not obscure mention is made in the fourth Book of Esdras, where it is said in the person of God, touching Moses, (44) C. 14. 4. 6. 16. See Orig ho. 5. in Numeros. Hilar in Psalm 2. Euseb. hist. l. 7. c. 28. & l. 4. c. 21. I brought him upon Mount Sina, and held him with me many days, etc. And I commanded him saying, These words thou shalt publish abroad, and these thou shalt hide. And to omit, that these truths following, were not found written in the Old Testament, but continued by Tradition, the miraculous Pond upon Probatica at Jerusalem, recorded by S. john, (45) C 5. 2. the prayer of Elias concerning rain, whereof (46) C. 5 17. S. james speaketh: The altercation between S. Michael and the devil about Moses his body, which (47) Ver. 9 S. jude mentioneth: as also that jannes' & Mambres resisted Moses, whereof (48) 2. Tim. 3.8. S. Paul writeth: But I say, to omit all these, we found it contained in the Old Testament, that in remedy of Original sin, Circumcision was ordained, only for the Male Children of the jews, and that not before the eight day, whereof it is said, (49) Gen. 17.22.14. An Infant of eight days shallbe Circumcised among you, all malekind in your Generations etc. The male, whose flesh of his prepuce, shall not be circised, that soul shallbe destroyed out of his people, because he hath broken my Covenant: But what means or remedy God used herein, either with male Children dying before the eight day, with women, or with the Gentle believers, we find it not expressed in the Scriptures, and yet the knowledge hereof was necessary to Salvation. And whereas D. Whitaker would evade in behalf of women, only by affirming that in respect of their remedy from Original sin, the (50) De sacra Scrip. q. 6 fol. 598. unmarried (women) did pertain to their Parents, and the married to their husbands, being as it were circumcised in them; this is barely affirmed, not proved by any place of the Old Testament, and therefore indeed it impugneth D. Whitaker himself, and other Protestants, who teach that all matters of Salvation are taught in Scripture. Secondly, this nothing helpeth the Male Children dying before the eight day, or the Gentle believers. And thirdly if the women unmarried had their remedy herein by their Circumcised Fathers, what need they further remedy, when afterwards they were married by their husbands? So impertinent, wanting, and absurd is this Evasion of D. Whitaker. From Moses' time until Christ, when the Scriptures were extant, they were yet reserved only with the jews, & yet nevertheless there were many true believers in other (51) See Aug. de Ci●, l. 18. c. 47. de peccat Orig. l. 2. c. 24. l. 1. de Praedest. Sunct. c. 9 Nations, as with job his friends, and others. Yea the jews themselves who had the Scriptures did notwithstanding depend especially upon the Tradition of their forefather's, accordingly as is said: (52) Deut. 32.7. Remember the old days, think upon every Generation: Ask thy Father and he will declare to thee: the Elders and they will tell thee: (53) job. 8.8. Ask the old generation & search diligently the memory of the Fathers, for we are as but yesterday etc. and they shall teach thee etc. (54) Ecclesiastic. 8.11. Let not the narration of the Ancient escape thee, for they learned of their Fathers: because of them thou shalt learn understanding etc. So evident it is, that during the Old Testament, both jews and Gentiles believed many things only by Tradition. To come now to the New Testament, we find that Christ our Saviour intended to have all things preached, & therein gave special Commandment to his Apostles, saying, (55) Mat. 28.19. Teach ye all Nations, baptising them and teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And (56) Mar. 16.15. going into the whole world preach the Gospel to all Creatures. But that he intended to have all things written, we find not: for had his intention herein been the like, it would have appeared in the Scriptures by his like Commandment, which it no where doth. Secondly had our Saviour intended to have all things written, & so, not the Church, but the Scriptures to be the only Rule of faith, then doubtless would he have left certain direction and knowledge which had been the Scriptures, and not have left it to the Tradition and judgement of his Church, as shallbe (57) See hereafter sec. 4. proved hereafter. And though Chemnitius (58) Exam. part. 2. f. 42. objecteth against this, that Christ commanded S. john to writ a Book: Yet this is answered by these words in the same place, (59) Apoc. 1.11. That which thou seest writ in a book, to wit, his Revelations, which neither do contain all points of faith, whereof the now Question is, as also are so obscure and mystical, that according to Luther, (60) Prologue. in Apoc. no man can understand them. In like sort though the Apostles according to Christ's command preached all needful points of faith, yet they never intended to set down in writing all such points; for whereas they preached the Gospel without expectation of any occasion, they did not yet undertake to writ, but when they were provoked thereto by some urgent cause, accordingly as M. Hooker affirmeth, that, (61) Eccl. Pol. l. 1 sec. 15. p. 87. The several Books of Scripture are written upon some several occasion, and particular purpose etc. So did S. Matthew at his departure from the Hebrews, writ his Gospel to them, (62) Hist. l. 3. c. 18. provoked thereunto (as Eusebius saith) by certain necessity. So likewise did S. Mark writ his Gospel urged thereto by the earnest (63) Euseb. Hist. l 2. c. 14. request of the Romans. And whereas many (as may be gathered from (64) Luc. 1.1. Eus. Hist. l. 3. c. 18. S. Luke and Eusebius) did presume to writ of of our Saviour, and his actions, not having perfect notice thereof, upon this occasion did S. Luke writ his Gospel, the which labour he did especially (65) Luc. 1. ●. 4. undertake for Theophilus. In like manner did (66) Euseb. his. l. 3. c. 18. S. john preach the Gospel till his last age without Scripture; & did (as S. (67) De Scriptoribus Ecclesiast. Hierome affirmeth) take occasion to writ, by reason of the Ebionites, whose heresy was then arising. S. Paul also did writ his Epistles upon like special occasions, as that to the Romans, and the other to the Galathians, (68) See the Argument upon the Epistle to the Galathians in the Engl. Bible of 1576. against such as thought Circumcision needful (that opinion being then an error of those (69) Act. 15. 1. beginning times.) The other Epistles of S. Peter, james, john, and jude, were written against certain Heretics, who misunderstanding S. Paul (as S. Peter (70) 2. Pet. 3.16. noteth of some) did thereupon teach, that faith only without works sufficed to salvation: Of which very point S. Austin saith, (71) De fide & operibus. c. 14. Because this opinion was then began, other Apostolical Epistles of Peter, john, james, jude, do chief direct their intention against it, that they might strongly confirm, Faith without works to profit nothing. And a little before, he likewise writeth that, Even in the Apostles time, certain obscure sayings of Paul the Apostle not being understood, some thought, that he affirmed the same. By all which it is evident, that the Apostles and Evangelists, did writ their books, not by any command from Christ, but upon some or other accidental occasion urging them thereto. We do not read that the Apostles were sent to writ, but to preach, and so accordingly all of them preached, whereas the greater part of them writ nothing at all. And of those which did writ, some testify, that their intent in writing, was not to set down the Law, (72) Rom. 15.14.15. 2. Pet. 1.13.15. 2. Pet. 3.1. but only to exhort, comfort and admonish them, to whom they writ of such things, as they had formerly taught them. And S. john expressly denyeth, that he hath comprehended in writing all such things, as were worthy writing, and that he will deliver the rest by word of mouth, (73) 2. Io. ver. 12.3. Io. ver. 13.14. Having more things to writ unto you, I would not by paper and ink: for I hope that I shallbe with you, and speak mouth to mouth, that your joy may be full. Now that these things which the Apostles did not writ, but teach by word of mouth were matters also of weight and belonging to faith, S. Paul assureth us in these words, (74) 1. Thess. 3.10. Night and day more abundantly praying, that we may see your face, and may accomplish those things that want of your faith. So evident it is, that the Apostles besides their writings, did preach other things which were wanting to their faith. This truth yet further appeareth by order of their writings, for the Evangelists did not purposely set down in their Ghospels' principles of faith, but penned only historically, and by way of Narration, a brief abstract of our Saviour's Acts, especially those wherein were fulfilled the Prophecies foretold of him. And so also did S. Luke accordingly set down in his Acts, the Ecclesiastical history of those times. In like manner the Apostles in their Epistles, do but treat obiter of matters of faith, discoursing thereof, as also of other matters nothing pertaining to faith, casually and as occasion is ministered, which occasion is for the most part but particular, concerning only but sometimes a special people, as the Romans, Corinthians etc. sometimes but private persons, as Titus, Timothy etc. And (which is most worthy of observation) all their Epistles be written to such persons only as were then before converted to the faith, which thing was done, as Swinglius acknowledgeth, not so much to instruct, as to confirm. His words are, (75) Tom. 2. l. de Ecclesiast. fol. 43. In the times of the Apostles, there was not any of the new Testament written, but the Apostles as yet taught by word of mouth: Epistles were sent to and fro, not so much to instruct, as to confirm, in the faith before received. Now had the Apostles intention in writing been such, & so full as it was in their preaching, then like as they preached generally to all, so likewise their writings would have been written indifferently for all. Again, if the intention or occasion of the Apostles had been to writ all needful points of faith, then doubtless like as our Saviour did, (76) Act. 13. after his passion appear to them for forty days speaking of the Kingdom of God, & as then (77) See Clement. apud Euseb. l. 2. c. 1. & Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 10. Col. 581. Fulke against Rhem. Test. in Apoc. c. 1. fol. 463. instructing them in all needful points of faith; so also they all, or some one of them, would in like manner have employed his labour, to have set down the same specially in writing, and being assisted by the holy Ghost, would accordingly have performed the same: Nay it followeth heerupon, that every of them who did writ (this being according to Protestant's the occasion of his writing) should have performed the same. And so by this reason S. judes' Epistle, for example, only should be sufficient. And whereas D. Whitaker answereth heerto, that the Apostles (78) De sacra Scrip. q. 6. p. 597. knew that God would so govern their wills and hands, that those whom it behoved should writ, & should writ so much as should suffice, and that in time they should do all things; & so, that they had a general intention or notice, that what was wanting in one man's writings, should be supplied in another: this neither doth satisfy, for the Apostles being dispersed into sundry Nations, did not for the most, especially at the time of their writing, so much as know one of others writings, much less than did or could they writ, with intention to supply what was wanting in others writings: which appeareth yet more fully, in that one and the same writer, as namely S. Paul, in sundry of his Epistles, doth handle for the most part, one and the same matter, as in his Epistle to the Romans, and the other to the Galathians: and also the Evangelists do in like manner, for the most part, discourse and make mention of sundry matters; which are in others of them fully set down: which their doing were superfluous, had their occasion of writing been to supply what was wanting in others. Upon all which premises I do conclude, that the holy Ghost did not intent or command, that the Apostles and Evangelists should writ all needful points of faith, seeing none, or all of them did ever perform the same. But what more convincing for Traditions, than those express words of S. Paul, Therefore (79) 2. Th●ss. 2. .15 Brethrens stand, and hold the Traditions which you have learned, whether it he by word, or our Epistle; so plainly affirming that some things be taught by word, others by writing. This place is so powerful, that it enforceth Protestant's to very desperate shifts. D. Reinolds answereth, that, (80) Def. of the Posit. p. 335. by the word speech (or word) S. Paul comprehendeth other Scriptures, and so confoundeth and maketh all one, speaking and writing, which is to make S. Paul to speak most absurdly. But these not satisfying, D. Reinolds (81) Conference fol. 456. 689. answereth further, that though the Apostle here mentioneth Traditions, delivered to the Thessalonians by word, yet those Traditions also were (though unwritten to them yet) contained elsewhere in the Scriptures: for it appeareth in the (82) C. 17.3. Acts, where the history is written, and those Traditions set down, that S. Paul preached to the Thessalonians, that, it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again, and that he is jesus Christ whom the Apostle preached. Now, this Doctrine being the Tradition, which he meant in the place objected, and which he delivered to them by word, is manifestly contained, though not in his said Epistle to the Thessalonians, yet in other Scriptures. But the weakness of this Answer appeareth many ways, for first it is without colour, unless it could be proved, that the Apostle by those Traditions delivered by word, did understand only that doctrine, which is here alleged out of the Acts, which D. Reinolds neither doth, nor could prove. Secondly the Doctrine alleged out of the Acts, was before written by him to the Thessalonians themselves in his first Epistle, wherein he instructeth them touching out Saviour, that he is (83) 1. Thes. 2.15.19. jesus Christ, and that jesus was killled, and raised up from the dead, and therefore the Apostle speaking in the place by me objected of Traditions delivered by word, cannot be thought to mean thereby this only doctrine which he delivered to the same persons before by writing; his words implying so plain diversity of Traditions, which be taught them either by word or writing. Thirdly the foresaid answer is without all probability, unless it can be showed that all the doctrine which S. Paul taught the Thessalonians, is wholly expressed in that place of the Acts; for if all be not there written, how then can it from thence be known, what those Traditions delivered by word are, whereof the Apostle speaketh in his said Epistle to the Thessalonians. And that all such Doctrine as S. Paul did teach the Thessalonians, should be set down in that place of the Acts, it cannot be showed; yea the contrary is evident, for as he taught them by writing many things concerning Antichrist, (84) 2. Thess. 2.5. the judgement (85) Ib. ver. 2.3. day, and other matters (86) Ib. ●. 3.9. not mentioned in that said place of the Acts: so doubtless he did preach by word no less to them, than he did to his other hearers, (87) Act. 20.27. all the Counsel of God, and concealed from them (88) Act. 20. ●0. nothing that was profitable, but preached it to them; all which cannot be found expressed in that place of the Acts. Fourthly the Apostle did by these Traditions of his, delivered either by word or writing, understand his universal doctrine, concerning all needful points of faith; but that all this was written in S. Paul's time, much less at the time of his writing this his Epistle to the Thessalonians, cannot be proved; but to the Contrary it is certain, that many parts of the New Testament were written after this Epistle: from whence it followeth, that the Apostle by the foresaid words, did refer the Thessalonians to be instructed, not only by the Scriptures, because they were not all then extant, but also by the Tradition of Doctrine, which was then unwritten. This truth is so clear, that it is confessed by D. Whitaker, saying; (89) De sacra Script. q. 6. fol. 630. How is it like, if these things were so fully written, that the Apostle should make any mention of Traditions: but because he perceived that these things, were not yet written, he therefore warneth the Thessalonians, that these Traditions were to be kept. And the same is acknowledged by (90) Reform. Cath. p. 142. M. Perkins: so many ways, and so confessedly is this Evasion insufficient against so clear a Text of Scripture. Wherefore D. Whitaker and M. Perkins, perceiving the insufficiency of Reinolds reply, do further answer, that though these Traditions delivered them by word, were at that time unwritten, that yet they were afterwards written, and are now to be found in the Scriptures: But this they barely say without all proof; and yet admitting so much, it thereby is granted, that S. Paul did refer the Thessalonians, for that time, to Tradition, even in things necessary, as D. Whitaker (91) Vbi supra. and M. Perkins are forced to confess. But if in things necessary, then idle is that other Evasion related by D. Whitaker, saying; (92) Controu, 1. q. 6. c. 10. Others think Paul to speak of certain external things and Ceremonies, not of very great moment: But this neither can be proved, but is only nakedly affirmed. I may also add hereunto that of S. john, (93) Ep. 2. ver. 12. Having, more things to writ unto you, I would not impart them by paper and ink. Also of S. Paul 94 1. Cor. 11.34. The rest I will dispose when I come. And speaking of Christ's Priesthood, he saith, 95 Heb. 5.12. Of whom I have great speech, and inexplieable to viter. And to Timothy, 96 1. Tim. c. 6.20. O Timothy keep the Depositum. To the Corinthians, 97 1. Cor. 11.2. I praise you Brethrens, that in all things you be mindful of me, and as I have delivered unto you, you keep my Precepts, or Traditions according to the Greek. Yea he termeth the Corinthians. The Epistle of Christ written 98 2. Cor. 3.2. not with ink, but with the Spirit, if the living God, not in Table of stone, but in tables Carnal of the hart. According to which, the Holy Ghost prophesieth of the New Testament by Hieremy, saying, (99) Higher, 31, 33. I will put my law into their bowels, and in their hearts will I writ it. So manifest it is, that the Apostles delivered many things by word and not by writing. Protestants perceiving the former Scriptures to be so plain, that none of the foresaid answers do any thing satisfy, they wage a new war against the Scriptures themselves, tearing the same in pieces, by many and several corruptions. As first Beza (a man in this kind most expert & audacious) in his (100) Of Anno 1598. And see him in Whitaker. Controu 1. q 6 c. 10. Translation, changeth in S. Paul's words, 2. Thess. 2.15. the disiunctive particle, siue (Whether) into the Coniunctive, tum (both) in this manner; Hold the Traditions which you are taught, both by word, as also by our Epistle. And in another (101) Apud Tremelium. Edition he likewise translateth the Text thus, Hold the Doctrine delivered which you are taught, & per sermonem, & per Epistolam, both by speech and Epistle. Where for Traditions, he putteth Doctrine delivered, which word Doctrine, is his own addition, which he maketh also in the singular number, whereas the true word Traditions, is both in Greek and Latin in the plural: and he also changeth Whether, into and, whereas between those two words, there is no less difference then between Beza, and an honest man. But such is the hatred of other Prot. besides Beza against Traditions, that wheresoever the Scripture speaketh against certain Traditions of the jews, partly frivolous, partly repugnant to the Law of God; there all the English Translations follow the (102) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Greek exactly, never omitting this word Tradition: but where it speaketh in commendation of Traditions, to wit such as the Apostles delivered to the Church; there none follow the Greek, which is the selfsame word. For example thus they translate, (103) Mat. 15.2.3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Why do thy Disciples transgress the Traditions of the Elders? And again, why do you also transgress the Commandment of God by your Tradition? And again, you have made frustrate the Commandment of God, for your Traditions. here's still the word Tradition. But now concerning good Traditions, the Apostle by the selfsame word, both in Greek & Latin, saith thus, Therefore (104) 2. Thess. 2.15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Brethrens stand and hold fast the Traditions which you have learned, either by word, or by our Epistle. And again, Withdraw (105) 2. Thess 3.6. yourselves from every Brother walking inordinately, and not according to the Traditions which they have received of us. And again according to the Greek, (106) 1. Cor. 11.2. I praise you Brethrens that in all things you are mindful of me, and as I have delivered unto you, you keep my Traditions, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But in all these places instead of Traditions they translate either, ordinances, instructions, preachings, institutions, or the like. And Beza as before, (107) 2. Thess. 2. & 3. traditam doctrinam, putting the Singular number for the Plural, and adding, Doctrine, of his own. Yea they use the word Tradition, when it may tend to the discredit thereof, it not being in the Greek Text, (108) Col. 2.20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. as, Why as though living in the world are yeeled with Traditions? Or as the Translation of Anno 1579. hath, Why, are ye burdened with Traditions? And yet a little before, (109) Col. 2.14. & Epb. 2.15. they translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ordinances, decrees: and therefore why not now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quid decernitis, why do you ordain or decree, or why are you led with decrees? their Translation cannot be justified, either by Scriptures, Fathers, or Lexicon. But by this liberty any Heretic, though never so impious, may make the Scriptures speak what himself best pleaseth. SECT. III. That the Ancient Fathers do expound the sacred Scriptures in Proof of unwritten Traditions. IN the eight General Council, it is taught that (1) Act. 10. The great Apostle Paul doth clearly admonish us, to keep the Traditions which we have received, whether by speech, or by the Epistles of holy men, who have formerly shined. S. Chrisostome expounding the same words of S. Paul, affirmeth that, (2) In 2. Thess. ho. 4. And see Basil de Spir. Sant. c. 29. Theophil. in 2. Thess. 2. Damasc. c. 17. de Imag. Sanctorum. Hereby it appeareth, that the Apostles did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things without writing, and these are worthy of faith; wherefore also let us esteem the Tradition of the Church to be believed. It is a Tradition, seek no further. And the same exposition is given by S. Basil, Theophilact, and Damascene, as also by S. Epiphanius, (3) Haer. 61. We must use Tradition (saith he) for all things cannot be received from divine Scripture, wherefore the holy Apostles have delivered some things by Tradition: Even as the holy Apostle saith. As I have delivered to you, and elsewhere, so I teach, and have delivered in Churches. S. Austin labouring to prove that those who were baptised by heretics should not be rebaptised, saith; (4) De Bap. Conc. Dou. l. 5. c. 2●. The Apostles commanded nothing hereof, but that Doctrine which was opposed herein against Cyprian, is to be believed to proceed from their Tradition; as many things be which the Church holdeth, and are therefore well believed to be commanded of the Apostles, although they be not written. This saying is so clear, that Cartwright speaking thereof, saith, (5) In Whitgif. Def. p. 103. To allow S. Austin's saying is to bring in Popery again. And (6) Ibid. And his 2. Reply ag. Whitg. part. 1. p 84. 85. 86. if S. Austin's judgement, be a good judgement, than there be some things commanded of God, which are not in the Scriptures, and thereupon no sufficient doctrine contained in the Scriptures. But the Father's Expositions and belief, are so clear for our Doctrine of Traditions, that Chemnitius reproveth for the same (7) Exam. part. 1. p. 87. 89. 90. Clemens Alexandrinus, and Origen, also Epiphanius, Ambrose, Hierome, Basile, Maximus, Theophilus, Damascene. And (8) Against Purg. p. 362. 303. 397. Against Martial. p. 170. 178. Against Bristol. p. 35. 36. D. Fulke rejecteth herein, chrysostom, Tertullian, Cyprian, Austin, Hierome, and a great many more. And the like is acknowledged by (9) De sacra Script. p. 678. 68●. 683. 685. 686. 690. 695. 696. 670. Whitaker of S. chrysostom, Epiphanius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Austin, Innocentius, Leo, Basile, Eusebius, and Damascene. By the premises than it appeareth, that S. Austin and all the forenamed Fathers, did confessedly teach and believe our Doctrine of Traditions. SECT. iv That the learnedst Protestants are enforced to acknowledge, and believe our Catholic Doctrine of Traditions. I Proved before that in the time of Nature, and much also in the time of the Law, the faithful were instructed by Traditions not written: And accordingly the Protestant D. Westphailing affirmeth that there was a time when (1) Serm. 5. fol. 56. & Ser. 6. fol. 60. Traditions not delivered in writing, or taken out of Books, but delivered from one to another by word of mouth, were Rules of faith and manners: And thus it was first in the time of nature, secondly in the time of the Law. And in those times Traditions might well be Rules of truth to such as knew they came from those, whom God's spirit would not suffer to err. So confessedly Traditions have been, and may be Rules of truth. Concerning our learning the true sense of the Scriptures, the Protestant Author of Catholic Traditions prescribeth thus; (2) In the preface fol. B. 35. when the Scriptures have not sufficient light, to make the truth apparently perceived, yet may a man now a days use that means, which S. Irenaeus counseleth us, which is to etc. learn the Apostolical Tradition. And this with greatest reason, for M. powel teacheth that, (3) Of things Indiffer. c. 2. p. 7. Ecclesiastical Traditions are not merely humane, but also divine, because the Church is directed and governed by the spirit of Christ. Now, if this be the confessed Privilege of the Church, in things indifferent, and less concerning us, it is much the rather to be acknowledged in such greater points of faith, as do more importantly concern, even our faith and Salvation. But to give particular instance of several Traditions acknowledged by Protestants, the knowledge whereof is necessary to faith and salvation: Concerning the question of discerning Canonical Scriptures from Apocryphal, M. Hooker affirmeth that, (4) Eccl. Pol. l. 1. sec 14. p. 86. of things necessary the very chiefest is to know what books we are bound to esteem holy, which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture itself to teach: for (5) Ibid. l. 2. sec. 4. p. 102. saith he very well) if any one book of Scripture did give testimony to all, yet still that Scripture which giveth credit to the rest, would require another Scripture to give credit to it: (6) Ibid. pa. 103. neither could we ever come to any pause whereon to rest, unless besides Scripture there were something else acknowledged. Neither is this something the testimony of the spirit, which (as Whitaker (7) Aduersus Stap. l. 2. c. 6. p 370. 357. & Hook. Eccl. Pol. sec. 8. p. 147. acknowledgeth) being private and secret, is not fit to teach and refel others: but it is even according to him, (8) Vbi supra. l. 2 c. 4. p. 300, 298. the Ecclesiastical Tradition, an Argument (saith he) whereby may be argued and convinced, what Books be Canonical, and what not. Which authority of the Church's Testimony in this behalf, he further avoucheth and teacheth in fundry (9) Vbi supra. l. 1. c. 1. p. 14. & 25 And against Reinolds. p. 44. other places. And with him agreed many others of his brethren, for M. Hooker supposeth that, (10) Eccl. Pol. l. 3. p. 146. We all know, that the first outward motive leading men so to esteem of the Scripture is the authority of God's Church. Yea, saith another, (11) Treatise of the Script. and the Church c. 15. 16 p 72. 74. We would not believe the Gospel, were it not that the Church taught us, and witnessed that this Doctrine was delivered by the Apostles. Zanchius (so much renowned amongst Protestants) in plain terms confesseth (12) De sacra Script p. 281. the unwritten Tradition of the Canonical and Apocryphal books: and that (13) Ib. pa 61. the Ecclesiastical Tradition is the first mean of our certain knowledge herein. As also that (14) Ib p 265. The Father's thought that we have this thing only by Tradition of the Apostles, and Apostolical men. In which due respect saith Chemnitius, (15) Exam. part. 1. p. 69. We reverently receive this Tradition, whereby the Books of holy Scripture are to us delivered. Luther like a dutiful Child ascribeth thus much to the Church his Mother, that, (16) Tom. 2. de Captiu. Babyl fol. 89. This truly hath the Church, that it can discern the word of God, from the words of men, as Austin confessed himself to have believed the Gospel, being moved by the authority of the Church. Melancthon, (17) Resp ad Act. Ratisb. T. 3. p. 732. We acknowledge in the Church this Authority of testifying of Apostolical Scriptures, or of discerning the writings of the Apostles from counterfeit. Caluin, (18) De vera Eccles. Refor. p. 323. I do not deny but that it is the proper office of the Church, to discern true Scriptures from feigned. Peter Martyr, (19) In loc. class. 1 c. 6. We do acknowledge it to be the function of the Church, that seeing it is endued with the holy Ghost, it may discern sincere and true Books of divine Scriptures from adulterate and Apocryphal. Perkins, (20) Tom. 2. of the Sermon of our Lord. col. 252. The Church hath the gift of judging of things of greatest weight; she can judge of the Books of Scripture, which are Canonical, which not, of the Spirits of men, and their Doctrines, and therefore she can judge which company of men are the true Church, and which not. What more for the authority of the Church and her Traditions, in this so important a question of discerning true Scriptures from false, could be said by any Catholic? D. Whitaker, a man so renowned in this Kingdom for his supposed greatest learning, acknowledgeth this same truth, no less plainly than the rest, (21) Controu. 1. q. 3. c. 1. pag. 315. We do not deny (saith he) that it belongeth to the Church, that she approve, acknowledge, receive, promulge, commend the Scriptures to all hers, and we say that this testimony is true, and aught to be received by all. (22) Ib. c. 2. p. 316. It is the office of the Church that she determine and discern true, right, & proper Scriptures from false, counterfeit, and Adulterate. (23) Ib. c. 7. p. 324. We may truly be compelled by the authority of the Church, that we acknowledge the Canonical Scripture. (24) Ib c. 9 p. 326. We confess with Irenaeus, the authority of the Church to be firm, and a compendious demonstration of Canonical doctrine àposteriori. Yea he affirmeth, that the testimony of the Church concerning the Scriptures, (25) De Script. l. 1. c 1 sect. 9 p. 19 Ought to be received, because it is true: and he that doth not receive it, is guilty of sacrilege. Wherhfore all Protestants that deny this Ecclesiastical Tradition, of the Churches discerning Canonical books from Apocryphal, in D. Whitaters judgement are sacrilegious. If it were not to be thought tedious in so clear a Case, I would show the same to be taught by (26) In Zanchius de Ser. p 123 124. Brentius, (27) De principijs Christ. dog. l 1. c. 4 p. 18. Pet. Mar. come. plac. in Engl part. ● 1. 6. sec. ● p. 42. jew. in Def p. 201. Fulke in answer to a Counterf. Cath. p. 5. Lubbertus, Peter Martyr, jewel, and Fulke, most of them, and others affirming, that the Church is directed in her foresaid Testimony, even with the presence and assistance of the holy (28) Whitak. adverse. Stapl. l. 1 c. 5. p. 69. The Treatise of the Scripture and the Church. c. 15. p. 71. jew. Fulke and Pet. Mart. ubi supra. Spirit. So clear it is that this so necessary knowledge of true Scripture from false, we have not from the Scripture itself, nor from the Private Spirit, but from the Tradition of the Church. And if the Tradition of the Church be so forcible, in this Chief question of discerning true Scriptures, shall the same Scriptures make it of lesser Credit in other smaller questions? Roger's in the name of the Church of England, saith, (29) Def of the Art art. 20. p 108. All of us do grant, that the Church as a faithful witness may, yea of necessity must testify to the world, what hath been the doctrine of God his people, from time to time; and as a trusty Recorder, is to keep, and make known what the word of God, which it hath received is, which truly hath been performed afore the word was written, by the patriarchs, and after the same was committed to writing, before Christ his incarnation, by the jews, Christ his life time, in the Primitive Church, from the Apostles time by the godly Christians throughout the world. Again, (30) Ib. Art 34. p. 196. The Church and every member thereof in his place, is bound to the observation of all Traditions & Ceremonies, which are allowed by lawful authority, and are not repugnant to the word of God; for he that violateth them, contemneth not man, but God, who hath given power to his Church, to establish whatsoever things shall make unto comeliness, order, and Edification. Here then confessedly we have one main point of faith necessary to salvation, made known unto us, not by the Scriptures, nor by the Private Spirit, but only by the Tradition of the Church. To allege yet further another example, and that of great importance, which is concerning the abrogating of Saturday the jewish Saboth, and the establishing of Sunday for our Saboth, First it is granted, that the now observation of Sunday, is not a thing arbitrary, & of indisserency, but necessary and unchangeable: for thus expressly teacheth D. Whitguift, (31) Defence p. 89. I do not think it now arbitrary, or to be changed: and surely there had been very little judgement in me, if I had made it changeable. D. Fulke expressly teacheth, that this obserua●ion of Sunday (32) Against the Rhem. Test. in Reuel. 1. sec. 6. fol. 463. Is not a matter of indifferency but a necessary Prescription of Christ delivered to us by his Apostles. And that to change it, or keep it on Monday, Twesday, or any other day the Church hath no Authority. And with him do●h (33) Synop. Controu. 9 q. 8 p. 382. M. Willet agreed, expressing his like judgement almost in the same words. But none more fully confirm this truth, than the Divines of Geneva, who in their Principles of diuini●y disputed in the University of Geneva, and there (34) Preface. discussed and determined even by (35) Epist. of the Transl. the whole consent of the learned in the Church of Geneva, and especially by M. Theodore Beza, do conclude and teach that, (36) C. 33 p. 80. sec. 12. 13. The Apostles by direction of the holy Ghost instead of that seaventh day observed under the Law, did appoint that day, which was first in Creation of the former world: and that the Observation therefore of this Lord's day, is not to be accounted as an indifferent thing, but as an Apostolical Tradition to be perpetually observed. This then being supposed, that the observation of our now Sunday, is a matter obligatory, and of necessity; we will next examine whether the same be taught us by the written word, or only by Tradition: and to omit what already herein is granted by D. Fulke, Willet, and the Divines of Geneva; Bullinger avoucheth that (37) Serm. in Eng. Dec. 2. Serm. 4. p. 140. We do not in any part of the Apostles writings find any mention made that Sunday was to be kept holy. And, we believe saith (38) Comment. Catech. in prolog. p. 36. Vrsinus, this Apostolical Tradition, and see it to be profitable. According to Whitguift, (39) Defence. p. 88 The Scripture hath not appointed what day in the week, should be most meet for the Saboth. And he urgeth Cartwright thus, (40) Ib. p. 89. You should have proved it to be appointed by the Scriptures, which no doubt you would have done if you could, for that is it which I deny. And yet both he and (4) Ib. & p. 89. 100LS. Cartwright do confess, that it was taught by the Apostles. And the same witnesseth Fulke, saying, for (42) Ag. Rhem. Test. in 1. Revel. fol. 463. the Prescription of this day, the Apostles had either the express Commandment of Christ before his Ascension, when he gave them Precepts concerning the Kingdom of God. (Act. 1.2.) or else the certain direction of his Spirit. So evident it is, and for such further confessed by (43) De Relig Christiana. n. 12. pa. 7. & in Compend. doct. Christ. pag. 645. 646. Zanchius, that the observation of Sunday is an Apostolical and unwritten Tradition. And the same is maintained at large by (44) Survey of Popery. l. 3. part. 4 c. 5. Bell. But D. Morton (45) Morton Apol. par. 2. l. 1 c. 41. objecteth, that S. john maketh mention of the (46) Apoc. 1.10. Lords day; that in the Acts mention is made of the first of the (47) Act. 20.7. Saboth, when S. Paul and others were assembled to break bread. And that S. Paul likewise commandeth the Corinthians to make Collections for the poor, upon (48) 1. Cor. 16.2. the first of the Saboth. But all these are impertinent, for S. john calleth it the Lords day, not in regard that Saturday was then abrogated, or Sunday established (for neither of these points doth he affirm) but only in respect it was the day of our Lord's Resurrection. And as for the first of the Saboth, Caluin & the Centurists do In Catena August. Marloreti. & Cent. 1. l. 2. Col 503. affirm, that thereby is not meant Sunday, but Saturday; and indeed the Greek Text being the Original, hath not, The first of the Saboth, but only (50) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Act. 20, 7.1. Cor. 16 2. one of the Saboth days, and so do (51) Engl. Bible of Anno 1566. Fulke ag. Rhem. Test. in Act. 20.7 & Cent. 1. l. 2. 495. 503. Protestants translate the same. But though the Text were that the Sacrament was usually celebrated, and Collections made for the Poor, upon the first of the Saboth: yet this proveth not either that Saturday (whereof no mention in these places is made) should be abrogated, or that Sunday should be to us, not only as a Holy day, but also as our Saboth, and day of rest. This answer is so clear, as that it is likewise made and allowed by sundry Protestant's, whereof saith M. Bel, (52) Survey of Popery. No text of holy Scripture can be alleged, which commandeth to keep our Christian Sabbath upon the first day, or any other determinate day. M. Caluin denieth flatly that, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth signify the first day, or Sunday. And that the Revelation proveth nothing, but that S. john had his Revelation upon the day of our Lord's Resurrection: but neither saith, that Christians must observe that day for their Sabbath, nor that the Apostles kept the same, which thing both Peter Martyr, and Erasmus do willingly grant. So generally is it acknowledged by Protestants that the Abrogation of Saturday, and our Observation of Sunday, is no where prescribed or commanded in the written word, but only received by Tradition, and yet the same is a matter of necessity: And so trifling is M. Mortons' Objection. D. Field acknowledgeth and summeth together many Traditions, saying, (53) L 4. c. 20. We admit first the Books of Scripture Canonical as delivered by Tradition: Secondly the chief heads of Christian doctrine, contained in the Creed: Thirdly the form of Christian Doctrine, and distinct explication of many things, somewhat obscurely contained in Scripture etc. Fourthly the continued practices of such things as are not expressed in Scripture: Fiftly such observations as are not particularly commanded in Scripture: Amongst which, and the former he numbereth the Fast of Lent, the Baptism of Infants, and observation of our Lord's day. And some few lines after he confesseth that, Many other things there are, which the Apostles doubtless delivered by Tradition. We have it here then acknowledged most plentifully by the learnedst Protestants, that sundry Points of faith necessary to salvation, are not made known to us by the written word, or any Private spirit, but only by the Tradition of the Catholic Church. SECT. V Objections against Traditions taken from Scriptures, answered. IT is incredible, that men professing learning, should not be much ashamed to produce such poor and weak stuff, against so clear and confessed a Truth: for example, such Texts are objected (1) Roger's Def. of the Art art. 6. p. 27. by M. Rogers, as seem to forbidden all Addition to the written word, as that of Moses, (2) Deut. 4.2. You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it: As also that of S. john, (3) Apoc. 21.18. If any man shall add to these things, God shall add upon him the Plagues etc. I answer to the first, It concerneth not the written word only, but the word delivered by mouth; which (saith he) I spoke to you, & is therefore impertinent, for it proveth not that all the spoken doctrine was written. Secondly though it did concern the written word only, yet the speech of adding or taking away, is (as Cartwright confesseth) to be referred only to the observing wholly of that which God commanded, (4) In whitgift. Defence p. 124. that is, to do no more nor less than he hath commanded: which sense is yet made more plain with conference of the premises, with this other like saying in the same Book, (5) Deut. 12.32. What I command thee, that only do to our Lord, neither add any thing nor diminish. Thirdly howsoever it be understood, it can yet no more seclude the Apostles adding of their unwritten Traditions to that which Moses spoke, than it doth seclude their adding thereto of their written Gospel, and the Prophecies which were written after Moses. Add further that S. john (as (6) Exam. p. 202. Chemnitius confesseth) writ his Gospel after the Apocalypse, and so addeth thereunto. But Caluin (7) Instit. c. 14. replieth, that the Doctrine of the Prophets and of the new Testament, were not additions to the Law, but Explications thereof (as being taught or contained in the Law, though not in particular, yet in general.) But I suppose Caluinists will not deny, but that they believe more than is written in the Law, and no otherwise doth the Law contain them then in general, and (as it were) virtually: but so likewise are Traditions contained therein, and so no Additions. M. Rogers also (8) Def. of the Art art. 6. p. 28. objecteth these words of S. john, (9) Io. 20.30.31. Many other signs also did jesus in the sight of his Disciples, which are not written in this Book. And these are written that you may believe, that jesus is Christ the son of God, and that believing, you may have life in his name, therefore all things are written that are necessary to faith. Answer. This so plainly concerneth only Christ's Miracles, and not the Doctrine which he taught, that D. Whitaker saith thereof, (10) De Scrip. q. 5. p. 619. It is evident that the Evangelist speaketh of the signs and Miracles of Christ, not of his doctrine. and so is altogether impertinent. Secondly, though it should concern doctrine, yet it concerned not the whole Scripture, but the only doctrine (as the Text saith) written in this Book, and is therefore also impertinent, unless we will thence also infer, that S. john's Gospel only is sufficient to instruct us to Salvation. Which sequel D. Reinolds well perceiving, affirmeth thereupon that, (11) Conclusions annexed to his Conference. p. 686. There is contained in S. john's Gospel, so much as is sufficient to faith and salvation; and that S. john's Gospel alone is sufficient: whereof it further followeth, that aswell the rest of the Scriptures, as also the institution of the Sacrament in forms of Bread and wine, and all needful doctrine concerning the same, which S. john's Gospel doth not express, are not in his opinion necessary to Salvation: all which is most absurd & impious to affirm. It is further urged, that the Scriptures do condemn Traditions, as, You (12) Mat. 15.6. have made frustrate the Commandment of God for your own Tradition. And, Beware (13) Col. 2.8. lest any man deceive you, by Philosophy & vain fallacy, according to the Tradition of men. Answ. Such Traditions are not reprehended, as the jews received from Moses, and the Prophets; but only such as they had received of later times, whereof some were Idle, others contrary to the Scriptures themselves, as Why (14) Mat. 15.3. do you transgress the Commandment of God, for your Tradition? And as here are condemned certain Traditions, so before we have heard others to be commended: which plainly argueth, that as some were forged, and contrary to Scripture, and so to be eschewed; so others were Apostolical and to be observed. Many (15) Roger's Def. of the Art art. 21. p. 118. much insist upon those words of S. Paul, (16) Gal. 1.9. If any preach to you besides that which you have received, be he accursed. Answ. Here by the word, besides, is meant, against, or contrary, for so do both S. Ambrose (17) Ambr. in hunc locum. Aug. l. 17. cont. Faust. c. 3. and S. Austin expound this place: Yea S. Austin saith of this very text, (18) In joan. ●ract. 98. He doth not say more than you have received, but besides that which you have received: for if he should have said so, he should have wronged himself etc. And though D. Whitaker will not acknowledge so much of this place, yet (19) De Scrip. p. 718. I confess (saith he) that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes fitly translated, Contra, against. And so doth the same word signify in the same Apostle, (20) Rom. 16.17. in which place Erasmus, and Fulke in their Translation thereof, do translate it, Contra, against. Yea here the sense is so evident, that Piscator doth affirm the Apostle to mean, Doctrinam (21) In Gal. 2.9. Euangelio adversam, doctrine contrary to the Gospel; which exposition these other words of the Text, Another Gospel, do fully confirm. Secondly howsoever we understand the same word, yet this place is merely impertinent, as not concerning only the written word (which is the only thing whereof the question now is made) but such doctrine in general, as was preached. And that he did preach all needful things (22) Act. 2●. 20.7. we steadfastly believe, as a matter out of question: but that he, and other Scribes of holy Writ, did writ all needful things, is the very point in question, and that which we deny. Thirdly this maketh no more against Traditions, than it doth against sundry parts of the new Testament, which were written after this Epistle, which would make the Apostle himself & others, in danger of his own Curse. Lastly (23) Roger's Def. of the Art art. 6. p. 28. Morton Apol par. 2. l. 1. c 44. it is made their chief and common objection, that (24) 1. Tim. 3 16. All Scripture etc. is profitable to teach, to argue, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, instructed to every good work. And, From (25) 2. Tim. 3.15. thine infancy thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which can instruct thee to Salvation. But the answer is easy and manifold, first, that whereas it is said, All Scripture etc. is profitable, the same praise of being profitable, is attributed to every part of the Scripture, as to the whole body thereof, for by the judgement of all that understand Latin, whatsoever is said of all Scripture, is understood of every Book thereof; and so indeed every part of Scripture, and every good Sermon, or spiritual Book is profitable, but not sufficient to salvation. Secondly these places do not concern the Scriptures of the New Testament, which were not then all written, but only the other of the Old Testament, which, saith the Text, Timothy had known from his infancy, for these and not the other were they, which Timothy had to study from his Childhood. A truth so clear, that M. Henoch Clapham confesseth with us, saying, (26) In the song of songs, lecture 15. Nor was it other Scripture than the old Testament, which is commended to Timothy for able to make the man of God perfect unto all good works. And the same understanding here only of the old Testament, is made by Aretius, (27) Loc. come. de Tradit. loc. 82. p. 264. Swingl. Tom. 2. l. Ecclesiast. fol. 43. Hook. Eccl. Pol. l. 1. sec. 14. p. 88 Ochinus l. 2. Dial. p. 198. Treatise against the Def. of the Censure. pa. 325. Chemnit. Exam. part. 1 f. 38. Swinglius, M. Hooker and others: In so much as one of them perceiving thereby, that this foresaid place is impertinent, unless we will withal thence affirm, that the Old Testament only is sufficient, doubted not therefore to acknowledge that sense, and so accordingly to urge the same, maintaining thereupon contrary to M. Hookers Collection (28) Vbi supra. upon this place. (29) In the Treatise against the Def. of the Cens. p. 325. that the Old Testament is sufficient to Christian men, for their Salvation, without any other writ: to such jewish absurdities do these impertinent Objections drive our Protestants. CHAP. VIII. The true State of the Question, concerning S. Peter's Primacy. Whether Christ our Saviour ordained S. Peter Supreme Head or Pastor, not only of the Apostles, but of the Universal Church. SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. HAVING hitherto proved not the Scripture alone, but the Church of Christ, to be our absolute judge of all Controversies in Religion, it seemeth necessary to found out the Head of the said Church, and to inquire something into his power & authority: concerning which in the first Nicene Council it is said, (1) Can. 39 Arabico. He who holdeth the Sea of Rome, is the head and chief of all the patriarchs, seeing he is the first (or Chief) as Peter, to whom power is given over all Christian Princes, and all their people, as he who is the Vicar of Christ our Lord, over all people, and the Universal Church of Christ: and whosoever shall contradict this, is excommunicated by the Synod. The Fathers of the Council of Ephesus avouch, (2) Part. 2. Act, 3. That no man doubteth yea it is known to all ages, that holy and most Blessed Peter, Prince and head of the Apostles, Pillar of Faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received from our Lord jesus-christ etc. the keys of the Kingdom; and that power of losing and binding sins was given him, who in his Successors liveth and exerciseth judgement to this very time, and always. And agreably to this, we (3) Bellar. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 10. Rhem. Test. in Io. 21.17. still teach, that S. Peter the Apostle was ordained by Christ, to be in his place the Head and Prince not only of the Apostles, but of the whole Church, that so as Chief Pastor upon Earth, he might govern the same in matters Ecclesiastical. Points Disputable. It was a Point much disputed by S. Hierome and S. Austin, whether the thing, for which S. Paul reproved S. Peter, was truly any fault, though not in Doctrine, yet in conversation or Government. S. Hierome and others think it was no fault at all, nor any other thing, than what Saint (4) Aug. ep. 9 11. 19 Paul did himself upon the like occasion: But S. Austin holdeth the contrary. Protestants Untruths. (5) Act. 21.26. tindal affirmeth, that, (6) In Fox Act. Mon. p. 1139. Paul by the testimony of Christ was greater than Peter. But it willbe impossible to find out this Testimony of Christ. D. Whitaker avoucheth that, (7) Controu. 3. q. c. 3. pag. 604. Whersoever mention is made of Peter, if we look diligently into the place, we shall find nothing to be given to him, which doth not agreed to other Apostles. But this in the Sections next following, we shall clearly see to be most false. And again, (8) Controu. 4. q. 2. c. 2. p. 545. Peter is not a Rock▪ because Christ doth not build his Church upon Peter. A saying most direct against sundry plainest texts of the Scriptures themselves. Swinglius maketh our Saviour to speak contrary to himself thus, (9) De vera & fall. Relig. c. de clavibus. I will build my Church upon this Rock, not upon thee, for thou art not a Rock etc. Only Christ, not Peter, is the Rock, upon which the Church built, remaineth. Protestant Doctrine. Most (10) Luther in Assert. Art 25. Calu Inst. l. 4. c. 6. §. 7. Magdeburg. Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 7 fol 524. Protestant's affirm, that S. Peter was only equal, and fellow with the other Apostles, nor superior. And that the Government of the whole Church was no more committed to him by Christ, then to the rest. For the time since the Apostles, Protestants greatly differ among themselves, for (11) Illyricus Cent. 1. l 2. c. 7. some give the supreme Government of the Church to the Ministers and the Laity. Caluin (12) Instit l. 4. c. 11 §. 6. chief ascribeth it to the Congregation of Seniors or Ministers. Brentius (13) In Prolegom. count. Petrum à Soto. and sundry others, to secular Princes, men, women, or Children. Protestants agreed with ancient Heretics. The Council of Constance condemned as heretical this Article of Wiccliffe and Husse, (14) Sess 15. Peter neither was, nor is the Head of the Holy Catholic Church. And the same error was taught by (15) Apologia ad Ludovicum Bavarum. Marsilius of Milan. Protestant Errors. Swinglius affirmeth that, (16) In Explanat. Art 50. The Papists contend the Church to be built upon Peter, which is plain Idolatry. Whitaker avoucheth that (17) Controu. 2. q 2. c. 2. p. 455. The Church is not founded upon Christ, as he was to be seen, but as he could not be seen. And (18) Controu. 4. q 1. c. 2. p. 525. Christ was not a visible Monarch in the Church. Vallada affirmeth that, (19) Apol. count. Epis. Luzon. c. 5. p. 122. It is gross ignorance to make jesus-christ the head of the Church, as he is man. Yea saith Swinglius, (20) Tom. 4. in Col. 1. It is impossible for a visible man to be head of the Church, seeing it is invisible. So that now not only Peter and his Successors, were not head of the Church, but neither Christ himself, as he was man, and visible upon earth. But if visibility and Manhood do hinder Christ from being head of the Church, It may seem strange, that the same Causes should not hinder Princes and Ministers from the said Headship, which I think few Ministers, or other Prot. dare affirm. SECT. II. It is proved by Scriptures, that S. Peter was appointed by Christ the Supreme Head, not only of the Apostles, but of the universal Church. THe often (1) Mat. 20.26. Mar. 9.34. Luc. 9.46. Contention had amongst the Apostles, who should be greatest, argueth that they had some notice, that some one of them was to have Primacy. And though our Saviour in sundry places doth forbidden ambition in them, and amongst others, where he saith, (2) Luc. 22.26. Let the greatest amongst you, be as the lest, and the chiefest, as he that serveth; yet even here he secludeth not Primacy, but affirmeth rather that one is greatest and Chiefest, whom he instructeth to be humble. And this he illustrateth by the different Government of the kings of the Gentiles, who reign over their Subjects, and of himself who was (3) Luc. 22.27. amongst them, as one that served, and yet was their Superior. Now, that this greatest and chiefest was S. Peter, it is plain by Christ's directing his speech to him presently after, saying, (4) Ib. ver. 13. Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired you, to winnow you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not, and thou sometimes converted, confirm thy Brethrens. Here though the danger was common to all, yet Christ prayeth only and particularly for Peter, that his faith should not fail, preferring him likewise to be the confirmer of the rest. Caluin (5) Calu. Inst. l. 4. c. 20. §. 7. replieth that, Christ saith, (6) Mat. 20.25. Luc. 22.25. Mar. 10.42. but you not so, that is, you must not bear rule over the Church, which thing the Kings of the Gentiles do. But much more rightly may I conclude, if not so, that is, after the manner of the Gentiles, than some of them were to Rule, but after another manner, to wit, that he that was greatest, should be as the lest, and he that is the leader, as the waiter, to wit, by mildness, humility etc. he doth not say, none shallbe greater, none shall bear rule, none shallbe leader, but only that he that is such, let him be as lesser; yea he declareth this by example of himself, saying, (7) Mat. 20.28. Even as the Son of Man is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister. (8) Luc. 22.27. And, I am in the midst of you, as he that ministereth. And yet he saith of himself, (9) Io. 23.13. You call me Master and Lord, & you say well, for I am so. By which it appeareth, that nothing is here said against Primacy in the Church, but only the best manner of using the same, is prescribed. This form of Government S. Peter himself after prescribeth to Bishops, (10) 1. Pet. 5. Feed the flock, which is in you, providing for it, not by constraint, but willingly, not for filthy lucre's sake, but voluntarily: not as though you were Lords in the Clergy, but that ye may be ensamples to the flock. So clear it is, that one amongst the Apostles was to be Chiefest and greatest, and this, S. Peter, and other Bishops succeeding him. And I verily persuade myself, that it is not unworthy of observation, that though we search into all Scriptures, Counsels, Fathers, and histories, we shall not found that any other of the Apostles but S. Peter, was thought or pretended by any to be the chiefest over the rest, and over the whole Church. Another strong proof of S. Peter's Primacy, is taken from this promise of Christ made unto him, (11) Mat. 16.18.19. And I say also unto thee, thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it: And, I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon Earth, shallbe bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt lose on Earth, shall be loosed in heaven. Out of this place four principal points may be proved; first, that Peter was that Rock or foundation upon which Christ promised to build his Church. Secondly, that to be the foundation of the Church, is to be the Governor of the Church. Thirdly, that the said Peter it was, to whom Christ promised to give the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. And lastly that by those keys is understood the full power of governing the Church. The first point is proved sundry ways, as first by the pronoun (this) which demonstrateth some Rock whereof Christ had spoken a little before: now, immediately before Christ had called Peter a Rock, for he spoke in Siriacke, in which language Peter signifieth a Rock, according to that in S. john, (12) C. 1.42. Thou art Simon the son of jona; thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter, or a Rock, so that our Saviour said, thou art a Rock, and upon this Rock etc. Now the reason why the Latin Translator saith, tu es Petrus, and not, tu es Petra, is because translating it out of Greek, in which both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signity a Rock, it was more convenient to translate it by a word of the Masculine gender, as more agreeable to a man. Secondly, as of the exchange of Abraham's name to Abraham, God expressed the cause to be (13) Gen. 17.5 for that a Father of many nations he had made him: so our Saviour having changed (14) Io. 1.42. Simons name to Peter, which signifieth a Rock, giveth this reason thereof, because (15) Mat. 16.18. upon this Rock I will build my Church: and so to that end Simons name was changed to Peter, thereby to signify that Peter was the Rock upon which Christ promised to build his Church. But (16) Reynolds in his Conf. c. 2. divis. 1. Bills. part. 1 pa. 63. D. Reinolds replieth, that by Rock is meant Christ himself, according to that of S. Paul, (17) 1. Cor. 3.11. For other foundation can no man lay, then that which is laid, which is jesus Christ. But this is insufficient, for though Christ be the first and principal foundation, yet in a secondary manner, both the Prophets & Apostles are called foundations by S. Paul (18) Eph. 2.20. Apoc. 21.14. and S. john. And the same is also cleared and answered by S. Basil, who excellently teacheth, that, (19) Concione de Poenitentia. God imparteth his dignities, not depriving himself of them, but enjoying he bestoweth them; he is the light, and yet he saith, you are the light of the world; he is a Priest, and he anointeth Priests: he is the Lamb, and he saith, Behold I sand you like lambs amongst the midst of wolves: he is a Rock, and he maketh a Rock. So plainly doth he teach that there is another Rock besides Christ. And immediately before refuting this objection, he telleth who this other Rock is, saying; Though Peter be a Rock, yet he is not a Rock as Christ is: for Christ is the true Rock, unmoveable of himself, Peter unmoveable by Christ the Rock. What more clearly can be spoken to make Peter a Rock? And agreably D. Whitguift (20) Defence. p. 300. teacheth that, names proper to God, are yet like in a secondary sense, communicable to creatures. Again, the pronoun This, must relate to that which is nearer, which is Peter, not to the more remote, which is Christ: & what inconsequence of speech would this be, Thou art Peter, or a Rock, & upon myself will I build my Church? Lastly, the Church was already builded upon Christ, and therefore if it had been meant of himself, he would not have said, I will build, which betokeneth a thing to come, but, I do build, himself being already a Rock. Luther and others (21) De potestate Papae. & Cent. 1. l. 1. c. 4. Col. 175. yet reply, that by Rock is understood Peter's faith, or Peter's confession, not Peter himself: But for the true understanding hereof, we must note, that this faith or Confession may be considered two ways, first with reference to Peter's person, as if our Saviour had said, upon thee Peter confessing, and believing me to be Christ the son of the living God, will I build my Church; so that neither Peter's person alone, nor faith & Confession alone, but both joined together do make the foresaid Rock. And this is but agreeable with that Catholic Doctrine, which teacheth that Peter's faith in two regards is called the Rock of the Church: first because for the merit thereof, Peter obtained that he was to be the Rock of the Church. Secondly, in that Peter is therefore chief the Rock of the Church, that seeing his faith could not fail, he was to strengthen and confirm all others in faith, for so our Saviour said to him, (22) Luc. 22.32. I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not, and thou sometimes converted, confirm thy Brethrens: Therefore, seeing that Peter by reason of this indefectible faith, is a most strong Rock, sustaining the whole Church, it is all one then to say, upon Peter, and upon his faith, the Church to be builded, and in those respects, may we truly say, the Church to be builded upon Peter's Faith, or Confession. Now, the second way whereby Faith and Confession may be understood, is barely of themselves without all reference to Peter's person, and in this sense Protestants urge it: but it is false, for then our Saviour would not have said, upon this Rock I will build, but, I do, and have built my Church, for as then already many had believed him to have been the son of the living God, as the Old Prophets, the B. Virgin Mary, Simeon, Zacharias, his Apostles and Disciples. Secondly, Faith so taken is rightly said (according to (23) Serm. 22. de verb. Apost. S. Austin) to be the foundation of our justification, and all virtues, not of the Church; for the foundation and the rest of the building must be both of the same kind. Now the Church is a Congregation of men, as it were (24) 1. Pet. 2.5. of lively stones, therefore the stone which must be the foundation, must be some man, not any virtue. Thirdly, all words of the Text do plainly argue, that some Privilege or peculiar authority was given to Peter for that his Confession; all which were taken away, if that only faith of Christ (which was common as then to others with him) were only the Rock of the Church. S. Peter then being the Rock whereupon Christ promised to build his Church, the next thing to be declared is, that to be the Rock or foundation of the Church, is to be the chief Pastor or Governor thereof; that the foundation in a building, is as the head in a Body, a governor in a City, and a king in his kingdom. For the proving hereof we must note, that in holy Scriptures the Church or company of faithful, is called (25) Heb. 3.6. the house of Christ, and (26) 1. Cor. 3.9. God's building; now as the rest of the building in a material house, dependeth of the foundation, as upon that which wholly uphouldeth it; so in that spiritual building of the Church (which Christ promised to found upon a Rock, & which Rock we have proved to be Peter) the same dependeth upon that Rock whereupon it is founded. Now what other dependence can be imagined, between the rest of the Church, & Peter their foundation, then that upon him, as a firm Rock, they should wholly rely in all matters of faith and Religion, to be instructed, governed, and confirmed, & so ever upholden and sustained in true faith, against all the storms of false Doctrines, and the Professors thereof. But some reply, that as Peter here, is called the foundation of the Church, so are likewise the Prophets & Apostles in other (27) Eph. 2.20. Apoc. 21.14. places. Answ. They are called so indeed in three respects; first, in that they were the first, as well as Peter, that planted Churches, and converted Countries to Christ, in which sense they are so called in the (28) Apoc. 21.14. Apocalypse. Secondly, in that the faith of the Church dependeth upon the Revelarion which the Prophets and Apostles received from God, and which they by their preaching and writing,, have left to Posterity, and so they are called foundations by S. Paul; and in these two respects all the Apostles were equal. Thirdly in regard of Government, for they were all Rectors and Pastors of the whole Church, but not in the same manner that S. Peter, he being as an Ordinary Pastor, from whom (as shallbe hereafter (29) See hereafter. proved) the orderly succession of true Pastors, was to continued until the end of the world, they only but as Apostles, or Legates for the tyme. And in this respect (which pertaineth only to the present Controversy) as also in that Peter was the head or chief amongst the Apostles themselves, the Church is said to be built upon Peter, & not upon the rest of the Apostles. The third Principal point therefore remaining to be proved, is, That those words, To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, are meant of Peter. And in truth so many words of the Text itself do so plainly show it, as a man would more admire, that any should deny it, then much trouble himself in seeking to prove it: for who reading, Blessed art thou Simon, the son of jonas etc. And, I say also unto thee, thou art Peter etc. And, I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, would not say, that to Simon, who was afterwards called Peter, the said keys were given? But some conceit, that whatsoever is here said to Peter belongeth to the whole Church, which he only at that time did represent. But for answer hereto, we must observe, that two ways Peter may be said to bear the person of the Church; first historically, which is, when one having done a thing himself, doth also therein represent a thing to be done by another, as Abraham having indeed two sons, did therein also represent, that God was to have two people, as S. Paul (30) Gal. 4.24. expoundeth. Secondly parabolically, when nothing truly done is proposed, but something alike is feigned, to signify another thing, as in the Gospel, he that sowed good seed, signified Christ preaching. And in the first sense, it is true, that Peter as then represented the Church, in that to him were given the keys, which after were to be Communicated to the Church: but this maketh not against, but with us; unless we will say, that Abraham had not two sons, because therein he represented God to have two people. And that it is not to be understood in the second sense, is plain, aswell that every circumstance doth (as it were) mark out the very particular person of Peter, as also in that to the same, it is said, To thee I will give the keys etc. to whom it is said immediately after (verse 29.) Go after me Satan, for the name Peter is alike in both places; and that by Satan, is meant Peter's person is plain, and for such (31) Hilar. de Trinit. l. 6. & 10. & in Ps. 131. Aug. l. 2. cont. duas ep. Gaud. c. 23. acknowledged by the ancient Fathers, and all Protestants (in their known love to Peter) do easily believe it. Others object that Peter spoke in the name of all the Disciples, when he said, Thou art Christ etc. And therefore he likewise heard in the name of all, To thee I will give the keys. Answer. Peter spoke in the name of the rest, not as a Crier, foreknowing what would be the answer of the rest, for neither had they given him that in charge, not nor (32) Hilar. in hunc locum. & l. 6. de Trinit. Chrysost. hom. 55. in Math. Cyril. l. 12. in joan. c. 64. Aug. Ser. 114. de Temp. Leo Ser. 11. de pass. Domini. & ser. 2. de SS. Petro & Paulo. consulted with him thereof, as many ancient Fathers do observe; he alone knowing it by revelation from God, according to that which Christ presently therefore said, Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven: he is therefore said to speak in the name of the rest, because to that, which he as chief and head had uttered, they by their silence, gave their assent, which thing maketh wholly for Peter's Primacy. It is further replied, that as to Abraham (33) Rom. 4.9 Faith was imputed to justice, so also it is imputed to all others that believe, therefore if Peter received the keys because he confessed Christ, than all such as confess Christ, shall likewise receive them. Answ. Abraham by faith was not only justified, but also made (34) Rom. 4.17. a Father of many Nations, and yet all such as believe are not made such Fathers. The answer therefore is, that faith of its own nature doth lead and bring a man to justice, if other things necessary thereunto be not wanting, as Hope, Charity etc. But Confession of Christ doth not of its own nature lead a man to receive the keys, for sundry other ways might Christ have rewarded Peter worthily for his Confession, if it had so pleased his heavenly wisdom. Some demand whether Peter dying, the keys remained in the Church, or ceased with him? If the first, than they were given to the Church; if the second, than no man now hath authority to lose or bind. Or thus, When the Pope is chosen, he either bringeth the keys with him, or not; if the first, than he was Pope before he was made; if the second, from whence had he them? Did some Angel bring them from heaven, or rather did he not receive them from the Church, to whom they were given in the beginning? Answ. Peter, or the Pope dying, the keys do not perish, neither remain formally in the Church but only as they are communicated to inferior Pastors, but they remain in the hands of Christ: and when a new Pope is chosen, he doth not bring them with him, neither are they given him by the Church, but by Christ, neither by any new delivery, but by his ancient Institution. Even as a King when he doth place a Viceroy over some Country, should withal make known, that it is his Royal pleasure, that the said Viceroy dying, the Country shall choose and nominate another, to whom he already giveth the same power and authority, as to the former. Lastly, it is objected, that as here to Peter are promised the keys, so the same authority to be promised to the (35) Mat. 18.18. rest of the Apostles, Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shallbe bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shall lose etc. Answ. As before it is showed in what sense they are truly called foundations, so here likewise they are said to have authority to bind & lose, but that this was given to them, not as to ordinary Pastors, but only as to Legates for the time, and withal with certain subordination to Peter, shallbe showed hereafter. And I wish only, that it may be further observed, that Christ speaking of one matter, to one person, in one and the same sentence, to whomesoever he made the first promise, to him he made the rest. Therefore if he promised the keys to all the Apostles, upon them all he promised to build his Church, and not upon himself. Or if he promised to build his Church upon himself, to himself he promised the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to himself he promised all power of binding and losing, which had been as impertinent to our Saviour's discourse, as dissonant from truth: for Christ had all that power before given by his Father, when he was first sent. The last principal thing then to be proved, is, that by giving the keys to Peter, is understood the giving of the chief authority over the whole Church unto him; for by keys, is understood (36) Isa. 22.22. principality, as where the Institution of the high Priest Eliachim, being described, it is said, And I will give the key of the house of David, upon his shoulder, and he shall open, and there shallbe none to shut, and he shall shut, & there shallbe none to open: here, by key is understood Ecclesiastical principality, whereunto pertaineth that, (37) Isa. 9.6. And his principality is upon his shoulder; for therefore is Principality said to be upon the shoulder, because the keys (wherewith it is signified) were accustomed to be laid upon the shoulder. Christ's Principality also is plainly signified by keys, (38) Apoc. 3.7. These things saith he that is holy and true, which hath the key of David; which openeth, and no man shutteth, and shutteth and no man openeth. As also it is a common custom in politic government, that when any City is yielded to any Prince, or Governor, the keys thereof are delivered withal, in sign of their subjection. So our Saviour to signify the ample power that he would give to Peter over his Church, promised him the keys of the kingdom of heaven. So many ways it is proved clearly, that by the foresaid words of our Saviour unto Peter, he thereby promised to make him supreme head of his Church. To come therefore to the performance of the foresaid promise; S. john telleth us that, (39) Io. 21.15. jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon of jona lovest thou me more than these? he said unto him; yea Lord thou knowest that I love thee: he said unto him, feed my Lambs. He said unto him again the second time, Simon of jona lovest thou me? he said unto him yea Lord etc. he said unto him, feed my sheep etc. Here our Saviour's speech is so direct to Peter alone (as is manifest by all circumstances, especially by those words, Lovest thou me more than these?) as all other special proof thereof is needless. Now, that by those words, Pasce oves meas, feed my sheep, the chief Ecclesiastical power is given to Peter, is proved first by the word Pasce, feed, which in Scriptures signifieth to govern or bear rule; so where it is said, For out of thee shall come a (40) Mat. 2.6. Captain, or as Prot. (41) English, Bib. of Anno 1578. translate a Governor, which shall govern my people of Israel; in the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth to feed: Now that there is understood Christ's Government, & chief power over the people, is of itself manifest. As also it is said (42) Michaeas' 5.2. from whence S. Matthew took that saying, Out of thee shall come forth unto me, he that shallbe the Dominatour or Ruler in Israel; where the Hebrew word signifieth not, pascere, to feed, but dominari, to rule. In like sort it is said of our Saviour, (43) Apoc. 19.15. He shall rule them with a rod of Iron: in the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, feed. So also Homer (l. 2. Iliad) calleth king Agamemnon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pastorem populorum, the Pastor of the people. Secondly, he is not properly said to feed another which in any respect helpeth another to meat, but he that provideth and procureth meat for another, which is a thing proper to a Master, or (44) Luc. 11.41. Governor, who is a faithful steward and wise, whom the Master shall make Ruler over his household to give them in season their measure of wheat: So that it is his part to feed, who is appointed over the family for Steward and Ruler. Besides, it is not the part of a Pastor or Shepherd, only to give meat to his flock, but also to guide them, defend them, govern them, and correct them when they go astray. Thirdly, no reason can be alleged, why so severally it should be said, to Peter, To thee I will give the keys: and feed my sheep, and that for his singular faith and Charity, if thereby he had received nothing above the rest. Fourthly, by those words, My sheep is understood the whole Church of Christ, not any one or other part thereof: for seeing without all restriction, the pronoun, Mine, is joined to the Noun, Sheep, it manifestly followeth, all those sheep to be commended to Peter, to whom the pronoun Mine, extendeth: now, it is certain that it extendeth to all, for there is not any in the Church, who will not glory himself to be Christ's sheep. Besides when one dying saith, I leave my goods to my Children, he excludeth none of his goods, nor any of his Children; further our Saviour either commended hereby to Peter, all his sheep, or none, or some determinate company, or some indeterminate: Now none will say, that he commended none, or some determinately, for that is manifestly false; neither any indefinitely, for no wise Provider doth leave an uncertain care, when he may determinate the same, seeing certain confusion and perturbation ariseth thereby: yea to commend some, and not to determine which, is as much as to commend none; for which shall he feed, who knoweth not his flock? It remaineth therefore that Christ assigned to Peter even all his flock to be fed, and consequently the rest of the Apostles themselves, seeing they were part of Christ's flock. D. Whitaker answereth hereto, that, (45) Controu. 4 q 2. c. 4. p. 573. Christ commended his sheep to Peter indefinitely, not to feed these or those sheep, but sometimes these, sometimes those. Agreeable to which saith Beza, (46) In hunc locum Is the word of God thus to be profaned? Truly Christ did add 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (that is, all, not universal) and the difference is known between indefinite, and universal propositions. But all this is frivolous, for Prot. do limit propositions universal, aswell as indefinite. And therefore Caluin himself shall answer this, telling them, that (47) In 1. joan. 3.3. an indefinite speech importeth as much as an universal. Wherefore if, as Whitaker confesseth, Christ commended his sheep to Peter indefinitely; he commended all, and every one of his sheep. Another proof from Scripture for S. Peter's Primacy, is taken from the manner of numbering the Apostles, which is commonly by beginning with (48) Mat. 10.12. Peter. Now the names of the twelve Apostles were these, the first Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his Brother, james etc. (49) See also Luc. 22.8. Io. 21 2. Mat. 17.1. Mar 5.37. & 13.3. whereas the order of the rest is often changed. (50) Mat. 10.2. Mar. 3.16. Luc. 6.14. Act. 1.13. Yea where two or three are but named, he is commonly the first, (51) Mar. 5.37. Luc. 8.51. and so in all other places, one only (52) Gal. 2.9. excepted, where it is said, james, Cephas, and john. And yet it is not certain whether S. Paul so said: for diverse (53) Ambrose Aug & Hieron. upon this place, & in the text, & in their Commentaries. ancient Fathers both in the text and in their Commentaries read, Peter, james, and john. But if we admit, that it should be so read, then, it may either be said, that it was so done, because james was Bishop of Jerusalem, where those three Apostles then were, or else that S. Paul did not observe any order in this place: for that S. Paul knew that Peter was above james, may appear, in that in the same Epistle he saith, (54) C. 1.18. He went to Jerusalem to see Peter, not to see james, though he were in the same place, as also (55) 1. Cor. 1.12. he proceedeth ascending, and placing Peter next unto Christ. Further, Peter is not only placed in the first place, but also is described as a Captain or Prince of the rest; for as it is said, (56) Apoc. 12.7. Michael and his Angels, (57) Ib. vers. 9 The Devil and his Angels; so it is said, (58) Mar. 1.36. And Simon, and they that were with him, followed him; (59) Luc. 8.45. Peter said, and they that were with him; (60) Mar. 16.7. See also Luc. 9.32. Act. 2.14.5.29. 1. Cor. 9.5. Tell his Disciples and Peter. Neither can it be answered to these, that Peter is thus placed, either because he was first called by Christ, for that was not he, but his brother (61) Io. 1.39, 40. Andrew, or because he was the eldest in years, for Andrew was Elder, which thing our (62) Cent. 2. l. 2. c. 10. Adversaries acknowledge for probable, or else because of his excellent gifts; for either that is meant of those gifts which he had in regard of the Church, as that he received singularly the keys, that he was made the foundation of the Church, and Pastor of all Christ's sheep etc. or else it is meant of his personal gifts and virtues: if the first, it maketh wholly for us; not the second, for the Evangelists could not easily know, neither durst judge, which of the Apostles was most virtuous, for john was called the Apostle whom jesus loved, and james the less was of such sanctity as that he was called the Just, and the Brother of our Lord. Lastly, it cannot be said to be casual, in that some one was to be put first in the Catalogue, aswell in that, as all the Evangelists ever put Peter first, so yet they keep no one certain order in placing of the rest, excepting judas, who for unworthiness, they still place last, as they do S. Peter for his pre-eminence, first; which argueth a special respect of Peter's placing: as also in that S. Matthew (63) C. 10.2. calleth Peter, primus, the first, not reckoning the rest, one, the second, and another the third etc. but without all observation of order: so that betwixt Peter and the rest he observeth order, because Peter was Superior, and the rest Inferiors; but amongst the rest he observeth none, because they were all equal amongst themselves: And of the word, Primus, cometh Primatus, even as of Princeps, Principatus, of Consul, Consulatus. This is so convincing, that Beza (64) In his annotations upon the New Test. of Anno 1556. in Mat. 10.2. for want of better answer, barely suspecteth the word, first, to be thrust into the Text by some favourer of Peter's Primacy. What if this word, Primus (saith he) be added by some, who would establish Peter's Primacy? And yet (saith he) we find it so written in all Copies. But if this might suffice for an answer, every heretic might evade all Scripture, though never so clear. But that you may better know this Beza, here he confesseth that the word, first, is written in all Copies; and yet he will needs suspect, that it is thrust into the text by some friend of Peter. And yet Mar. 3.16. where it is only said; He gave to Simon the name Peter, here himself thrusteth it into the Text, saying, And the first was Simon; and the same Addition is also made in some of our (65) Of Anno 1578. 1579. English Bibles. What a mass of Contrarieties may be found in this man? In the first place, where the word, first, is to be truly seen in all Copies, there will he have it to be added to the Text by some forger: here where it is not, he will have it part of the true Text, and that because Matthew readeth so, and yet next before he suspecteth not Matthew, but some late Papist to have read so. In the first place, there could not be, first Simon, because there is no consequence of second, third etc. here he saith, that is no impediment, because there be many examples of such speech, and namely in that place of Matthew. There it is not so, though all Greek Copies have it so: here it must needs be so, because Beza will have it so, though it be only found in certain odd Copies of Erasmus, which Erasmus himself, as Beza confesseth, allowed not. If after Christ had given to Peter and the rest of the Apostles, Apostolical authority in common, saying, Whose sins you forgive etc. Preach the Gospel etc. he had nevertheless said severally to Peter, Peter thou art not a Rock, I will not give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, Thou shalt not feed my sheep, Peter is not the first of the Apostles, and the like; what Protestant reading this, would doubt to affirm, but that the chief authority over the Church, were denied to Peter? Seeing then, in these Negative Propositions, they doubtless would affirm chief authority to be denied to Peter, they must like wise affirm by the contradictory affirmative propositions expressed in Scripture, chief authority to be given to Peter. Lastly, it is not to be neglected, that diverse Privileges and honours were given to Peter, which were not given to the rest of the Apostles, at that he was the only man among the Disciples, that (66) Mat. 1●. 29. walked upon the waters with Christ: that he was the only man for whom Christ (67) Mat. 17.27. paid tribute: In Peter's (68) Luc 5.2.3. ship, and not in the other did Christ teach: the Apostles in general being asked by Christ, who he was, Peter was the only man that (69) Mat. 16.16. answered: for him only Christ prayed, (70) Luc. 22.31. that his faith should not fail: To him only he said, (71) Luc. 21.16. Feed my sheep: him only he (72) Mat. 16.13. calleth Peter, or a Rock and accordingly promiseth to build his Church upon this Rock: Peter is the first that speaketh in the Council (73) Act. 1.15. & 5.29. & 15.7. of the Apostles: he prescribeth Election (74) Act. 1.22. to be made of one in judas place: he standing (75) Act. 2.14. among the Eleven, taketh upon him to make the first Sermon to the people: When Ananias had fraudulently left a porion of his riches at (76) Act. 5.2 3 5. the feet of the Apostles, Peter only rebuketh him, & inflicteth upon him present death: Peter was the only man of all the Apostles (77) Gal. 10.18. whom to see, Paul went to Jerusalem: Lastly he is the only Apostle that hath the usual pre-eminence in the order of being first named, as is before showed; In so much as when the Apostles are but spoken of in general, yet often he only for honour sake is named. All which things being so peculiar only to Peter, from the other Apostles, could not be casual to him rather than to the other, but purposely observed, and so set down in regard of his known Primacy. I will only add hereto, that seeing the best Government is acknowledged by all, to be Monarchical, that therefore the Government of the Church is to be by one supreme Pastor upon Earth. And although Caluin (78) Inst. l. 4. c. 6. §. 9 replieth, this not to follow, because Christ is the King and Monarch of the Church: yet this is insufficient; for though Christ be the true and proper Monarch of the Church, governing the same spiritually and invisibly, yet the Church being corporal & visible, needeth some one visible judge, by whom Controversies in Religion arising, may be composed, and who may keep the other inferior Prelates in unity & due performance of their offices. Yea this maketh no more against one supreme Pastor, than it doth against all other Bishops, Pastors, and Doctors, who by the same reason were needless, for Christ is (79) 1. Pet. 2.25. the Pastor and Bishop of our soul, he is our Master whom we are commanded (80) Mat. 17.5. to hear; he it is, who baptizeth (81) Io. 1.33. in the holy Ghost. And therefore, as other Bishops and Pastors do that as Christ's Ministers, which himself doth principally; so the like may be said of one supreme Pastor. Thus much of the plain Texts of Scripture in proof of S. Peter's Primacy. SECT. III. That the Fathers expound the sacred Scriptures agreably with Catholics, in Proof of S. Peter's Primacy. NOw, that the ancient Fathers do expound the foresaid Scriptures agreably with us Catholics, in behalf of S. Peter's Primacy, it shall sundry ways appear; as first concerning the change of his name from Simon to Peter, which signifieth a Rock; S. Curill affirmeth, that, (1) In joan. c. 11. Christ etc. foretold that his name should not be ●●mon, but Peter, aptly signifying by the very word, that upon him as upon Rock and firm stone, he was to build his Church. To the same purpose S. Hilary (2) In Math. Can. 16. saith most eloquently, O happy foundation of the Church, in naming of the new name, and worthy Rock of that building, which should dissolve the infernal Laws, and gates of Hell etc. O happy Porter of heaven, to whose arbitrement the keys of Eternal entrance are delivered etc. S. G●●gory is so confident in this, as that he demandeth, (3) L. 6. Ep. 3. Who knoweth not that the holy Church is founded upon the solidity of the Prince of the Apostles seeing the firmness of his mind he took in his name that of a Rock he should be called Peter? to whom by the voice of Truth it is said: To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. These Fa●●ers show from the Scriptures, that therefore the name Simon was changed to Peter, which signifieth a Rock, because he was to be the Rock, upon which Christ would build his Church. Now, that S. Peter was the Rock, upon whom Christ would build his Church, it is taught by S. Chrisostome in these words, (4) Ho, 55. in Mat. Our Lord saith, Thou art Peter, and upon thee I will build my Church: what more clear then, Upon thee? S. Hierome avoucheth that, (5) In. c. 16. Math. According to the Metaphor of a Rock, it is rightly said to him, I will build my Church upon thee. S. Athanasius, (6) Ep ad Felicem. As the divine Scripture saith truly, Thou art Peter, and upon thy foundation the Pillars of the Church are strengthened. S. Ambrose, (7) Ser. 68 & 47. & see S. Leo Ser. 1. de anniversario assumptionis suae ad Pontifi●atum. If therefore Peter be the Rock upon which the Church is built etc. These Fathers expressly teach from the Scriptures, that upon Peter himself, as upon a Rock, the Church was to be built. S. Austin maketh not only S. Peter, but even his Sea after him to be the Rock, saying, (8) ●n psal. count. part. Donat. & de Bap. cont. Don l. 2. c. 1. Number the Priests from the very Sea of Peter, that is the Rock which the gates of Hell do not overcome. And again▪ (9) Sir 5. in fest. Pet & Pau & ser. 15. de sanctis. Ep. ad Quint. only (Peter) amongst the Apostles deserved to hear, Amen, I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church; worthy truly who to the people, which were to be builded in the house of God, might be a stone for their foundation, a pillar for their stay, a key to open the gates of the kingdom of heaven. And eye where he saith, (10) In ●sal. 30. Con. 2. O Church, that is, O Peter, because upon this Rock I will build my Church: kill and eat. S. Austin's opinion in this was so clear, that the Prot. Hamelmannus confesseth that, (11) De Tradit. Apost. part. 2. l. 3. Col. 622. Austin in his book against the Epistle of Donatus, teacheth that the Church was founded upon Peter, as upon the Rock, and he proveth this his opinion by the verses of Ambrose. S. Cyprian, no less plainly writeth: (12) De unit. Eccles. Our Lord saith to Peter, I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon that Rock I will build my Church etc. But to be brief, the like is taught by the Council (13) Act. 5. Orig. hom. 5. in Exod. Epiph. in Ancorato. Basil l. 2. in Eunom. Tertul. l. de Prescript. of Chalcedon, Origen, Epiphanius, Basill, and Tertullian. Now that the Fathers thus expounding S. Peter to be the Rock, did thereby understand, that the supreme care of the whole Church was committed to him, it is evident by S. chrysostom, who interpreting those words, Thou art Peter, (14) Ho. 55. in Mat. affirmeth that Christ ordained him Pastor of the Church; And that, the Father placed Hieremy over one Nation, but Christ placed Peter over the whole world. S. Ambrose avoucheth that, (15) Ser. 47. Peter is called a Rock, because as an immoveable stone he sustaineth the joining, and weight of the whole Christian work or building. S. Gregory teacheth that, (16) L. 4. Ep. 32. It is clear to all that know the Gospel, that by our Lord's mouth, the care of the whole Church is committed to holy Peter, the Prince of all the Apostles, for to him it is said, (17) Io. 21.15, Peter lovest thou me? feed my sheep. To him it is said, (18) Luc. 22.31. Behold Satan hath desired to winnow you as wheat, and I have prayed for thee Peter, that thy faith may not fail, and thou sometimes converted, confirm thy Brethrens. To whom it is said, (19) Mat. 16.18. Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and to thee I will give the keys etc. Behold he taketh the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, power of binding and losing is given him, the care and principality of the whole Church is committed to him etc. These sayings are so pregnant, that if Bellarmine were living, he could not speak more favourably for the Pope's Primacy. In like sort whereas Christ said to Peter, Simon lovest thou me, and Peter answered, Thou knowest Lord that I love thee, and then jesus saith to him, feed my sheep; S. Ambrose expounding these words, saith, (20) Ad cap. 24. Lucae. Therefore is he preferred before all, because amongst them all, he alone professed his love. But no man speaketh more expressly in this then S. Cyprian, (61) De unit. Eccl. (21) To Peter our Lord after his Resurrection said, feed my sheep, and builded his Church upon him alone, and to him he giveth the charge of feeding his sheep; for although after his Resurrection, he gave his power alike to all, saying; As my father sent me, so I sand you, take the holy Ghost, If you remit to any their sins, they shallbe remitted etc. Yet to manifest unity, he constituted one Chair, and so disposed by his authority, that unity should have origen of one: The rest of the Apostles were that Peter was in equal fellowship of honour & power, but the beginning comes of unity: the Primacy is given to Peter, that the Church of Christ may be showed to be one, & one Chair. Let us hear S. Chrisostome, (22) L. 2. de Sacerdoti●. Why did our Lord sheed his blood? truly (saith he) to redeem those sheep, the care of which he committed both to Peter, and also to his Successors. And a little after, Christ would have Peter endued with such authority, and to be fare above all his other Apostles; for he saith, Peter dost thou love me more than all these do? Whereupon our Master might have inferred, if thou love me Peter, use much fasting, sleep on the hard floor, watch much, be Patron to the oppressed, Father to the Orphans, and husband to the widows: but omitting all these things, he saith, feed my sheep; for all the foresaid virtues may easily be done by many subjects, not only men, but also women: but when it cometh to the government of the Church, & committing the Charge of so many souls all womankind must needs wholly give place to the burden and greatness thereof and a great number of men also. And whereas Christ said to S. Peter, feed my sheep. (23) L. 2. de Consider. What sheep (saith S. Bernard?) the people of this or that City? of this or that kingdom? My sheep (quoth he) to whom is it not manifest, he designed not some, but assigned all? nothing is excepted where nothing is distinguished. And the like is taught by S. chrysostom, S. Austin, and S. Cyril, upon this place, and by S. Leo (24) Ep. 89. ad Episcopos Viennensis Provinciae. Max. ser. de S. Pet. & Pau. and Maximus. S. Austin speaking of our Saviour's paying Tribute for himself and Peter, interpreteth the words thus, (25) Quaest. vet. & nou. Test. q. 75. They that received the didrachmes, say to Peter the Apostle: Your master doth not pay the didrachmes etc. upon which words they went to the master, that he might pay for all his Disciples. But our Saviour when he commandeth to pay for himself and Peter, seemeth to have paid for all: because as in our Saviour were all the Causes of Superiority, so after him all are contained in Peter: for he ordained him the head of them, that he might be the Pastor of our Lords flock. And a little after upon those words. (26) Luc. 22. I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, he saith further: It is evident that all are contained in Peter, for ask for Peter he is known to ask for all. Always in the Superior, the people is reproved, or commended. S. Hilary writing upon these words, Go after me Satan, thou art a scandal to me, expoundeth them in this manner, (27) In Ps. 13. multo ante med. When he had spoken certain things concerning his Passion to his Disciples, and Peter had detested this as unworthy the son of God, Peter, to whom before he had given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, upon whom he was to build his Church, against whom the gates of hell should nothing prevail, who what he either loosed or bound upon Earth, those should remain either loosed or bound in heaven; This man detesting this Sacrament of his Passion, he received with this reproach, Go after me Satan, thou art a scandal to me: for so great was his Religion (or care) to suffer for the salvation of mankind, as that with the reproach of Satan he named Peter, the first Confessor of the son of God, the foundation of the Church, the Porter of the kingdom of heaven, and for earthly judgement, the judge of heaven. Upon these words of S. Paul, (28) Gal. 1.18. After three years I came to Jerusalem to see Peter, S. Ambrose writeth, (29) In Gal. 1. It was fitting that he should desire to see Peter, because he was the chief among the Apostles, to whom our Saviour had committed the care of Churches. Yea according to S. Hierome, (30) Ep. 89. ad Aug. c. 2. Peter was of so great authority, that Paul in his Epistle writeth, Than after three years I came to Jerusalem to see Peter etc. Showing that he had not security of Preaching the Gospel, unless it were confirmed by the sentence of Peter, and the rest of the Apostles that were with him. S. chrysostom saith hereof, (32) Ho. 87. in joan. 21. See also Oecumenius in Gal. 1. Peter was the mouth of the Apostles, and the Prince and top of that Company, and therefore Paul went to see him above others. Lastly, whereas in the numbering of the Apostles it is said, (33) Mat. 10.12. The first Simon, who is called Peter, S. Ambrose saith hereof; (34) In 2. Cor. 11. Andrew first followed our Saviour before Peter, and yet the Primacy Andrew received not, but Peter. S. Bernard affirmeth, that, (35) L 2. de Confid. c. 8. Peter walking upon the waters, as Christ did, declared himself the only Vicar of Christ, which should be ruler not over one people, but over all, for many waters are many people's. But the Fathers are so confessedly clear in their expounding of the Scriptures for S. Peter's Primacy over all the Apostles, and the whole Church, that Danaeus for his best answer unto them, saith, (36) Resp. ad Bell. disp. part. 1. p. 277. They are not to be believed, for the saying of Christ, Mat. 16. thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, most badly they expound of the Person of Peter. Agreably also confesseth Caluin (37) Instit. l. 4. c. 6. Sec. 6. The Church to be built upon Peter, because it is said, upon this Rock etc. Some of the Fathers have so expounded, but the whole Scripture gainsayeth. And if we will believe D. Fulke, (38) Confut. of the Papists Quarrels. p 4. Many of the Ancient Fathers etc. were deceived to think something more of Peter's Prerogative, & the Bishop of Rome's dignity, then by the word of God was given to either of them. The Centuristes affirm that, (39) C●nt. 5. Col. 1262. Leo very painfully goeth about to prove that singular pre-eminence was given to Peter, above the other Apostles, and that thence rose the Primacy of the Roman Church. But Protestants forbear not to reprove, and charge with affected Primacy even S. Peter himself, and the other next succeeding to him Bishops of Rome, for thus writ certain Caluinists, (40) Catalogus testium veritatis. to. 1. p. 27. It may not be denied, but that Peter was sometimes faulty in ambition and desire of power etc. By which infirmity of Peter, doubtless it was signified that those Bishops which bragged of Peter's succession, were to be faulty of the like etc. Wherhfore this so perverse ambition of Peter, and ignorance of heavenly things, and negligence withal etc. did without doubt signify, that the Roman Bishop, because he would be Chief, and heir of Peter's privileges, was to be ignorant and a contemner of heavenly things etc. To the same purpose another Prot. saith, (41) Philippus Nicolai in Comment. de regno Dei. p. 221. The affectation of Primacy, was a common Infirmity of the Apostles, as also of the first Bishops of the City of Rome. But that you may see that this claim was not only made by Popes, the Centurists confess that, (42) Cent. 3. Col. 84. Tertullian not without Error (as they dream) seemeth to think the keys to be committed only to Peter, and the Church to be built upon him. (43) Cent. 3. Col. 84. Cyprian saith every where the Church to be founded upon Peter, (44) Cent. 3. Col. 85. Origen saith Tract. 5. in Matth. Peter by promise deserved to be made the foundation of the Church: and Hom. 17. in Luc. he calleth Peter the Prince of the Apostles. (45) Retentive p. 248. Fulke chargeth Opratus with absurdity for saying of Peter, he deserved to be preferred before all the Apostles, and he alone received the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, to be communicated to the rest. So manifest it is, that all the Fathers of the Primitive Church, believed Peter to be the supreme Head of the Church. SECT. iv That Protestants also do agreed with Catholics, in the Doctrine of S. Peter's Primacy. IOhn Husse proveth both by Scriptures and Fathers, that S. Peter was head of the Apostles & the whole Church. (1) De Ecclesia. c. 9 The saying of B. Dionysius (saith he) is true, that Peter is Chief among the Apostles, and was the foundation of Churches; And the saying of Austin also is true, that he was first among the Apostles, according to some Prerogative. And the saying of Marcellus is true, that Peter was the head of the whole Church etc. There were three virtues in which Peter excelled, faith, humility, and Charity etc. from that faith Peter received the burden of the Rule of the Church: And I say to thee, saith the Rock, because thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church etc. Peter was the first Vicar of Christ by him chosen, and deputed spiritually to the Church. Perzibranes Confession in this point is this, (2) In professione fidei. cap. 38. I confess that the keys of losing and binding, of forgiving and retaining sins, were given by Christ to the holy Church in B. Peter principally, and in other Apostles. D. Bilson alleging these words of Christ, He that is greater among you, let him be as the lest, affirmeth that, (3) Perpet. Govern. c. 6. p. 53. In these words the Lord noteth a manifest distinction of some greater, some less, some chiefer, some lower. D. Saravia saith of the foresaid doubt of the Apostles, and our Saviour's said answer, (4) divers degrees of Ministers. l. 2. c. 21. p. 173. 174. Fare be it from me, that I should rashly condemn those good men of sacrilegious ambition, seeing the Lord did not so much correct, as direct them in their demand. And the like is taught by D. (5) Def. pag. 70. Whitguift. Caluin speaking of the change of name from Simon to Cephas, or Peter, faith, (6) In joan. 1. 42. The Evangelist reciteth as it were this Prophecy, that Simon should have a new name given him. I call it a Prophecy, not only because Christ foresaw the Constancy of faith which would be in Peter, but because he foresaw what he would give him: therefore now he commendeth in words the grace which he resolved afterwards to bestow upon him. He doth not therefore say that this is his name for the present, but differreth it to the time to come, Thou shalt be called Cephas, saith he, It is meet that all the Godly be Peter's, who founded in Christ may be made fit to build the Temple of God: but this one is so called for his singular Excellency. D. Whitaker relating what himself and other Prot. think hereof, saith, (7) Controu. 4. q. 2. pag. 544. We do not deny Peter to be the foundation of the Church, and the Governor, and we will grant, if they shall require, that to be promised him by Christ in these words. And (8) Con. Dur. l. 5. sect. 4. who doth not confess Peter to be the Rock and the foundation of Church? Reynolds acknowledgeth it to be true, (9) Confer. Cap. 2. sec. 1. That the words of Christ to Peter do contain this sense, upon thee I will build my Church. Marcus Antonius de Dominis confesseth that, (10) L 1. de Repub. c. 7. mum. 1. It is expressly said by Christ, speaking to Peter, I will give to thee the keys. Let them therefore be gone and departed, whosoever offering violence to this Text, do contend that the keys are given or promised not to Peter immediately, but Peter's person excluded, either to the whole Church, or to another which is not Peter. Whitaker likewise saith, (11) Controu. 4 q. 2. c. 4 p. 557. I grant, that to him (to wit Peter) the keys were truly promised, for that the place convinceth, and I will never deny it. Who doubteth (saith D. (12) Resp. ad Apol. Bellar. c. 8. Andrews) that the keys were given to him? So free from all doubt is S. Peter's Primacy. D. Whiteguift allegeth Caluin to say, (13) Whiteg. Def. p. 373. The twelve Apostles had one among them to govern the rest; and he proveth it, in that there is, (14) Ibid. p. p. 469. no College without a Governor, no Society without a master; & hereupon he further concludeth, saying, So should it not be any absurdity, if we should confess, that the Apostles gave such pre-eminence to Peter. Affirming further himself, that, (15) Ibid. Among the Apostles themselves, there was one chief etc. that had chief authority over the rest, that Schisms might be compounded. Musculus avoucheth, that, (16) In Whiteg. Def. p. 66. 68 Celestial spirits are not equal etc. The Apostles themselves were not equal, Peter is found in many places to have been Chief, which we deny not. But D. Whitegui●● is so full in this, as that he not only answereth (17) Ibid. p. 62. 63 65. 68 70. 395. certain places of Scripture, objected by some against Peter's Primacy, but also expoundeth (18) Ibid. p. 70. 304. in behalf of the same sundry of the said Scriptures before alleged. And although he would evade something from our Catholic Doctrine, by affirming that Peter was only as an Archbishop, over other Bishops in one Province, having Chief authority over the rest to this end especially, that Schisms and contentions might be compounded: yet Cartwright heerto well replieth, that by the same reason it necessarily followeth, (19) In whiteg. Def. p. 380. that, for the keeping of the universal Church in unity, there is like necessity of one Bishop over all Christendom. Luther thinketh, (20) In resolutionibus. That Peter was first in order no man denieth etc. We confess Peter to be the Prince of the Apostles, the first member of the Church, the head of the College of the Apostles, and the rest which holy Fathers have said of him. D. Field, (21) Of the Church, l. 5. c. 32. We deny not but that B. Peter had a kind of Primacy and honour. D. Covell is so full herein, that he giveth the true reason of this Primacy, for having spoken of (22) Ag. the Plea of the Innoc. c. 9 p. 106. one above the rest to suppress the seeds of dissension, he saith further, (23) Ib. p. 107. If this were the principal means to prevent Schisms and dissensions in the Primitive Church, when the graces of God were far more abundant and eminent then now they are: Nay if the twelve, were not like to agreed, except there had been one Chief among them; for saith Hierome, among the twelve one was therefore chosen, that a Chief being appointed, occasion of dissension might be prevented etc. and then speaking of Puritans, he urgeth well, How can they think that equality would keep all the Pastors in the world in peace and unity etc. For in all Societies, authority (which cannot be where all are equal) must procure unity and obedience. Thus far in proof that Protestants do teach from Scriptures, the Primacy of S. Peter. SECT. V Objections from Scripture against S. Peter's Primacy answered. SOme object those words of S. Paul, (1) Gal. 2.11. When Cephas was was come to Antioch, I resisted him in face, because he was reprehensible. Ergo, Paul was not subject to him. Answ. An Inferior may reprehend his Superior, so that the matter require it, and due reverence be observed: and as for the fault here reproved, Tertullian affirmeth that it was, (2) De Prescript. num. 7. Conuersationis, non Praedicationis vitium, a default in Conversation, life, or regiment, not in doctrine. And S. Austin, and those that make most of it, think no otherwise of it. But S. Hierome and other Fathers deem it no fault at all, nor any other thing then what (3) Art 21.26. S. Paul himself did upon the like occasion, & that this whole combat was a set thing agreed upon between them. It is a school point much debated between S. Hierome and (4) Aug. Ep. 9.11.19. S. Austin. Howsoever the Ancient Fathers do answer this objection. S. Cyprian saith, Ep 71. ad Quint. For neither Peter whom our Lord chose the first, and upon whom be built the Church, when Paul disputed with him of Circumcision, challenged insolently, or arrogantly took any thing to himself, saying, That he had the Primacy, and therefore the later Disciples aught rather to obey him. According to S. Austin (6) Ep. 19 c. 2. & l. 2. de Bap. c. 1. . That which was done of Paul profitably, by the liberty of Charity, the same Peter took in good part by holy and benign godliness of humility, and so he gave to posterity a more rare and holy Example, if at any time perhaps they did amiss, to be content to be directed by their juniors, than Paul to be bold and confident: Yea the inferiors to resist their betters for defending the Truth of the Gospel, brotherly Charity always preserved. And see the like answer in (7) In Gal. 2. S. Hierome and (8) Ho. 18. in Ezech. S. Gregory. Reynolds urgeth that, (9) Conf. c. 4. diuis. 3. the Apostles (10) Act. 8.14. Which were at Jerusalem, sent Peter and john to the people of Samaria: (11) Act. 31.35. The Apostles and Brethrens that were in jury, called Peter to an account, when he had preached to Cornelius, which seem to argue, that he was not head of the rest. Answ. All mission doth not suppose superiority in the sender, for the holy Ghost (12) Io. 14.26. & 15.26. is said to be sent from the Father & the Son, and yet is inferior to neither: so also fellows in Colleges, and partners in Incorporations, do by Election, sand some of their Company, equal in authority to the rest about their affairs. And others are sent by advice and humble entreaty, as the (13) joshua. 22. people of the jews sent Phinees the high Priest to the sons of Reuben and Gad. And thus the Council may sand the King to undertake some enterprise for the good of the Common wealth. And thus was Peter by entreaty sent to the people of Samaria. And so also of courtesy, or charity rather, he gave accounted why he preached to the Gentiles, by telling the vision he received of gods divine pleasure therein, to instruct such of the Apostles, as doubted whether the time were yet expedient to admit the Gentiles. Or it may be said, he gave that account, to free himself from the calumniation of his Enemies, and scandal of the jews. It is further urged, that the first Controversy arising in the Church, was not defined by any one supreme judge, but by the Assembly of the Apostles and Seniors, (14) Act. 15.6. The Apostles and Ancients assembled to consider of this word. Answ. S. Peter, who was the chief, was there present, who therefore, though S. james Bishop of that Diocese being then present, did speak first in the Council; which he durst not have done, if he had not been the head thereof: neither doth it impugn a Monarchical Government, that things be defined in a public assembly, with the common counsel and consent of the Princes or chief Nobles. In like sort it is objected, that S. Paul saith to Bishops, (15) Act. 20.28. Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops, to rule the Church of God etc. And the like saith (16) 1. Pet. 5.1.2. S. Peter. Answ. It is not denied, but that Bishops and Priests are to feed and rule the Church, every one being to take particular care & charge of the people committed unto him: but the question is, of the chief power over the whole Church, for which the foresaid places enforce nothing. Others object that Christ alone is a head sufficient for the government of the whole Church, and therefore no necessity that S. Peter, or any Pope should be esteemed as head of the universal Church upon Earth. Answ. Christ alone as our Supreme Lord and King, is sufficient to go●erne all Empires, Kingdoms, Cities, armies, families, and flocks: and yet therefore we must not infer, that Emperors are to be driven out of their Empires, Kings out of their kingdoms, Governors out of Cities, Commanders from their Armies, Masters from their families, and shepherds from their flocks: wherefore in this as in sundry other things, we are to consider the sweet course of God's Providence, who useth the concurrence of secondary causes in the production, administration, and preservation of things. So that as he useth the Sun, the Air, the Rain, the Earth, as secondary causes and instruments for our corporal nourishment; so doth he use man, as his Instrument, to instruct us in faith, to feed us with his Sacraments, and to be our Governor and Commander in matters spiritual. And though it be most true, that Christ is the chief Head or Rock of the Church, yet that S. Peter in a good sense might also be a head or Rock, S. Basil doth teach us saying, (17) L. de Poenit. Though Peter be a Rock, he is not a Rock as Christ is, for Christ is the true immoveable Rock of himself, Peter is unmoveable by Christ the Rock: for jesus doth communicate and impart his dignities, not voiding himself of them, but holding them to himself, bestoweth them also upon others: (18) Mat. 5.14. He is the light, and yet you are the lights, he is the Priest, and yet (19) Luc. 22.19. he maketh Priests, he is the Rock, and he made a Rock. So weak are the Objections which Prot. take from Scriptures. CHAP. IX. The true State of the Question, concerning the Bishop of Rome his Primacy, in matters Ecclesiastical. Whether the Primacy given by Christ to S. Peter was given also to his Successors: & whether the Bishops of Rome be the said Successors. SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. THAT the Primacy given to S. Peter, was to continued to his Successors the Bishops of the Roman Sea, the Catholic Church doth constantly believe. The Council of Trent teacheth that, (1) Sess. 14. c. 7. Pope's deservedly in regard of the Chiefest authority given them in the whole Church, might reserve some more grievous Criminal causes to their own peculiar judgement. The Church in the Profession of our faith directeth us to say, (2) Bulla Pij ●. ●uperforma juramenti Professionis fides. I acknowledge the holy Catholic, and Apostolic Roman Church, the mother and Mistress of all Churches, and etc. the Roman Bishop, the Successor of S. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and the Vicar of ●esus Christ. The Decree of the Fathers of the Council of Florence was this, (3) Sess. vlt. We define the holy Apostolic Sea, and, the Bishop of Rome to have Primacy over the whole world, and that the Bishop of Rome is the Successor of B. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and the true Vicar of Christ, and the head of the whole Church, and the Father & teacher of all Christians, and that to him in S. Peter full power was given by our Lord jesus Christ, of feeding and governing the universal Church, even as it is contained in the Acts of general Counsels, and in the sacred Canons. This decree was made by the consent both of the Greeks and Latin Fathers present in that Council. In the very Council of Basill it was acknowledged, that, (4) Respons. Synod. de authorit. Conc. general. the Pope was head and Primate of the Church, the Vicar of Christ, and the Prelate and Pastor of Christians: from Christ, not from men or other Synods, to him are given by our Lord the keys, & to one it is said, Thou art Peter; and he alone is called into the fullness of power, others into part of the care etc. These things we plainly confess and believe, and do intent to give our diligence in this Council, that all may believe the same. In the first Nicene Council it is said, (5) Can. 39 Arab. He who holdeth the sea of Rome, is the head and Chief of all the patriarchs, seeing he is the first (or chief) as Peter, to whom power is given over all Christian Princes, and all their people, as he who is the Vicar of Christ our Lord over all people, and the universal Church of Christ, and whosoever shall contradict this, is excommunicated by the Synod. In the Council of Ephesus, Pope Celestine is called S. Peter's (6) Part. 2. Act. 3. Successor, and he that holdeth his place. And in the Council of Laterane it is taught, that, (7) Conc. Later. sub Innoc. 3. c. 5. The Roman Church by our Lord's Ordinance hath Principality of ordinary power above all others, as being the Mother and Mistress of all Christian Believers. In the second Council of Nice it was decreed, that, (8) Act. 2. Blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles, who first governed the Apostolic Sea, did leave the Principality of his Apostleship and Pastoral care to his Successors, who are to sit for ever in his most sacred sea; To which successors Bishops he gave and delivered by Commandment from God the power of authority, even as it was granted to him by our Saviour &c And the same Primacy of the Bishop of Rom and his succession to S. Peter, is taught by all Catholic (9) Bellar. de Rom. Pont. l. 2 c. 12. Rhem. Test. in Io. 21.17. writers of these times. Points not defined. Some Pighius Hierarch. Eccl. l 4. c. 8. probably teach that the Pope cannot be an Heretic, and consequently that he cannot in any case be deposed. (11) Turrecrem. l. 4. par. 2. c. 20. Others, that the Pope falling into heresy, though only interior, is thereby out of the Church and deposed by God, & for such may be declared by the Church. Others (12) Caietan. Tract. de authorit. ●apae & Conc. c. 20. 11. that the Pope being a manifest heretic, is not thereupon deposed, but may & aught to be by the Church. Others (13) Driedo de Script. & Eccl dogm l. 4 c. 2. p. 2. sent 2. Canus de locis. l. 4. c. 1. Bellar. de Rom Pont. l. 2. c. 30. and most probably, that the Pope if he be a manifest heretic, doth thereby of himself desist to be Pope & head, even as he ceaseth to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church, and so may be judged and punished by the Church. Some (14) Canus de locis. l. 6. c. 4. 5. 6 Driedo de varijs dogm. c. 4 part. 3. Turrecrem. de Eccl. l 2. c. 40. teach most probably, that by Christ's Institution, the Bishop of Rome is, and so ever to continued, the successor of S. Peter in the care of the Universal Church, Others (15) Sotus l. 4. Sent. dist. 24. q. 2. Art 5. affirm, that this Succession in the Sea of Rome, is only annexed by authority of the Church, & therefore by the same authority may be removed to the Bishop of another Diocese, or to belong to no Diocese determinately, but to be an universal Pastor of the universal Church. But none of these are defined by the Church. Protestants Untruths. Luther is not ashamed to say, that, (16) In colloquus Latinis. Tom. 2. cap. de Papistis. The Pope teacheth foolishly Christ's Priesthood, to be translated to the Pope the Vicar of Christ denying the Eternal Priesthood of Christ. Look only upon two Chapters of his Decretals, where with great Majesty he extolleth himself above the authority of Scripture. In expounding them he giveth place to the Fathers, in defyning Causes, he preferreth the Authority of the Apostolic sea, because he willbe Lord of Scripture, not judged by it. And in a Book which he wrote but a year before his death, he affirmeth the Pope to say, (17) L. adversus Papatum Rome fundatum. No man without me, my keys and Masses can give help; Christ and faith here can help nothing. Again, Christ is drunk, foolish, mad, and forgetful how great power of binding with keys he hath given me. Also, be that doth not adore the Cracks of my belly committeth mortal sin, and is worthy of hell. Yea he seriously affirmeth, that the Pope & all that adhere unto him, do know nothing in the Scriptures, nothing of God, of Christ, of Baptism, of the Eucharist, of the keys, of good works, and that without doubt no Catholic knoweth any one of the 10. Commandments, or one Petition of the Lords Prayer, or any article of the Creed. But these are over gross to confute. Chemnitius followeth his lying Father, avouching tha●, (18) Exam. Concil. Trid. See the like in Illiricus de forma & praxi Concil. Trident. The Fathers of the Council say, that the Pope hath will for reason in those things which he willeth, that he may change the form of Sacraments delivered from the Apostles, that he may decree contrary to the Epistles of Paul, that he may dispense against the 4. first Counsels, and against the words of the Gospel. And this is as true, as if a man should say that Chemnitius were not a most impudent liar, forger, and deceiver. Rogers avoucheth Catholics to believe, (19) Defence of the Art art. 22. p. 122. that the Pope is God in that he can at his pleasure discharge guilty souls, both from the guilt of sin, and from the punishment due for the same. Instead of this which Catholics utterly deny, they do indeed avouch that Luther, Rogers, and other Prot. writers, are known to be most lying Companions. Our English Prot. Church hath decreed, that, (20) Art 37. The Queen's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, & other her Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, or aught to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction etc. The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England. Other Prot. deny this, affirming that the Church hath no other Head but Christ alone, for so the Helvetian Prot. say. (21) Harm. of Confess pag. 309. We hold and teach that Christ our Lord is and remaineth still, the only universal Pastor, and highest Bishop before God his Father, and that in the Church he performeth all the duties of a Pastor or Bishop even to the world's end: and therefore standeth not in need of any other to supply his room, for he is said to have a substitute, who is absent: but Christ is present with his Church, and is the head that giveth life thereunto. He did straightly forbidden his Apostles and their Successors all Superiority or Dominion in the Church. Again, (22) Ib. 310. We acknowledge no other head of the Church than Christ. And, (23) Ib. 308. We do not allow of the Doctrine of the Romish Prelates, who would make the Pope their general Pastor, and supreme Head of the Church of Christ militant here on Earth, and the very Vicar of Christ. So that according to these good fellows, not only the Pope, but also all Temporal Princes, are rejected from all Headship or Superiority in the Church, this being reserved only to Christ himself: And yet it is (24) See before Ch. 8. sec. 1. not long since they denied it to Christ himself, as man. Protestants agreed with ancient Heretics. The Claim of Ecclesiastical Primacy was condemned in the Emperor Constantius, to whom the Catholic Bishop Hosius said, (25) See Athanas Ep. ad solitar. vitam agentes. Ambr. Ep. 82.83. Zozom. l. 6. c. 7. Aug. Ep. 48.50.162.165. Conc. 3. Carth●g. Can. 9 Do not intermeddle in Ecclesiastical affairs neither command us in this kind, but rather learn those things from us. God hath commuted the Empire to you, and to us those things which belong to the Church etc. Take heed lest drawing unto you such things as concern the Church, you be guilty of great crime etc. And again, Who seeing him in decreeing to make himself the Prince of Bishops, and to be Chief judge in Ecclesiastical judgements, will not justly say, That he is that Abomination of Desolation, which was foretold by Daniel. The Centurists also confess that (26) Cent. 4. Col. 549. Polanus in Symphon pa. 836. & Ofiand. Cent. 4. pag. 477. Cartw. in Whitg. Def. p. 700. Emperors so metimes unfittingly assumed to themselves the judgement of matters of faith, which thing Athanasius reprehendeth in Constantius, and Ambrose in Valentinian. The same (27) Synod. 8. Can. 21. Conc. Roman 2. & 3. Platina in Nicolao. 1. Error is condemned in Photius Patriarch of Constantinople. And (28) Baron. An. 313. n. 30. Donatus the heretic condemned by Pope Melchiades, appealed to the Emperor. Wicliffe and Huff for denying the Pope's Primacy were condemned by the (29) Sess 8. & 15. Council of Constance. So directly do Protestants jump with Ancient Heretics. Protestants Errors. Luther's Error was, that, (30) In Assert. Tom. 2. Art 30. Although S. Peter should govern at this day at Rome, I will deny (saith he) the Bishop of Rome to be Pope. For the Pope is a thing feigned in the world, neythes was, nor is, nor shallbe, but feigned to be. And, (31) Ibid Art 27. I permit that the Pope make Articles of faith etc. as are, The bread and wine to be transubstantiated in the Sacrament: the essence of God neither to beget, nor to be begotten: The soul to be the substantial form of man's body: Himself to be the Empero●r of the world, and the King of heaven & God upon Earth: the soul to be immortal, and all those infinite Monsters in the Roman dunghill of decrees; that such as his faith is, such be his Gospel, and such the faithful and such the Church. And he placeth in the Margin, Articles made by the Pope. Swinglius also disliketh ●he Bishop of Rome, in that, (32) De vera & fals. Relig. c. de clavib. To. 2. fol. 187. He hath decreed that the souls (of men) do not die, when the body is extinguished. Who professing Christianity would hold in themselves such Atheistical opinions, and condemn in others such certain and generally received truths? SECT. II. It is proved from Scriptures and reason, that the Primacy given to S. Peter, was given also to his Successors: & that the Bishops of Rome are the said Successors. THe first Argument in proof that the Primacy given to S. Peter was likewise to be derived to his Successors, and in them to continued until the end of the world, is taken from the Old Testament, where we find, that for the Synagogue of the jews, God still provided one supreme Pastor, by whose authority Controversies might be decided. So to (1) Num. 20.28. Aaron succeeded Eleazarus, and to (2) jud. 10.28. Eleazarus Phinees, and so of the rest: now we may not think, that the love and care of God towards his Church, is less than was to the Synagogue. Neither doth it suffice to answer with (3) Inst. l. 4. c. 7. Caluin, that the Synagogue, as also the Church in S. Peter's time was contained in a little compass, and therefore though one Pastor was as then expedient, yet not so would it now be, the Church being dispersed all over the world. Even as if the tillage of one or two fields may conveniently be committed to the Care of one husbandman, would it thereupon follow, that the tillage of the fields of the whole world, might commodiously be committed to his Charge? This I say is impertinent, for the more dispersed the Church is, the more danger of dissensions, and thereby the more need of one Pastor, by whose authority Contentions may be composed: proof whereof may be the irreconciliable or everlasting dissensions amongst Protestants, by not acknowledging one supreme Pastor. The example also of the husbandman proveth nothing, for though he alone cannot till all the fields in the world, yet the supreme Pastor of the Church, whose authority is spiritual, by committing to Inferior Officers so much power as is sufficient for them, may well govern the same: yea it maketh as much against the Bishops of several Dioceses, for neither can one husbandman till all the fields in one Province. The same necessity of one Pastor ever to continued, is further proved two several ways out of those words of Christ to S. Peter (4) Io. vlt. 15. Feed my sheep: first hereby he ordained the Office of a Pastor, which is an Office ordinary & perpetual; for as the nature of the thing requireth, so long the Office of the Pastor must continued, as the fold or Sheepcote doth continued. Now this being the Church of Christ, doth and must continued until the end of the world: and Saint Peter being long since departed out of this world, cannot as now feed the same in his own person, therefore it must be done by his Successors. Secondly in that he saith, my sheep, which even until the end of the world will make one fold; now these, Peter being dead cannot by himself feed. And therefore S. Chrisostome demanding, (5) De sacerd. l. 2 init. Why Christ shed his blood? answereth himself that, It was to gain that flock, the care whereof he committed to Peter, and to Peter's Successors. Accordingly saith S. Leo, (6) Ser. 2. de Annivers. Assumpt suae ad Pontificatum. Peter continueth and liveth in his Successors. Again the Office of supreme Pastor was given to Peter for the good of the Church, according to that of S. Austin, (7) L. de Pastoribus c. 1. In that we are Christians, it is for ourselves, in that we are Prelates (or Superiors) it is for you. Now this good, is the preserving of the Church in unity, as (8) L. 1. cont. jovin. Cypr. l. de unit. Eccl. Optatus l. 2. cont. Parmen. S. Hierome teacheth; but in the Church there are now more Christians and worse then in the time of the Apostles, therefore there is the like, or greater necessity of one supreme Pastor. The Church is one body, which besides Christ hath a certain head upon Earth, as appeareth by S. Paul, who after he had taught the Churches to be one body, annexeth, (9) 1 Cor. 11.21. The head cannot say to the feet, you are not necessary for me; which cannot be understood of Christ our head, for he may truly say unto us all, you are not necessary for me: But no other head can be assigned then S. Peter, and Peter dying, the body of the Church cannot be without a head, therefore some man must succeed him. Lastly, all arguments that prove the best government to be monarchical, prove also this. Now, that the supreme Pastor succeeding S. Peter is the Bishop of Rome, is proved first, in that there was never any one who affirmed himself to be the successor of Peter, or for such was accounted by others, but only the Bishop of Rome, & the Bishop of Antioch. Now the Bishop of Antioch succeeded not S. Peter in the government of the whole Church, for succession to any is not but to him that yieldeth his place, either by natural death, or by deposition, or giving up of the same: whereas S. Peter yet living, & bearing rule himself, left the Church of Antioch, & placed his Sea at Rome, where he likewise died. Besides the Bishop of Antioch, had never but the third (10) Conc. Nicaen. Can, 6. place amongst the patriarchs, neither ever sought he for a higher, whereas the Successor of Peter was doubtless to have the first. Secondly, the histories of all ages do testify, that the Bishop of Rome hath exercised authority over all other Bishops even in foreign Nations, as by creating them himself, by confirming them created by others, by deposing them, by restoring them being deposed by others, by appointing them his Vicars, by final deciding their Controversies, by accepting their appeals, by making laws over all the Church, by dispensing in them, by inflicting his Censures, by being Precedent in General Counsels and the like; All which do plainly prove him the supreme Pastor of the Church. SECT. III. That the Fathers expound the Scriptures in proof of the Bishop of Rome his succeeding S. Peter in the Primacy of the whole Church. GElasius affirmeth, that (11) In Decretis cum 70. Episcopis. The Roman Church is preferred before other Churches, not by any Constitutions of Counsels, but she obtained Primacy by the Evangelicall voice of our Lord, saying, thou art Peter, and upou this Rock etc. The Centurists say of Gelasius, that (12) Cent. 5. Col. 1274. he contendeth the Church of Rome by God's law (iure divino) to be the first (or chief) of all▪ in Ep. ad Brut. c. 11. S. Hierome writing to Pope Damasus saith, (13) Ep. 59 add Damas'. I being a sheep, do require from the Priest the Host of Salvation, and from the Pastor safeguard etc. I speak with the successor of the fisher etc. I following none first but Christ, am joined in Communion to thy Holiness, that is, to the Chair of Peter; upon that Rock I know the Church to be builded: whosoever out of this house eateth the lamb, is profane; whosoever shall not be in the Ark of No, shall perish in the deluge. Here S. Hierome acknowledgeth Pope Damasus to be the successor of S. Peter, and his Chair, or Sea, to be the Chair of Peter. S. Austin useth against heretics, this Argument of the Bishop of Rome his succeeding S. Peter, saying, (14) Ep. 165. If the Order of Bishops succeeding one another be to be considered, how much more certainly & indeed safely, do we number from Peter himself, to whom bearing the figure of the whole Church, our Lord said, Upon this Rock I will build my Church. For Linus succeeded to Peter, etc. Damasus to Liberius, Siricius to Damasus, Anastasius to Siricius. In this order of succession no Donatist is found. And writing to Pope Innocentius, he saith, We (15) Ep. 92. think etc. that by the authority of thy Holiness, derived from the authority of holy Scriptures, that they will more easily yield, who believe such perverse and pernicious things: So attributing the Pope's authority to the Scriptures themselves. Again, (16) De utilitate credendi. c. 17. Shall we doubt to hide ourselves in the bosom of that Church, which &c. from the Apostolical sea by succession of Bishops hath obtained the height of authority; To which not to give the Primacy, is truly either the greatest impiety, or headlong arrogancy. Yea he teacheth further, that, (17) Ep. 165. Although any Traitor in those times, had crept into that rank of Bishops, which is continued from Peter himself to Anastasius, who now sitteth in the same Chair, it would nothing hurt the Church and innocent Christians; for whom our Lord providing, saith of evil Pastors, what they say, do you, but what they do do you not. Lastly, this wholesome Counsel he giveth to all Heretics, (18) In Psal. count. part. Donati versus filinom. Come ye Brethrens if you willbe ingraffed in the vine, it is a grief when we see you cut of so to lie. Number the Priests from the Sea of Peter, and see in that Rank of Fathers who succeedeth another: that is the Rock which the proud gates of hell do not overcome. S. Bernard writing to Pope Eugenius, amongst many other excellent things, saith thus: (19) De Consider. l. 3. ca 8. & Ep. 190. ad Innoc. PP. Thou alone art not only the Pastor of sheep but also of all Pastors. Thou demandest how I prove this? Out of the word of our Lord. For to whom, I do not say of Bishops, but also of the Apostles, were all the sheep so absolutely and indeterminatly committed? Peter if thou love me feed my sheep, which? the people of this or that City, Country or kingdom? He saith my sheep. To whom is it not plain, that he did not assign some, but all? nothing is excepted, where nothing is distinguished etc. To conclude, james who seemed a Pillar of the Church was content with only Jerusalem yielding the universality to Peter. The Fathers are so manifest for the B. of Rome's Primacy, that D. Bilson affirmeth, that, (20) True Differ. part. 1 p 143. The ancient and learned Fathers call the Roman Bishop, Peter's Successor. The Centurists say of S. Leo, (21) Cent. 5. Col. 1262. Leo very painfully goeth about to prove that singular pre-eminence was given to Peter above the other Apostles, and that thence rose the Primacy of the Roman Church. But to be brief, (22) In Praeparatoriis ad Concilium. And see this in Chromerus de falsa & vera Relig. l. 3. We plainly confess (saith Bucer) that among the ancient Fathers, the Roman Church obtained Primacy above others, as that which hath the Chair of S. Peter, & whose Bishops have almost always been accounted the Successors of Peter. So confessedly doth the B. of Rome succeed S. Peter in the Apostolical Chair. SECT. FOUR That sundry of the learnedst Protestants do acknowledge, and teach the Primacy of the Roman Bishop. Our very Puritans do acknowledge and approve from Scriptures, (1) English Puritanisme. p. 16. The high Priest of the jews was Typically & in a figure the supreme head of the whole Catholic Church: which though (say they) it were visible only in the Province and nation of jewry; yet those of other Nations and Countries (as appeareth by the history of the Acts, even though they were Aethiopians) were under this high Priest, and acknowledged homage unto him. So that he was not a Provincial Metropolitan, but in very deed an Ecumenical and universal Bishop of the whole world etc. And therefore the Pope of Rome who alone maketh claim unto, and is in possession of the like universal Supremacy, hath more warrant in the word of God to the same, than any Metropolitan, or Diocesan, not dependant upon him, hath or can have. So that by the word of God, either there must be no metropolitans and Diocesans, or else there must be a Pope. Hereof also saith Carwright, (2) In Whiteg. Def. p. 428. the high Priest was the head Priest over all the whole Church, which was during his time unto our Saviour Christ, and that therefore if by this Example we will have an Archbishop, he must be such a one as shall govern the whole Church. The Centurists confess that, (3) Cen. 1. l. 1. c. 7. In the Church of the jews there was by God's Law one only Chief Priest, whom all were enforced to acknowledge, and to obey him. And the same is acknowledged by (4) Inst. l. 4. c. 6. §. 2. Caluin. Wicliffe submitteth his faith to the B. of Rome, as to the Chief Vicar of Christ, saying, (5) Ep. ad Vrban. Sextum apud Poxum. l. 1. Comment. I am plainly glad to discover to every one my faith, and specially to the B. of Rome; because I suppose that if it be orthodoxal, he will humbly confirm my faith, and if it be erroneous, he will amend it etc. I suppose also that the B. of Rome, seeing he is the chief Vicar of Christ upon Earth etc. Perzibran the Hussites Confession is this, (6) In Professione fidei. I profess with a faithful hart and mouth, that with all my will and desire, I am in hope and desire to be indeed wholly, inviolably, and inseparably, a member of the holy Mother the Catholic, Universal, and Roman Church, spread over the whole world, founded in the Apostolical Seas by B. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and continued until this time, and so firmly strengthened upon the firm Rock that the gates of hell cannot any ways prevail against it. Husse himsel●e saith, (7) Questione de Credere. f. 170. We are not to believe in the Pope, or the authority of the Pope; but we are to believe, that the Popeis the immediate Vicar of jesus Christ, & the Chief Priest here upon Earth, by reason of his Office etc. having authority to absolve and excommunicate, to give Indulgences, and lastly of doing other things which belong to the keys. In so much that in Luther's (8) In Assert. art 30. opinion, hus seemeth not to withstand, but that there may be the Monarchy of the Pope. And Luther reproveth him, for that, (9) Ibid. He did not resist the Pope's Monarchy, but did attribute too much to the Roman Idol. M. johnson also saith; (10) In jacobs' Defence etc. p. 13. Did not john hus, that worthy Champion of Christ, and others also of the Martyrs in former times say and hear Mass, even to their dying day & c? Did not diverse of them acknowledge, some the Pope's calling and Supremacy & c? Morgenstern confesseth, that, (11) De Ecclesia p. 41. These things were pardonable in the godly, who held the Pope to be the Vicar of Christ, and the head of the Church, the Papacy for the Church & e. Luther yet himself affirmeth, that (12) Loc. come. class. 1. c. 37. Whereas God would have one Catholic Church throughout the whole world, it is necessary to have one people; yea and of this one people one Father aught to be chosen. But yet more particularly he writeth to Pope Leo, thus, (13) In resolutionibus priorum Disput. ad Leonem decimum. Wherhfore most blessed Father, I offer myself prostrate at the feet of thy Holiness with all that I am, and have. Quicken, kill, call, recall, approve, reprove: I will acknowledge thy voice, the voice of Christ ruling and speaking in thee. And in proof of the Pope's Primacy, he further saith, (14) In resolutionibus aliarum propositionum. The first thing that moveth me that the Bishop of Rome is afore all others &c. is the very will of God, which we see in that fact, for the Bishop of Rome could never have come into this Monarchy, without the will of God; but the will of God, howsoever it be known is to be received with reverence: & therefore it is not lawful rashly to resist the Bishop of Rome in his Primacy. This reason is so great, that though there were no other cause, yet this were sufficient to repress the rashness of those who resist. And cited to Augusta before Cardinal Caietan the Pope's Legate, he left this Protestation written: I Martin Luther an Augustine Friar do protest to reverence and follow the holy Roman Church, in all my sayings and deeds, present, past, and to come. But if any thing hath, or shallbe spoken contrary or otherwise, I do, and will have it for not spoken. A good protestation, but badly performed. Melancthon doth acknowledge, that, (15) Centuria Epistol. Ep. 74. p. 244. As certain Bishops are precedent over certain Churches, (so) the Bishop of Rome is Precedent over all Bishops; And this Canonical Policy, saith he, no wise man doth, or aught to disallow etc. For, saith he further (16) Ibid. p. 245. And in Schlusselb. cattle. haeret. l. 13. p 633. the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome is profitable to this end, that consent of Doctrine may be retained: wherefore an agreement may easily be established in this Article of the Pope's Primacy, if other Articles could be agreed upon. And whereas I proved before, that S. Peter was head or Chief of the Apostles, and of the whole Church, D. Covell very pertinently saith, If (17) Ag the Plea of the Innoc. p. 106. it concern all persons & ages in the Church of Christ (as surely it doth) the government must not cease with the Apostles, but so much of that authority must remain to them, who from time to time, are to supply that Charge. And D. Downham speaking of the Apostles and their times, teacheth that, (18) In his Sermon at Lambeth p. 79. Saravia in his diverse degrees of Minist. c. 16. p. 44. The authority which they had &c. was not to end with their persons, but to be continued in their Successors. Hence with great reason D. Field teacheth that, (19) Of the Church. l. 5. c. 32 p. 166. 167. Peter had a kind of Primacy of honour and order, that in respect thereof, as all metropolitans do succeed him etc. so the patriarchs yet more especially, and amongst them the Roman Bishops in the first place etc. as being chief for order sake, and to preserve unity, and in such sort that all things must take their beginning from him. And (20) Ibid. c. 35. p. 189. we willingly confess the Roman Church to have been in Order and honour, the first and chiefest of all Churches. Yet more, (21) Ibid. c. 52. p. 408. He that is in order first among the patriarchs with the Synods of Bishop's subject to him, may call the rest together, as being the Principal part of the Church, whence all actions of this nature take beginning. And lastly saith he, (22) Ib. p. 243. It is evident etc. that the Bishop of Rome as first in Order among the patriarchs, (assisted with his own Bishops, and the Bishops of him that is thought faulty,) may judge any of the other patriarchs, that such as have complaints against them may fly to him and the Synods of Bishop's subject to him, and that the patriarchs themselves in their distresses may fly to him, and such Synods for relief etc. By all which it appeareth that the Roman Bishop is confessedly the true Successor of S. Peter, & the supreme Pastor, or Head of the universal Church. SECT. V Objections taken from Scripture against the Pope's Primacy, answered. SOme object hose words of Christ our Saviour spoken to Pilate, (1) Io. 19.11. Thou shouldest not have any power against me, unless it were given thee from above; whereby it seemeth that Imperial power was given by God against him: and therefore much more the Pope, who termeth himself the Vicar of Christ, aught to be subject to the power of Emperors & Princes. Answ. No man can dream, that Christ who was God, & the son of God, was by right or any law subject to any man, but that for the love of man he voluntarily subjected himself to the judgement of Pilate, not thereby giving him any authority over him, but humbly permitting that which he had not of right, but of fact. And this he showeth elsewhere, (2) Mat. 17.27. when being demanded Tribute, he proved that he was not bound to pay it, but yet that he might not scandalise them, he caused it to be paid. And thus S. Cyril (3) In hunc locum. and S. Chrisostome do expound this place of S. john, not of the power of jurisdiction, but of God's Permission. Others urge that of S. Paul, (4) Act. 25.10.11. At Caesar's judgment-seat I stand, where I aught to be judged etc. I appeal to Caesar. But if Paul acknowledge Caesar his judge, than aught the Pope to do the like. Answ. (5) Turrecrem. sum. de Eccles. l. 2. c. 96. Some affirm that Paul appealed to Caesar, because though not of right, yet of fact he was then judge. Others (6) Pighius l. 5. Hier. Eccl. c. 7. think the difference to be great between Heathen and Christian Princes; for no Bishop is judge of the Heathen, but only of the faithful, according to that of the same Apostle, (7) 1. Cor. 5.12. What is it to me to judge of them that are without? And so every Bishop is subject to his heathen Prince in all Civil causes, the law of Christ depriving no man of his right and Dominion: & so (8) 1. Pet. 2. Rom. 13. tit. 3. S. Peter, & S. Paul, do exhort the faithful to be subject to their Princes, who were then Heathen: and accordingly S. Paul appealed to Caesar as his judge, being accused of raising sedition amongst the People. Now, Christian Princes having voluntarily undertaken the laws of the Gospel, do thereby subject themselves to the supreme Pastor of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, as sheep to the Pastor, and members to the head, and therefore cannot now judge him, but be judged by him. Others yet allege, that in the old Law the King did judge and depose the high Priest, for so (9) 3 Reg. 2.27. Solomon deposed Abiathar, and substituted Sadoch: In like sort therefore in the new Law a Christian Prince may be judge and depose a Bishop. Answer. Solomon did not depose Abiathar, as a King, but as a Prophet, and the Executioner of God's justice, doing this as the text saith, that the word of our Lord might be fulfilled. Secondly, the similitude is not good, for seeing in the Old Testament, the promises were only temporal, and in the New spiritual and eternal, as Saint Hierome (10) L. 1. cont. Pelagianos. & Ep. ad Dardanum. Aug. q. 33. in librum Numer. & l. 19 cont. Faust. c. 31. & S. Austin teach; it was no marvel, if in the Old Testament the temporal power were greatest, & in the New, the spiritual. But yet the Truth is, that even in the Old Testament, the high Priest was greater than the King, as might be proved from the (11) Num. c. 27.21. Levit. 4.3.13.23.28. Scriptures, (12) Philo l. de victimis. Theodoret. q. 1. in Levit. Procopius in c. 4. Levit. and the Fathers. It is yet further objected, that seeing it is lawful for any man to kill the Pope, if he should unjustly invade him to take away his life; much more lawful may it be for Kings or Counsels to depose him, if he should trouble the Commonwealth, or by his bad example endeavour to ruin souls. Answ. The consequence is not good, no authority being required for the resisting an Inuader, and defending a man's self, whereas to judge, or punish, authority is necessary: wherefore as it is lawful to resist the Pope, invading the Body, so also is it lawful to resist him invading the Soul, troubling the Commonwealth, or endeavouring to destroy the Church. I say it is lawful to resist him, not doing what he commandeth, or hindering the Execution of his will; but it is not lawful to judge him, punish him, or depose him, because these only belong to him that is Superior. CHAP. X. The true State of the Question, concerning Antichrist. Whether Antichrist be yet come; And whether the Bishop of Rome can be said to be Antichrist. SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. FORMER ages not dreaming of so senseless a Paradox, as the Pope being Antichrist, there is not therefore in any ancient Counsels any thing to be found concerning the same. But the uniform (1) Bellar. de sum. Pontifice l. 3. c. 1. etc. Rhem. Testam. Apoc. 13. & in 2. Thess. 2. consent and doctrine of the Catholic Church is, and ever hath been, that Antichrist is not yet come, that he is to come near the ending of the world, that he is to be one man, and to work strange wonders, that his reign is to be short, and sundry such like, which cannot be ascribed to any Pope that ever was. Points not defined. Concerning the name of Antichrist, S. Ireneus (2) L. 5. thinketh it probable, that the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be applied unto it, but more probable, that it shallbe called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Others (3) Primasius, Anselmus, Richardus in hunc locum. Apoc. think, that he shallbe called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Others, (4) Rupertus in Apoc. that these figures 666. shall not signify his name, but the triple prevarication of the Devil to be fulfilled in Antichrist. Others (5) Iren l. 5. Arethas in hunc locum Apoc. most truly acknowledge herein their ignorance, avouching that his name is not yet known. And most clear it is, that the foresaid figures do agreed with several most distinct Names. As touching Antichristes' Character, some (6) Primasius, Beda, Rupertus. affirm the leters wherewith his name is to be written to be the same. (7) Hippol. Orat. de consume. mundi. Others, the contemning, and abolishing of the Sign of the Cross. (8) Bellar. de Rom. Pont. l. 3. c. 11. Others profess their ignorance thereof. Some understand by Gog and Magog, Heretics. (10) Aug. de Civit. l. 20. c. 11. Others by Gog the Devil, and by Magog, Antichrists Army. (11) Bellar. de Rom. Pont. l. 3. c. 17. Others, that the war of Gog & Magog shallbe the war of Antichrist against the Church. And that by Gog is signified Antichrist, and by Magog his Army. Protestants untruths. (9) Hier. in Ezech. c. 38. Rogers avoucheth that, (14) Def. of the Artic. art. 37. p. 210. The Pope doth perform no part of a Christian, but every part of an Antichristian Bishop, in corrupting the doctrine of the truth with errors and cursed opinions, in polluting the Sacraments of Christ by superstitious Ceremonies, in persecuting the Church and Saintes, with fire and sword, in making merchandise of God's heritage, in sittting in the Temple of God as God, showing himself that he is God, and exalting himself against all that is called God, or that is worshipped. And (15) Ib. Art 37. p. 211. his jurisdiction hath been, and is justly renounced and banished out of England by Kings and Parliaments, as by King Edward the 1. 3. and 6. by King Richard the second, by King Henry the 4. and 8. etc. There is not one Point here avouched by M. Rogers which is not a gross lie; and in particular, that the Pope's jurisdiction was not banished out of England by Kings and Parliaments, as Rogers pretendeth, will easily appear, by viewing only F. Parsons Answer to S. Edward Cooks Reports. Caluin produceth several reasons in proof that the Pope is Antichrist, as that, (16) In 2. Thess. 2. He boasteth, that he can bind Consciences with what law be pleaseth, and make them subject to Eternal punishments: He at his pleasure either ordaineth new Sacraments, or corrupteth those which are ordained by Christ; yea altogether abolisheth them, that in place of them he may substitute those sacrileges which himself hath invented. He deviseth means of gaining Salvation altogether different from the Doctrine of the Gospel. To conclude, he sticketh not at his pleasure to change the whole Religion. What, I beseech you, is it to extol a man's self above all that is reputed God, if this the Pope doth not? If abominable lies were strong proofs, certainly these would demonstrate & conclude the Pope to be Antichrist. Protestant Doctrine. Caluin (17) Instit. l. 4 c, 7 §. 23.24.25. Whitak. of Antichrist. pa. 66. and other Prot. teach, that Antichrist is already come, and that not one man, but the whole succession of Popes for many ages, is the said Antichrist. A Point of such importance, that the Prot. assembled at Vapingum Anno 1603. did make it an Article of their faith, that, (18) Article 41. they should believe and defend the Bishop of Rome to be properly Antichrist, and the son of Perdition, foretold in the Word of God. Whitaker (19) De Eccles, p. 144. Fulke in his Answ. to a Counterf. Cath. p. 27. Downham of Antichrist. p. 4. and sundry other Prot. teach that, Boniface the third (who lived Anno 607.) and all his Successors to have been Antichrists. Roger's objecting many Crimes against the B. of Rome saith, (20) Def. of the Art art. 37. p. 211. In respect of which fruits of impieties, the said B. of Rome in the holy Scripture is described to be very Antichrist, that wicked man, that man of sin, the son of Perdition, and the Adversary of God. But how absurd this is, and directly contrary to Scriptures, Fathers, and many others more learned Prot. I shall presently discover. SECT. II. It is proved by the Scriptures, that Antichrist is not yet come; and that the Bishop of Rome cannot be said to be Antichrist. IN clearer Confutation of this foolish Paradox of the Pope being Antichrist, we must observe that the word Antichrist, signifieth one who opposeth himself to Christ; for the Proposition, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth properly signify opposition; now because those things are not only said to be opposite, which impugn one another, but also those which are equipollent, therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in composition, doth sometimes signify Contrariety, and other times equivalence, but never subordination, which the word Vicar doth, when the Pope is titled the Vicar of Christ. Again, in Scriptures he is called Antichrist (1) 2. Thess. 2. who is extolled above all that is called God, and (2) 1. joan. 2. who denieth jesus to be Christ, and affirmeth himself (3) Mat. 24. to be Christ, none of which is to be the Vicar, but the professed Enemy of Christ. And in this sense is understood the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. by Henricus (4) In his Thesaurus. Stephanus the great Graecian of Geneva. But to come to the matter itself, Christ our Saviour saith, (5) Io. 5.43. I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not, if another shall come in his own Name, him you will receive. Here our Saviour speaking of Antichrist, (as Fathers (6) See hereafter. next. sec. 3. generally understand) opposeth not a kingdom or succession of men to himself, but another person, whom S. Paul calleth (7) 2. Thess. 2.3. The man of sin, the son of Perdition; whom Christ also foretelleth, that the jews will receive, which yet they never did the Pope. S. Paul speaking of Antichrist giveth this good Counsel, (8) 2. Thess. 2.34. Let no man seduce you by any means for unless there come a Revolt first and the man of sin be revealed, the son of Perdition, which is an adversary, and is extolled above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the Temple of God, showing himself as if he were God. This is spoken of Antichrist by our Adversary's (9) Lambertus, Antichristus, etc. p 75. Confession, & yet almost every word doth convince them. For first it is said, that there shall come a Revolt, or falling away before Antichristes' coming, which whether it be understood of the Roman Empire, (as sundry (10) Ambr. in 2 Thess. 2. Hier. q. 11. ad Algasiam. Aug. de Ciu. Dei. l. 10. c. 19 Cyr. Catech. 15. Chrysost. in 2. Thess 2. Fathers, and the Prot. Piscator (11) In Epistolas Pauli p 468. do think) or of Faith and Religion (as some Prot. contrary to all Scriptures do imagine) is yet in neither sense performed before that time in which Protestants place Antichristes' first coming. Secondly, these words, The man of sin, the son of Perdition, he sitteth showing himself, do signify one determinate person; and the rather in that the Greek Article is prefiged, which doth determine (12) Epiphan. haer, quae est Samaritanorum. the signification to one certain thing: which is yet more manifest by those words of S. john, (13) 1. Ep. 2.18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: where speaking of Antichrist, who is to be one man, the Article is set before, but speaking of Antichrist as it is taken for all such as any ways impugn Christ, the Article is omitted. Thirdly Antichrist must be not only an (14) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2. Thess. 2.4. Adversary to Christian Profession, but also (as (15) In Pauli Epistolas p. 245. Zanchius understandeth the said words) an open and professed Adversary, such an one, as shall (16) Ep. Io. 2.22. deny the Father, and the Son, and extol himself above all that is called God; showing himself as though he were God, not (17) Dan. 11.37. caring for any God; And, (18) Io. 5.43. will come in his own Name, causing those to be (19) Ap. 13.15. slain, that will not adore his Image. None of all which, yet did any Pope. Fourthly, he is to sit in the Temple of God, whereby is understood the Temple of Jerusalem, which Antichrist will seek to reedify. So S. john telling that Enoch and Elias shallbe slain by Antichrist, affirmeth, that, (20) Apoc. 11.8. The Beast shall kill them, and their Corpses shall lie in the streets of the great City (which spiritually is called Sodom, and Egypt) where also their Lord was crucified. Whereby is evidently understood Jerusalem, there, and not at Rome, Christ being crucified: the same also being called Sodom by the Prophet Esay in his vision concerning (21) C. 1.1. jude and Jerusalem, saying: (22) Ib. ver. 10. Hear ye the word of our Lord, Princes of Sodom, give ear to the Law of our God, ye People of Gomorrha. Yea the word (spiritually) doth plainly argue, that thereby is meant one material and particular place, spiritually called, in regard of the wickedness, Sodom and Egypt. Fiftly, Antichristes' Reign must be but of short continuance, namely, as Christ preached but three years and a half; so likewise to Antichrist must be permitted no longer time for his preaching or teaching. This term is mentioned by the Prophet (23) Dan. 7.25. Apoc. 12.14. Daniel, and S. john, to be A time and times and half a time: or as some Prot. translate, (24) Dan. 12.7. in the Engl. Bible of Anno 1576. A time, two times, and half a tyme. For as (25) In Dan. c. 12. Aug. de Ciu. Dei. l. 20. c. 23. Hier. in Dan. c. 7. Lyra (a natural borne jew) S. Austin & S. Hierome do observe, the word times, without any other determinate number, signifieth according to the Hebrew phrase, two years, & the word, time, in the singular number, one year: which said understanding of times for years, is made yet more evident by the same Prophet Daniel, who by the like phrase of (26) Dan. 4.20. seven times, signifieth (as Protestants (27) See the Marg. Notes of the Engl. Bible of Anno 1576. in Dan. 4.31. And see Fr. du. jon. in Reuel. 12. p. 151. themselves do understand him) the seven years of Nabuchodonosors changed Estate. To this yet further add, that the continuance of Antichristes' Persecution is elsewhere explained in a prescribed certain time, not only of forty two (28) Apoc. 11.12. & 13.5. months, but also of a (29) Apoc. 12.6. & 11.3. thousand, two hundred, sixty days: both which do literally amount to the foresaid time of three years, and a half. Now, there was never any Pope which by any Prot. was imagined to be Antichrist, that reigned precisely three years and a half. Add also that the shortness in general of Antichrists reign, is in many places of Scripture taught, as where it is said, (30) Mat. 24.22. (his) days for the Elect shallbe shortened: that, he (31) Apoc. 12.12. hath but a short time: He (32) Apoc. 17.10. must tarry a short time: He (33) Apoc. 20.3. must be loosed for a little season. And lastly that Antichristes' reign (34) Dan 7.9.10.12. Apoc. 20.3.4. Mat. 24.14. 2. Thess. 2.8.1. Io. 2.18. is to be but a little before the end of the world. By all which it doth evidently appear, that Antichristes' Reign must be but of short continuance, & therefore Prot. making the Pope Antichrist, for these thousand years last passed, do thereby impugn the clearest Scriptures. Now, whereas sundry (35) Chytraeus in Apoc c. 12 & 13. Bulling. in Apo. c. 11. Ser. 46. fol. 141. & ser. 47. fol. 143. Deut. upon the Revel. p. 132. Prot. would evade by affirming, that in those foresaid numbers, of a time, two times & half, 42. months, and 1260. days, S. john useth a certain number or time, for an uncertain, not understanding thereby indeed any definite certainty of time at all. This yet is insufficient, for though the numbers, 10. 100 1000 should be used sometimes in the Scriptures for an uncertain time, yet that course holdeth only in such like full and perfect numbers, whereas the other foresaid numbers now in example or question, being each of them compounded of a mixed variety or inequality of numbers, as one, two and a half; forty and two, and 1260. are unlike to the other full and equal numbers, of 10. 100 1000 And therefore not subject to the like understanding. Neither could that variety of numbers be to any end, if only an uncertain number be understood. But this is so evident, that, Fox (36) In Ap. p 316. 365. Dan. count. Bel. part. 1. p. 372. Nappier up▪ the Revel. pag. 145 161. Brocard up. the Revel. fol. 110 123. Ford in Ap. p. 70. 71. 84. 87. with sundry other Prot. do all of them understand hereby a certain definite time, answerable to the event thereby fortould. In the determining of which event, Protestants do much vary amongst themselves; for (37) Cont. Bel. part. 1. p. 372. Danaeus, by a time, two times and half a time, understandeth the 350. years, during which the Waldenses were persecuted. And by (38) Ib. p. 374. the 42. months, & 1260. days, he understandeth three years and a half, in which hus and Hierome of Prague preached. (39) In Apo. c. 11. p. 304. 316. Ford in Ap. 11. p. 71. 84. Fox & Ford do by the 1260. days understand the time of Herod's first persecution: And by the 42. Months, (40) In Ap. c. 13. p. 365. & Ford in Ap. c. 13 p. 97. & in c. 11. p. 70. Fox after great study and doubtfulness had thereof, upon a sudden receiveth, to use his words (arcano quodam admonitionis sibilo) by a certain secret whispering admonition, the sense thereof to be, a Sabbath of years, which, saith he, amount to 294. years, wherein the Primitive Church was persecuted before Constantine's time. By the 1260. days, and the 42. months Brocard (41) Upon the Revel. f. 110. Nap. up. the Revel. p. 43. 68 145. 161. 168. 233. and Nappier do understand the prevailing of the Papacy for the last 1260. years, since the time of Silvester and Constantine. So variable and uncertain are Prot. in their determining the time of Antichristes' coming and Reign. But supposing these different Interpretations were all of them true, as indeed not any one is, neither can any thing be alleged in good proof thereof, yet none of them do prove the Pope to be Antichrist: for first the (42) See the Prot. Apol. p 334. etc. 337. etc. Waldenses, Husse and Hierome of Prague, were in the opinion of Prot. confessed Papists, and therefore in no danger to be persecuted by the Pope. But being truly heretics, and holding sundry gross errors, which Protestants disclaim, and for which they were most justly punished, this strongly argueth the Pope to be a faithful servant of Christ, not Antichrist. Secondly Herod's Persecution was before any Pope was. Thirdly the Persecution of the Primitive Church, during the said supposed 294. years until Constantine's time, was done not by the Pope, but by the then Heathen Emperors, who persecuted the then Popes of Rome. Fourthly the 1260. years of the Papacy prevailing since the time of Silvester and Constantine (the confessed antiquity of the Papacy being thereby deduced up to the Ancient Fathers of those purer times) doth argue the Pope to be a true Bishop and Prophet, rather than Antichrist: as also the Church having been grievously persecuted before Constantine, if it hath also been persecuted ever since till now, than the Predictions of the Prophets concerning the Churches flourishing, quiet, and increase, were not as yet performed, which were wicked to think. But at Antichrists coming, the persecution shallbe such, (43) Mat. 24.25. as was not since the beginning of the world, nor shallbe: In so much as then Satan (44) Apoc. 20.7. shallbe loosed out of his Prison, and shall go forth and seduce the Nations that are upon the four corners of the Earth: so that the persecution shallbe so much more grievous than all former, by how much the (45) See hereof S. Aug. de Ciu. Dei. l. 20. c. 8. 9 Devil being loosed, and set at liberty, may tempt and tyrannize more than when he was bound: yea, as then the Divine Sacrifice (46) Dan. 12.11. See Iren. l. 5. Hier. & Theodoret. in hunc locum. shallbe taken away, which clearly hitherto is unaccomplished. And lastly the persecutions raised by sundry Heathen Emperors, as Nero, Domitian, and Diocletian, did both for cruelty and number of persons persecuted, incomparably exceed all pretended cruelties of all Popes in all ages. The same also is confirmed by that of S. john, (47) Ap. 10. 1. 2. etc. The Angel etc. apprehended the Old Serpent, which is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a 1000 years etc. that he seduce no more the Nations, till the thousand years be consummate etc. And when the 1000 years shall be consummate, Satan shallbe loosed out of his prison &c, and shall seduce the Nations etc. Here though the number of a 1000 years be uncertain, as signifying more years, yet to signify fewer years it cannot: a thing so evident, that some Prot. do (48) Fr. d● jon. up the Revel. in c. 12. p. 153. accordingly affirm the same, collecting thence that Antichrists coming is to be (49) Ib. in c. 20. Revel. p. 257. after the first 1000 years from Christ. To which purpose also Hospinian speaking of the pretended corruption, which, as he affirmeth, prevailed at the end of the 1000 years after Christ, saith, (50) Hist. Sacram. l. 4. c. 2. p. 295. and see Ep. Dedic. Now began to draw near the end of the Period of 1000 years, whereof john in his Apocalypses c. 20. writeth, than Satan is to be loosed again. Willet affirmeth that Wicliffe taught the said 1000 years to end (51) Synop. p. 63. Anno Domini 1600. And that then Antichrist should begin to appear. (52) In Apo. c. 11. p. 245. & in c. 12. p. 346. Fox and (53) In Wil Synops. p. 63. Walter Bruth think the said 1000 years to end 1300. Hence it now appeareth that most Prot. placing Antichrists coming within the first 1000 year's next after this Revelation (during which time at the lest Satan was bound not to seduce the Church) do thereby impugn the sacred Scriptures, and their own other writers. Before this persecution to be raised by Antichrist, (54) Mat. 24.14. The Gospel shallbe preached in all the world, for a Testimony to all Nations; so as no Nation may excuse its Infidelity. But this so general preaching hath not yet been performed, as is evident in several Kingdoms of the East and West Indies lately found out, wherein no memory at all of Christ, or his Gospel was found; neither will it suffice to answer, that here it is not spoken of all the world absolutely, but only by a figure, the whole is taken for a part; for otherwise S. Paul should have said untruly (55) Rom. 10.18. Into all the Earth hath the sound of them gone forth, and unto the ends of the whole world the words of them. And (56) Col. 1.6. elsewhere speaking of the Gospel he saith, In the whole world it is, and fructifyeth and groweth: And (57) Col. 1.23. is preached among all Creatures, that are under heaven. But Christ maketh this preaching in all the world, to be a sign of the end thereof, for so he immediately addeth, and then shall come the consummation; wherefore if this preaching were not taken to be properly in all the world, but only in some parts thereof, than it were no sign, for in that sense, in the first twenty years after Christ, the Gospel was preached by the Apostles in all the world: neither in that sense could it be a Testimony to all Nations at the day of judgement. Besides, it was promised properly to Christ, that (58) Ps. 71. All Nations shall serve him, and he died generally for all, and therefore in the (39) Apocalypse, the Elect are described out of all Nations, (59) Cap 7. and peoples, & Tribes: and in the same sense are these words understood by S. Austin (60) Aug. Ep. 80. ad Hesych. Hier. & Orig. in Math. c. 24. S. Hierome and Origen. Now, to the place objected from the Romans, S. Aust. (61) Ep. 80. answereth, that S. Paul took the preterperfectense for the future, as David also did, whose words they were: And that in the other place, S. Paul affirmed the Gospel, to be in all the world, not actually, but virtually, because the seed of God's word was cast by the Apostles into the world, which fructifiing & increasing, might fill the whole world, as one putting fire to several parts of a City, may truly be said to have burned the whole City, because he placed the fire, which by little and little increasing, consumed the whole City. It may also be answered with S. Hierome (62) In Math. c. 20. D. Tho. in Rom. c. 10. and S. Thomas, that the same of the Gospel came to all Nations then known in the time of the Apostles, and that hereof only speaketh S. Paul Enoch and Elias are reserved alive, that they may oppose themselves to antichrist at his coming, and preserve the Elect in the faith of Christ, and at length convert the jews; To which purpose it is said, Behold (63) Mal. c. 4.5.6. I will sand you Elias the Prophet, before the coming of the great and fearful day of our Lord etc. Elias (64) Mat. 17.11. indeed shall come, and restore all things. (65) Ap. 11.3. And, I will give to my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy 1260. days. Some answer that the words of Malachy are to be understood of S. john Baptist, of whom Christ said, (66) Mat. 11.14. he is Elias that is for to come. But the truth is, that though S. john Baptist, in regard of his office of being Precursor before the first coming of our Saviour, as also in regard of his preaching unto the people, was called Elias, in that Elias is to be the Precursor before the second coming of Christ, & is to preach and convert the jews; yet that the former words are to be understood of the true Elias it is plain, in that the Prophet speaketh of the second coming of Christ, when he shall come to judgement, to wit, at the great and fearful day: whereas the first coming, when S. john Baptist came, was not to judge, but to be judged, not to destroy, but to save. Besides S. Luke explaineth the same saying, (67) C. 1.17. And he shall go before him in the spirit and virtue of Elias; and our Saviour himself, even after S. john's death, avouched that, (68) Mat. 17.11. Elias should come and restore all things. Some also reply, that by the two witnesses are understood all the faithful Ministers, which God raiseth up in the time of Antichrist, as Luther, Swinglius, Caluin etc. But this is idle, for of the two witnesses S. john saith, (69) Ap. 11.3.6.7.8.11.12. They shall prophecy 1260. days, clothed with sackcloathes, they shall have power to turn waters into blood, and to strike the Earth with all plague. Antichrist shall kill them, and their bodies shall lie in the streets in the great City etc. where their Lord also was crucified. And, after three days and a half, the spirit of life from God shall enter into them. And, they shall go up to heaven in a Cloud, & their Enemies see them: Now that all, or any of these particulars were performed in Luther, or any other Prot. Minister, I think no man will avouch. At Antichrists, coming his name and Character shallbe so known, as that, (70) Ap. 13. 16. 17. He shall make all little and great, & rich and poor etc. to have a Character in their right hand, or in their foreheads. And, that no man may buy or cell, but he that hath the Character, or the name of the Beast, or the number of his name. Now what this name or Character is, hitherto is unknown. Antichrist, at his Coming will work many strange signs and feigned miracles, his (71) 2. Thess. 2.9. Coming is according to the operation of Satan in all power, and lying signs and wonders. (72) Mat. 24.24. And both he and his Ministers (73) Ap. 13. 13. shall show great signs and wonders: Yea he shall seem to make fire (73) Ap. 13.13. to come down from heaven: and to make (74) Ap. 13.15. the Image of the Beast to speak. In so much that (75) Ap. 13. All the Earth willbe in admiration of him. Now never did any Pope work such wonders as these. But the greatest wonder to me is, that so many men endowed with common sense and reason as Prot. are, and professing to believe the sacred Scriptures for most true, should so directly contrary to all sense and reason, and to so many clearest texts of sacred Writ, maintain a Paradox so gross and absurd. SECT. III. That the Fathers expound the Scriptures agreably with Catholics, in proof that the Pope cannot be Antichrist. S. Hierome (1) Ep. ad Algasiam. q. 11. Damasc. de fide. l. 4. c. 24. and S. Damascene, do interpret the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be one who doth emulate and oppose himself to Christ. The Centuristes confess that, (2) Cent. 5 c. 4. Col. ●16. S. Austin teacheth the Etymology of Antichrist, in Epist. joannis, Tract. 3. He is called Antichrist in Latin, who is contrary to Christ etc. Some understand Antichrist to be so called, because he is to come before Christ etc. It is not so said, it is not so written, but Antichrist, that is contrary to Christ etc. Likewise in Tract. de Antichristo, desiring to know of Antichrist, first you shall mark why he is so called to wit, for that he willbe contrary to Christ in all things etc. he will dissolve the Evangelicall law, and will recall into the world the worshipping of Devils. S. Austin (3) Tract. 29. in joan. himself expounding those words of S. john, (4) Hom. 15. in Io. 5. & Orat. 4. in 2. Thess. 2. Cyr. Alex. l. 3. in Io. c. 6. Ambros. in 2. Thess. 2. Ruffinus in Expos. Symb. Iren. l. 5. cont. haer. c. 25. He that speaketh of himself, seeketh his own glory, affirmeth that, This shallbe he who is called Antichrist, extolling himself, as the Apostle saith▪ above all that is called God, and which is worshipped: for our Lord declaring that he will seek his own glory, not the glory of the Father, saith to the jews: I came in the name of my Father, and you received me not, another shall come in his own name, him you will receive; he shown, that they would receive Antichrist, who would seek the glory of his own name. And the same exposition of this place is given by S. chrysostom S. Cyril. S. Ambrose, S. Irenaeus, and Ruffinus. Concerning the time of Antichristes' reign, S. Irenaeus (5) L. 5. cont. haer. c. 25. alleging those words of Daniel, A time, times, & half a time, that is (saith he) three years and six months, in which Antichrist coming, shall reign upon the Earth. Hippolytus (6) De Consume. mundi. & Antich. writing upon those words of Daniel, (7) C. 9 27. He will confirm the Covenant to many one week, and in the half of the week shall the host and the sacrifice fail, saith: When Daniel said, he will confirm his Covenant to many one week, is signified seven years. The Prophets shall preach half a week etc. that is three years and a half Antichrist shall reign upon Earth, after his kingdom and glory shallbe taken away. S. chrysostom affirmeth, (10) Catech. 15. that, (8) Ho. 49. ex c. 24. Math. operis imperf. Many Scriptures do signify, and especially S. john in his Revelation, that Antichrists kingdom is to continued three years and six months. Saint Hierome writing upon the 11. Chapter of Daniel, teacheth that, Ours do better and more truly expound, that in the end of the world Antichrist is to do these things, who is to rise from the jews etc. and is to persecute the Saints three years and a half, that is, 1260. days, and after to perish upon the famous and holy mountain. And also, (9) In Cap. 7. Dan. Time signifieth a year, Time's, according to the propriety of the Hebrew speech, who also have the Dual number, prefigure two years, and half a time six months, in which the Saints are permitted to the power of Antichrist. S. Cyril: Antichrist shall reign only three years and a half, which we affirm not from Apocryphal Books, but from the Prophet Daniel S. Austin is so full herein, that he doubteth not to writ, that, (11) L. 20. de Ciu. Dei. c. 23. And according to the Engl. Translation p. 823. he who being half a sleep, readeth these things, may not doubt of the most cruel reign of Antichrist against the Church, although it is to be endured but a short tyme. For time, and times, and half a time, are one year, and two years, and a half. And by this it is manifest to be three years and a half; the number also of the days being afterwards set down: sometimes in the Scriptures it is declared by the number of months. S. Austin likewise affirmeth that he shall spring from the jews, saying. (12) Tract. de Antichr. & de Benedict. jacob. and see Cent. 5. c. 4. Col. 416. As our Authors say, Antichrist shallbe borne of the people of the jews, of the Tribe of Dan, according to the Prophet, saying, (13) Gen. 49.17. Be Dan a snake in the way, a serpent in the path. This Prophecy is understood of Antichrist, by (14) Iren. l. 5. adu. haer. Hip. Orat. de Consume saec. Ambr. c. 7. de bened. Patriar. Aug. q. 12. in joshua. Pros l. de praedict. q. 4. Theod. q. vlt. in Gen. Greg. l. 30. Mor. c. 18. Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Ambrose, Austin, Prosper, Theodoret, Gregory, and many others upon the 7. Chapter of the Apocalypse, where they suppose that S. john did omit Dan, from amongst the Elect of the Israeliticall Tribes, in detestation of Antichrist to be borne of that Tribe. And certain it is, that the jews will receive and follow him for their Messiah, as our Saviour himself saith, (15) Io. 5.43. If another shall come in his own name, him you will receive; which maketh it very probable, that he shallbe a jew borne, else they would not so easily admit him. The Fathers also teach, that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of Jerusalem, and not in the Church of Rome. S. Cyril demandeth, (16) Catech. 15. What Temple saith the Apostle? In the Temple of the jews which is left: for God forbidden that it should be in this, in which we are. S. Hilary affirmeth that, (17) Can. 25. in Math. Antichrist is therefore called by Daniel, Abomination, because coming against God, he challengeth God's honour to himself etc. And, received by the jews, shall sit in the place of Sanctification, that where God was invocated by the prayers of Saints, there he received by Infidels, should be worshipped with God's honour. S. Gregory Nazianzen writeth: (18) Orat. 47. As concerning this place, The Abomination of desolation standing in the holy Place, they say, that the Temple of Jerusalem is to be built again, and Antichrist is to be believed to be Christ, by the jews; and that he is to sit therein, and is to be thought to be the king of the whole world: But he shall come at the Desolation and ruin of the world. Arethas writing upon the foresaid words of the Apocalypse, avoucheth that, (19) In Apoc. 11. He shall cast their bodies unburied into the streets of Jerusalem: for there shall he reign as king of the jews. And the like is taught by S. Irenaeus (20) L. 5. c. 30. Hipol. l. de Consume. mundi. and Hippolytus. Concerning Enoch and Elias their Coming to resist Antichrist, S. Ambrose writing upon these words of S. Paul, (21) 1. Cor. 4.9. I think that God hath showed us Apostles the last, as it were deputed to death, expoundeth them thus: (22) In. 1. Cor. 4. This therefore doth he apply to his person, because he was always in need, suffering persecutions and pressures above the rest, even as Enoch & Elias are to suffer, who are to be Apostles in the last time for they are to be sent before Christ to prepare the people of God and to strengthen all Churches for the resisting of Antichrist, who, the Apocalypse doth testify, 〈…〉 suffer Persecution, and be slain. And the like is taught m●●t plainly by (23) De Ciu. Dei l. 20. c. 29. S. Austin, saying, That Elias shall convert the jews to Christ, ultimo tempore, before the end of the world etc. is most commonly believed and taught of us Christians, and is held as a point of Infallible truth, for we may well hope of the coming of him before the judgement of Christ, whom we do truly believe to live in body at this hour, without ever having tasted of Death. But the Ancient Fathers were so wholly Roman Catholic in this Point, as that Fulke confesseth, saying, (24) Ag. Rhem. Test. in 2. Thess. 2.3. Indeed most of the Ancient Fathers did judge that the Roman Empire should first be decayed, before Antichrist were revealed. Whereof also saith Caluin, (25) In Thes. 2.3. For as much as they have expounded this place, of the defection of the Roman Empire, it is more frivolous than that it needeth any long Confutation: and I do marvel that so many writers, otherwise learned and witty, have been deceyved in so easy a thing, but that when one had erred, the rest without judgement followed the troop. Of this also writ the Centurists, Cent. 5. c. 4. Col. 420. Austin in his Treatise of Antichrist, declareth in few words the time of Antichristes' coming, therefore the Apostle Paul from hence affirmeth, Antichrist not to come before into the world, unless first a departure shall come, that is, unless all Kingdoms shall departed from the Roman Empire, which were before subject unto it. So many several ways do the Ancient Fathers testify from the Scriptures, that the Pope is not Antichrist. SECT. FOUR That Prot. agreed with Catholics in the Doctrine of the Pope not being Antichrist. THough nothing be more frequently declaimed in Prot. Pulpits, than the Pope being Antichrist; yet how much that foolery is disclaimed by the learnedst Prot. Writers, this present Section shall testify. M. Fox writing upon the 11. Chapter of the Apocalypse, where S. john mentioneth Antichrists Reign to be (42) months, acknowledgeth that, (1) In Ap. c. 11. p. 239. & in c. 12. p. 347. 347. And Fr. du jon. up the Revel. in c. 20. p. 257. 258. It cannot be that a long time should be figured by the same short time, for by a short time, a short time is signified; to which end he also allegeth the testimonies of Lambertus & Chytraeus. Wherhfore it cannot be imagined, that the Popes of Rome for so many hundred years to have been Antichrists. Bucer is of opinion that Mahomet (2) Liber Psalmorum, 5. in Ps. 22. fo. 146. 147. is that very Antichrist, who for many ages hath subjected most Nations of the (believing) Gentiles unto the bondage of Satan. Fox affirmeth that, (3) Act. & Mon. p. 739. Although, as S. john saith, there be many Antichrists, which are forerunners, yet to speak of the head and principal Antichrist he is to come in the later end of the world, whereby is meant no doubt the Turk. And he maketh the like exposition of (4) Ib. p. 743. Satan being loosed at the end of the 1000 years, which he understandeth to be directly meant of the Turk, and but Anagogically of the Pope. Peter Martyr determineth as well (5) Com. plac. pa. 351. Mahomet, as the Pope to be Antichrist. Zanchius (6) In Ep. Pauli ad Phil. Col. etc. p. 245. having recited the opinion both of the Papists and Prot. concludeth, that (7) Ib. p. 246. It may not be denied, but that near the end of the world, a certain man shall arise in the Church of Christ, who shall exceed all the other Antichristes' in malice, power, and other wickedness: And of this man may be understood the Prophecy of john and Daniel, of 3. years and a half, in which he shall reign. Lambertus in his Treatise much commended by Fox, (8) In Apoc. c. 11. p. 239. affirmeth that (9) See Antichristus sive progn. finis mundi p. 74. Antichrist is not yet come: and that the foresaid place (10) Ib p. 75. to the Thessalonians, is to be understood of an open professed Enemy; as also that (11) Ib. p. 79. the Pope although he doth (in his opinion) corrupt with his lies, the true sense of the Mysteries of faith; yet for so much, as he doth not openly forbidden to believe them, he therefore is not that great Antichrist. For which belief D. Dove reproveth some of his own Brethrens, saying, (12) Serm. of the second Coming of Christ & the disclosing of Antichrist versus fin. Some learned Prot. being over much modest, make a doubt whether Antichrist be yet revealed or not. Add hereunto that such Prot. as do absolutely affirm the Pope to be Antichrist, do yet mainly differ in the assigning of the Man, or the time of his coming: for first, Fulke, (13) Answer. to a Counterf. Cath. p. 36. Whitak. of Antich. p. 66. Willet Synop. p. 160. Perkins up. the Creed. p. 307. Whitaker, and others do give instance of Boniface the third Anno 607. Nappier collecteth the year of his coming, to be about (14) Vp. the Revel. p. 66. 68 Anno 313. and that Pope (15) Ib. p. 43. Silvester was the man. Bullingers' judgement is, that Antichrist should appear (16) In Apo. in c. 13. ser. 61. fol. 198. that fatal year of our Lord 763. And another Prot. writer (17) Fr. du jon. up. the Revel. in. c. 20. p 257. assigneth yet a longer time, and nameth Hildebrand (who was Gregory the seaventh) and who lived (18) Cowpers Chron. f. 197. 199. 1074. Fox (19) In Apo. p. 98. 245. 346. 347. thinketh his coming to be Anno 300. So variable is the Collection which Prot. make from Scriptures, concerning the person, and time of Antichrist: Whereas no doubt, at his coming, he will be easily known by reason of the great wonders he shall work, the strange persecutions he shall raise, and sundry such like, so plainly foretold us by the Scriptures themselves. And yet this their confessed incertainty notwithstanding, Fox termeth this point, (20) In Apo. c 11. p. 326. the head, and body of all Controversies. But the Premises considered, I think I may more truly term it a mere fiction, begun upon spleen or choler, and desperately continued without Scripture, or reason. SECT. V Objections from Scriptures that the Pope is Antichrist, answered. Sundry (1) Fulk. ag. Rhem. Test. in Ap. 17. sec. 7. Nap. upon the Revel. in c. 17. p. 205. Willet. Synop. p. 171. Prot. do urge for their chiefest objection, that by the (2) Ap. 17.9. 7. hills upon which the woman sitteth, is described the City of Rome, and consequently Rome is Antichrists seat. But I answer first, In the same verse, those 7. hills, are said to be 7. Kings. Secondly, (3) In Ps. 26. Arethas, Beda, Rupertus, in Ap. c. 17. S. Austin and others do understand by the Whore, the universal City of the Devil, which in the Scriptures is often called Babylon, and is opposed to the City of God, which is his Church: and by 7. mountains they understand the whole company of the Proud, and especially the Kings of the Earth. Thirdly, though thereby be understood Rome, (as some rather (4) Apoc. 17.15.18. see Tertul. l. cont. jud. & l. 3. cont. Martion. Hieron. Ep. 17. ad Marcellam, & q. 11. ad Algasiam. think) yet seeing the whore is then said to be in being, for five of the Kings mentioned, (5) Vers. 10. upon which the woman sat, are said to be then fallen, and that the sixth than (6) Vers. 10. was, whereby it is manifest that the woman herself was then also in being, it cannot be understood of the Church of Rome, whose (7) Rom. 1.8. & 16.19. faith was then renowned in the whole world, but of the heathen City (8) Apoc. 17.18. which hath Kingdom over the Kings of the Earth, and which was (9) Vers. 6. drunken of the blood of the Saints, and of the blood of the Martyrs of jesus. In which manner was the City of Rome, during the extremest Persecutions of Nero, Domitian, and other Roman Emperors. But some reply that Antichrist is to sit (10) 2. Thess. 2.4. in the Temple of God, and therefore in the true Church; and whereas we answer, that by the Temple of God, is understood the Temple of Jerusalem, they urge that, (11) Dan. 9.27. that long since was destroyed and shall never again be re-edified. But that thereby is truly meant the Temple of Jerusalem, is plain, as is (12) See before, and see Apoc. 11.18. before proved; as also in that in the Scriptures of the New Testament, by the Temple of God, are never understood the Churches of Christians, but always the Temple of Jerusalem: yea the Ancient fathers both Greek and Latin, for diverse ages did forbear to call the Churches, Temples, but either Oratories, or houses of prayer, or the like. And this they did either in regard, that as then they had no Temples, but places in private houses appointed for prayer, or else that thereby they might distinguish the Church from the Synagogue; the memory of the jewish Temple, being as then fully abolished: for which reason likewise the Apostles in their writings, called not Christian Priests, Priests, but either Bishops, or Seniors. Further, the jews who are to receive Antichrist for their Messiah and King, will receive none that sitteth not in Jerusalem, they dreaming nothing more, then of restoring Jerusalem and the Temple: yea at Antichrists coming Rome (if thereby be understood the (13) Apoc. 17.16. harlot) shallbe made desolate, and burnt with fire, so that it cannot be now said to be the Seat of Antichrist. Lastly, if Antichrist be to sit in the true Church, and to be accounted the head and Prince thereof, as Prot. (14) Melanc. in Apol. Conf. Aug. art. 6 Cal. Instit. l. 4. c. 2. §. 12. etc. 7. §. 25. Illyr. Cent. 1. f. 2. c. 4. Col. 435. and many others. teach, and withal, if the Pope of Rome be Antichrist, as they further avoch, than it evidently followeth, that the Pope sitteth in the true Church, and is the head thereof. Now there is but one true Church, and there is but one Christ, which thing also (15) Calu. Instit. l. 4. c. 1. §. 2. Caluin confesseth, therefore Prot. and all others who are not in the Church which is under the Pope, are out of the true Church of Christ. Caluin foreseeeing this great inconvenience to follow, answereth, (16) Instit. l. 4. c. 2. §. 11. That as oftentimes buildings are so pulled down, that the foundations and ruins remain; so Christ hath not suffered his Church either to be overthrown by Antichrist from the foundation, or to be laid even with the ground etc. but even after the very wasting, he willeth that the building half pulled down, should yet remain. But this maketh against Caluin, for first, if the ruins of the Church of Christ only remain, than the Church is ruinous, and consequently the gates of hell have prevailed against it, contrary to our Saviour's promise. (17) Math. 16.18. Secondly, if the Church hath suffered ruin, and the ruins and foundation, yea the building half pulled down, be possessed by the Pope, then Prot. have no Church, for the Church entire and perfect, according to them is fallen to ruin, and the ruins are under Antichrist. What then have they? Peradventure some new building; but in that it is new, it is not the house of Christ: Who then (not besotted) doth not plainly see that it is far more safe to remain in a Church, (though ruinous and half fallen) then in no Church? And who would think (considering the premises, and much more which may be gathered from the Fathers and otherwise) that men endued with common sense and reason, would endeavour to defend a fancy so idle, as this conceit of the Pope being Antichrist? CHAP. XI. The true State of the Question, concerning Evangelicall Counsels, and the State of Perfection. Whether there be Evangelicall Counsels, or works of supererogation, which if they be observed or done, are good and commendable, if omitted, not sinful; or whether all things that are good, be commanded by God, and the omission of them be sinful. SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. ALTHOUGH men Sensual, as ordinarily all Sectaries are, cannot endure to hear of the State of Perfection, or any thing that may tend to the contempt of the word & the mortification of the flesh, yet the same hath ever been approved, taught and practised, by the Catholic Church. So in the Council of Basill we are taught, that, (1) Oratio Henrici Kalteisan de libera Praedicatione verbi Dei. Counsel is a persuasion of a greater good, to which Christians are not bound unless they will, but Commandment is obligation of a necessary good, to which all are bound, although they would not. In poofe hereof is also here eyted the fourth Carthage Council to say, Counsels are of our Lord, not commanding but exhorting. And so (2) Bellar. de Monachis l. 2. c. 8. 9 & Rhem. Test. p. 55. all Catholics believe, that there are sundry works which are not enjoined by Christ by any Precept, but only counselled as matter of Perfection: & these if they be done in the state of Grace are commendable and meritorious; if omitted, not sinful. Protestants Untruths. Luther affirmeth that, (3) In Epithalam●●. Moses commanded Marriage to all the jews, so that it was not lawful for any in the old Testament, to want a wife. But how then did Elias, Elizeus, Hieremy, & S. john Baptist, who had no wives, as S. Hierome (4) L. 1. cont. jovin. proveth. Caluin (5) Instit. l. 4. c. 13. §. 11. avoucheth that Monastical life was no where approved by our Saviour, not so much as by one syllable. But this lie is confuted by (6) Ep. 89. q 4. S. Austin and (7) Hom. 17. ad popul. S. Chrisostome. (8) Instit. l. 4. c. 13. §. 12. He likewise averreth, that none of the Ancient Father's thought that Christ counseled any thing, but that every word he spoke was of necessity to be obeyed. But this will appear most false in the 3. Section following. Rogers avoucheth Catholics to say, that, Supererogatory works, (9) Def. of the Articl. art. 14. p. 61. are tokens of forgiveness of sins, so well as Baptism; yea deliver from the wrath of God, so well as Christ. But if lying were a work of supererogation and perfection, I would hold Rogers and his Brethrens, to be men of the greatest perfection this world hath known. Protestant Doctrine. The English Prot. Church decreeth that, (10) Article 14. Voluntary works beside, over, and above God's Commandments, which they call works of supererogation cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety, for by them men do declare, that they do not only tender unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his sake, then of bounden duty is required etc. Caluin avoucheth that, (11) Instit. l. 4. c. 13. §. 12. There is no little word uttered by Christ, which we are not necessarily to obey. Beza much disliking Counsels confesseth thus of himself, (12) In 1. Cor. 7.15. I willingly avoid that false difference, between Precept, and Counsel. And Melancthon thinketh, that (13) In loc. tit. de paupert. The Gospel neither counseleth nor commandeth to departed from riches, if they be not taken away, neither doth it counsel nor command to give things in common. So that according to Prot. whatsoever we do, or can do, that is good, we are bound of necessity under precept, and sin to do it. Protestants agreed with Ancient Heretics. S. Hierome (14) Ad cap. 4. Osee. Aug. haer. 54. and S. Austin condemn Eunomius for affirming Virginity to be of no greater merit than Wedlock: and that leaving Monachisme he seduced Virgins to marry. And for the impugning of Virginity, Vigilantius and Heluidius are condemned by S. Hierome, (15) Cont. Vigilant. c. 1. Cont. Heluid. c. 10. jovinian & Faustus (16) Haer. 82. & count. Faust. l. 30. c. 4. by S. Austin, and Ebion by (17) Haer. 30. S. Epiphanius. S. Damascene (18) Haer. 98. reproveth the Lampetians for teaching that Monks aught to be free in their Monasteries, and not subject to any Superior. S. Hierome impugneth Vigilantius for defending that it was better for a man to keep his goods, and out of them to give Alms, then to give all away at once. The same heresies are the ordinary Tenets generally maintained by all New Sectaries. (19) Cont. Vigilant. Protestant Errors. It is wonderful to observe the gross Errors that the Enemies of Perfection do ordinaly fall into. No man could possibly imagine that any man but a Luther In Epithalamio. would affirm, that women were created for no other end but to marry: and that it is all one to advice whether a man should marry, or whether he should eat or drink. Who also teacheth that virginity excelleth Marriage, and yet a married wife is better before God, than a Virgin: but here the fool fighteth with himself. Yea such was his lust, that he blusheth not to say, (21) In 1. Cor. 7. f. 107. We conclude, Marriage to be as it were gold and the spiritual State as dung. And, (22) Tom. 6. in Gen. 2. fol. 26. Generation is the chiefest work, after the preaching of the name of God, which certainly is the reason that moveth Prot. preachers to marry so fast, (23) Tom. 7. in Ep. ad Wolfang foe, 305. To marry, and to e●te and drink, necessity compelleth to do both alike, and God commandeth both alike to be done. Who would not be ashamed, and afraid to follow a Religion first taught by a man so carnal? He (24) L. de vobis Monasticis. thinketh also that it would be the best form of Religious Profession, if none should be admitted thereto, before he were 70. or 80. years of age. With him (25) Tom. 4. in c 9 Isaiae. fol. 109. a Turk is better than these, who have brought in this horrible error of Counsels. Peter Martyr: (26) In Thess. p. 1002. It is not good for man to be alone, because it is not pleasant, not honest, not profitable. Hereby we see in what carnality our Prot. ministers do place their ction. SECT. II. It is proved by Scriptures, that there are Evangelicall Counsels or works of supererogation: if they be observed or done, they are commendable and meritorious; if omitted, not sinful. TO found out the truth by the sacred Scriptures, the Prophet Isay writeth: (1) C. 56. 4. 5. Let not the Eunuch say, Behold I am a dry tree, because thus saith our Lord to Eunuches: They that shall keep my Saboths, and shall choose the things that I would, and shall hold my Covenant, I will give unto them in my house, and within my walls a place and a name better than sons and daughters, an everlasting name will I give them, which shall not perish. To be without children was ignominious amongst the jews in the Old Testament, because God having then chosen that only Nation for his peculiar people, the conservation and increase of his Church dependeth much upon their multiplication: But seeing the Church of Christ in the new Testament, should be gathered and consist of all Nations, the Prophet here forsheweth, that Christian Eunuches living continent, should not be ignoble or inglorious, but more glorious, and have a better name than (Gods other servants) sons and daughters: because keeping Gods Precepts (such as was the Saboth) they also of their free election, choose this state of life to keep perpetual Chastity, more than is commanded. And that this is spoken of voluntary Eunuches, not of such as are so borne, or after cut, it is clear; for there is no reason why to these should be promised greater glory than to those that are married: And if it were understood of these who contain because they cannot do otherwise, and so to them be promised greater glory than to the married, then with far greater reason is it promised to them who will contain when they might do otherwise. Now that this Continency of Eunuches is not here commanded, but counselled, appeareth by these words, Who will choose the thing that pleaseth me? for they are said to choose, who are not compelled by precept, as also in that those who are not Eunuches, are not excluded from the kingdom, which they were if this continency of Eunuches were here commanded. Lastly, that the said Continency is not only profitable, but likewise meritorious of eternal life, is proved by those words, I will give them an everlasting Name that shall not perish. But Peter Martyr (2) L. de Caelib. & votis Monast. replieth, that God doth not here prefer Eunuches before others that keep his law, but only before them that transgress the Law: But this doth not satisfy, for God here calleth them not transgressors, but his sons and daughters, before whom he preferreth holy Eunuches: neither speaketh he of such as shallbe excluded from good place, or good name, but of such as shall enjoy both, and saith, These Eunuches shall have a better place and better name. Agreably hereunto, when the Apostles had said, (3) Mat. 19.10. It is not expedient to marry; our Lord said, Not all take this word, but they to whom it is given: for there are Eunuches which were borne so from their Mother's wombs; and there are Eunuches which were made so by men, and there are Eunuches who have gelded themselves for the kingdom of heaven: He that can take, let him take. Here Continency is not commanded, for in the beginning of the Chapter, Marriage is approved, and yet here it is said, that some lived chaste for the Kingdom of heaven. And though Peter (4) De Caelibatu & votis. Martyr expoundeth these words. For the kingdom of heaven, only for the better preaching of the Gospel, yet this is only his own Imagination without ground: Neither will it agreed to many women who lived chaste, surely not for preaching, which to them is prohibited, but for their greater merit in the kingdom of heaven; And I see few Protestant Ministers live Eunuches for the better preaching of the Gospel. Our Saviour said unto the young man, (5) Mat. 19.21. If thou wilt be perfect go cell the things that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come follow me. That these words import no precept is plain, in that the only observance of the Commandments is alleged by our Saviour a little before as necessary to salvation. As also if it were any Precept, it were of charity: now this only exacteth that we love our Neighbour as ourself; wherefore it doth not bind us to give all that we have to our Neighbour, but that we may reserve part for ourselves. Lastly if it were a Precept, all whosoever, were bound to give all that they have unto the poor, which is absurd. D. Fulke (6) Against Rhem. Test. in Mat. 19 sec. 9 Parkins in his Reform. Cath. p. 241. Caluin l. 4. c. 13. sec. 13. and other Prot. reply, that Christ neither Commandeth nor counseleth this Perfection to all men, but only to this one, to discover the hypocrisy and vain confidence that he had in himself: But this instead of an answer, is a slanderous falsehood, for besides that the Evangelists do none of them accuse the young man of any such fault, no sooner had he said that he had kept all the Commandments from his youth, but Christ thereupon beholding him, loved him, as S. Mark (7) C. 10. 21. witnesseth; which he would never have done, if he had known him to be a lying Hypocrite. Secondly the young man hearing our Saviour's speech of Perfection, (8) Mar. 10.22. went away sorrowful, for he had many possessions, which sorrow he would never have had, if he had come with a dissembling mind. Thirdly, after this his sorrowful departure, Peter hereupon agreeable to our Saviour's said admonition given, said. Behold (9) Mat. 19.27. we have left all things, and followed thee, what therefore shall we have? To which our Saviour answered not, that he would give them nothing, or that which he had spoken was only to the young man, and that not seriously, but only to let him see his hypocrisy, as Prot. expound it; but instead hereof, he promiseth them for their reward, (10) Mat. 19.28. That they shall sit upon twelve Seats, judging the twelve Trybes of Israel: Yea to every one whosoever that (11) Ver. 29. hath left house, brethren etc. or lands for his name sake, he hath promised they shall receive an hundred fold, and shall possess life everlasting. But M. Perkins limiteth those words, If thou wilt be perfect etc. to that only man, saying (12) Cases of Conscience l. 3. c. 4. col. 1626. Those words contain a personal and particular command. But this to be most false appeareth, in that Christ expressly distinguisheth here matters of Command, from matters of Perfection. But whether it be command or counsel, it is ridiculous to apropriate the same to that only man: and clearly most false, in that the Apostles immediately after affirmed of themselves that, they had left all things and followed Christ. Against the state of Perfection Caluin (13) Concione 1. in job. writeth, Both the Greek and Latin (writers) do interpret this word (perfectum) perfect: But because in later ages the name of Perfection hath been ill expounded, it is better to use the word, Integrity. For many that are ignorant, do think, when a man is called perfect, thence to follow that Perfection may be found in us, whilst we are conversant in this life. So displeasing is to Caluin the state, and the very word of Perfection. In the time of the Apostles themselves, many Christians, (14) Art 4. 34. 35. 37. who were owners of lands or houses, sold, and brought the price of those things which they sold, and laid it before the feet of the Apostles; And to every one was divided according as every one had need. That this was commanded we do not read in any part of the Scriptures, but to the contrary to Ananias it was said, (15) Act. 5.4. Remaining, did it not remain to thee, and being sold, was it not in thy power? D. Fulkes answer hereto is, that, (16) Against Rhem. Test. in Act. 5.2. Neither can it be proved that they promised the whole, but they affirmed they brought the whole, when they withdrew part. But this is so false, that D. Fulke himself a little after confuteth it, saying, (17) Ibid. in Act. 5.6. They that have as great power to keep the vow of Virginity advisedly made, as Ananias had to deliver the whole price of his land, sin damnably if they break it; Where he must needs suppose, that Ananias had made a vow of giving the whole, as the other had made a vow of keeping Virginity, otherwise their sin could not be alike damnable. S. Paul teacheth in express words the difference between Counsel and Command, saying, (18) 1. Cor. 7.8 9 I say to the unmarried and to widows, it is good for them if they so abide, even as I also; but if they do not contain themselves, let them marry: (19) Ver. 25. Concerning Virgins a Commandment of our Lord I have not, but Counsel I give: (20) Ver. 28. Art thou lose from a wife? Seek not a wife, but if thou take a wife, thou hast not sinned: (21) Ver. 38. He that joineth his Virgin in Matrimony, doth well, and he that joineth not, doth better; Let the widow (22) Ver. 39.40. marry to whom she will, only in our Lord, but more blessed shall she be, if she so remain, according to my Counsel. These Texts are so plain to distinguish Counsels from Commands, and to the praise and advice of Counsels, that no Catholic at this day can speak more clearly. Yet Caluin answereth (23) In. 1. Cor. 7.25. to these so plain Texts, that they are not to be taken absolutely, but conditionally, and that the meaning is only this, that to live chaste is good if a man could, but (24) 1. Cor. 7.2. because of Fornication, let every man have his own wife: even as it were good (saith (25) In Comment. huius loci. Caluin) for a man not to eat or drink, if it might be, but because it cannot be without a miracle, therefore let every one eat & drink. But first the words of S. Paul are clear to the contrary, for he saith not, It were good for a man not to touch a woman, or I would give Counsel, (but) It is good etc. I do give Counsel. Secondly, if to live chaste, were so impossible, as Prot. Ministers both by their words and lives make show of, then would S. Paul never have so highly commended it: yea how absurd a thing had it been, may appear by applying the words of S. Paul to the Example of Caluin, as if he had said, It is good for a man not to eat: wantest thou meat, seek not for meat: of not eating I have no Precept of our Lord, but I give Counsel that no man eat, and the like. This absurdity convinceth, that S. Paul speaketh not of any impossibility. Thirdly, by those words, because of fornication, let every man have his own wife, S. Paul doth not admonish every man to marry, but that the married man do keep his own wife, and others unmarried, that they rather marry then burn, if they perceive themselves in frequent temptation thereof; and so accordingly he counseleth that, (26) Vers. 9 If they do not contain themselves, that they marry. Lastly, if it be as difficult to live chaste, as to live without meat, in what wicked state live the fellows of Colleges in Cambridge and Oxford, and sundry other Ministers abroad, who live not only, the most dangerous time of their youth unmarried, but even many of them all their lives: These men I think live not without meat, and yet without women, I hope themselves at lest will acknowledge, and not publicly confess the contrary, howsoever the case truly standeth with them. But the truth is, the foresaid words of S. Paul, As concerning virgins a Commandment of our Lord I have not, but Counsel I give, are so clear and unanswerable, as that the Rhemistes thereupon truly inferring, that a Counsel is one thing, a Commandment another; D. Fulke who undertaketh to make some answer or other to whatsoever they shall say, yet here is content to pass it over in deepest silence not so much as taking the lest notice thereof: which certainly could be for no other cause, but that the words were so splendent, as that his bleared eyes were not able to behold them. S. Paul might have received (27) 1. Cor. 9.7.11.14. maintenance for his preaching, yet, he used not (28) Ver. 12.15. this power, but, being free, (29) Vers. 19 made himself the servant of all, that he might gain the more: and, so (30) Ver. 18. preached the Gospel without cost, for which he expected a reward, (31) Ver. 17. and glory (32) Ver. 15. so great, that it was good for him to die rather than that any man should make his glory void. Hear S. Paul might have taken maintenance for his preaching, and yet preached without cost to his auditors, for which he hoped for a reward and glory. Peter Martyr (33) In Comment. buius loci. replieth hereunto, that S. Paul in sight of God was bound to do the same, though not in the judgement of men; for he saith, (34) Ver. 15. It is good for me to die rather etc. Now for a work not necessary, no man can suffer himself to be slain: and, (35) Ver. 16. If I preach it is no glory to me, that is, if I receive gain of the people, (36) Ver. 18. what is my reward then? that preaching the Gospel, I yield the Gospel without Cost, that I abuse not my power in the Gospel. But this doth not satisfy, for in all this Chapter S. Paul goeth about to prove, that it was lawful for him to live at the Charges of the people, which he confirmeth by the Example of the rest of the (37) Ver. 5.6. Apostles, by the example of (38) Ver. 7. Soldiers, shepherds, and husbandmen, by the law of (39) Ver. 8.9. Moses, and by the (40) Ver. 14. ordination of Christ. Secondly in answer to the places cited, a man may lawfully suffer death for a work not necessary or commanded, but only of Perfection, and so have many Virgins been martyred for refusing Marriages: so also by the second place, S. Paul did not think, that he should receive no glory, but only that singular glory, which is due to a work of Perfection. Lastly, by the word, abuse, is (41) Chrysost. bo. 8 de poen. oecum. & Theophil. in hunc locum. Plato Ep. 8. often understood a full and absolute power of using, as if he had said, that, I use not my power in the Gospel as much as I may; and so also is the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, abutor, often taken in a good sense. Add yet hereunto, that, to avoid absurdity, we must either hold an arbitrary freedom, in the omitting or doing of certain lawful actions, as for example, that we may lawfully in our Prayer bestow time and leisure, and in our Alms give to the Poor more than in either we are bound; or else that in these, and other our particular actions, there is such a determinate point or period, as that to exceed the same, or to be short thereof, were sin: which to affirm, is no less absurd, then scrupulous, and troublesome to all men's Consciences. SECT. III. That the Fathers do expound the Sacred Scriptures answerably with Catholics, in proof of Evangelicall Counsels & works of Supererogation & Perfection. COncerning the foresaid place of Esay, S. Austin writeth, (1) De sancta Virginit. c, 25. Why dost thou wrangle impious Blindness? what dost thou promise' only temporal profit to the chaste Saints? I will give them an Eternal name, and if perhaps here thou dost endeavour to take eternal, for long, I add, I heap, I reiterate, it shall never be wanting: what seekest thou more? What sayest thou more? This eternal name whatsoever it is to the Eunuches of God, which certes signifieth a certain proper & excellent glory, shall not be common with many, although placed in the same kingdom, and the same house: for therefore peradventure it is called a name, because them, to whom it is given, it distinguisheth from the rest. This place of Esay is understood of such as are voluntary chaste, by sundry (2) Hieron. & Cyril. in hunc locum. Basil. l. de vera Virg Ambr. in Exhort. ad Virg. Greg. 3. part. Pastor c. 29. other Fathers. S. Cyprian in his book of the habit of Virgins, writeth thus: Let not them affect to be decked, or to please others than their Lord, from whom they expect the reward of Virginity, himself saying, There are Eunuches who have gelded themselves for the kingdom of God. Again in the same place, Now when the world is replenished etc. those who can take Continency, living after the manner of Eunuches, are gelded to a kingdom: neither doth our Lord command this, but exhorteth; he doth not impose the yoke of Necessity, when the free Power of the will remaineth. But seeing he saith, There are (3) Io. 14.2. many mansions with his Father, he showeth the lodgingss of a better house; these better lodgingss you seek; gelding the desires of the flesh, you obtain the reward of a greater grace in heaven. Whereof also saith S. Austin. (4) De sancta Virginit. c. 24. Christ praising those who have gelded themselves, not for this world, but for the kingdom of heaven, shall a Christian gainsay it, affirming this to be profitable, for this present life, but not for the life to come? And yet all Prot. will make bold to say it. As touching the young man mentioned in S. Matthew, S. Ambrose saith: That (5) L. de viduis post med. and see Dorotheus doctrine. r. thou mayest understand the difference of Commandment & Counsel, remember him to whom in the Gospel it was formerly prescribed, that he should not murder, not commit adultery, not speak false witness; for there is a commandment, where there is punishment of sin. But when he had said, that he had kept the Precepts of the law, a Counsel is given him, that he cell all things and follow our Lord; for these things are not given upon Command but upon Counsel are bestowed. To which sense also saith S. Austin, (6) Ep. 89. q. 4. & count. lit. Petil l. 2. c. 104. & in Ps. 103 And see Chrysost. in illud ad Roman. Salutate Priscam etc. Hieron. Ep. ad Demetr. 8. q. c. 7. The young man saw how he had kept the Commandments of the Law, but the good Master hath distinguished the Commandments of the law, from this more excellent Perfection: for there he said, if thou wilt come to life, keep the Commandments, but here, If thou wilt be perfect go, cell all things etc. And the like Exposition is given by S. Hierome in his book against Vigilantius. But S. Austin is so clear in this, that M. Trig saith, (7) Upon Iud● p. 216. See Aug. Ep. 89. S. Austin counting it a degree of Perfection in Christianity, not to seek after the riches of the world, thus writes of himself: I who writ these things have loved that Perfection whereof our Lord spoke to the young man, Go, and cell all thou hast: How far I have gone forward in this way of Perfection, I know more than any other etc. And to this purpose with all my might I exhort others, and etc. have Companions to whom this is persuaded by my ministry. S. Austin alluding to those words of the Samaritan, (8) Luc. 10.53. Whatsoever thou shalt supererogate, I, at my return, will repay thee, saith: (9) De Virginit. c. 30. Those things are exacted, these are offered; if these be done, they are commended if those be not done, they are condemned; in those our Lord commandeth what is debt, but in these if you shall any thing supererogate, at his return he will repay you. And again: (10) De Temp. ser. 61. One thing is Counsel, another Command etc. He that willingly heareth Counsel & doth it, shall have greater glory; he that fulfilleth not the Commandment, unless he repent cannot escape punishment. What can be uttered more clear for Evangelicall Counsels? Now in proof of S. Paul his counselling of Virginity, S. Austin expoundeth his words wholly agreably with our Catholic Doctrine, saying, (11) De sancta Virginit. c. 14. 15. 30. & de verb. Apost. serm 18. propè fin. Hypog l. 3. c. 8. There is no Commandment of our Lord concerning Virgins etc. and, because life Eternal is to be gone unto, wherein there is a certain excellent glory, not to be given to all who are to live there for ever, but to some, for the gaining whereof, it sufficeth not to be freed from sin, unless to the Redeemer somewhat be vowod, which were no sin not to have vowed, & yet to have vowed and performed were praise; therefore the Apostle saith, But I give Counsel. Again, (12) De Temp. ser, 68 one thing is Counsel, another Command, Counsel is given that virginity be kept, that flesh be abstained from, that all things be sold and given to the poor. But command is, that justice be kept etc. He that willingly heareth and doth counsel, shall have greater glory, he that shall not fulfil the Commandment, unless he shall do penance, cannot escape sin. The same Exposition of S. Paul's words are given by S. Hierome: (13) Ep. 22. c. 8. Concerning Virgins the Apostle saith, I have no Commandment of our Lord. Wherefore? because that himself should be a Virgin was no command, but his own william. S. chrysostom thus explaineth the same much more largely: (14) Hom. 56. quae est 8. de poenitentia. Do not accuse our Lord, he doth not Command impossible things, many do exceed the Commandments themselves. Therefore if they were impossible, they would not of their own accord exceed them. He not where commandeth virginity, and many keep it, he no where commandeth to possess no goods, and many give from themselves their own substance, the very works giving Testimony, that there is great facility in the laws of the Commandments. They would not therefore have exceeded them, unless those things which are commanded were easy. He commanded not Virginity, for he that commandeth Virginity, subiecteth also him that is not willing to the necessity of the law, but he that admonisheth, leaveth the hearer Lord of his own william. Therefore Paul said of (15) 1. Cor. 7.25. Virgins, I have no Commandment, but I give Counsel. Thou seest not a Commandment, but a Counsel. Thou seest not a Precept, but an admonition. The one, saith he, is of Necessity, the other of william. I do not command, saith he, that I may not burden: I admonish and give Counsel, that I may persuade. A pure Papist was S. chrysostom. Yet no less clear herein is S. Cyprian, (16) Serm. de Nativit. Christi. Concerning Virgins the Apostle saith, I have no Precept of our Lord, but I give Counsel etc. Because although Marriage be good, yet Continency is better, and Virginity more excellent, which not Necessity or Command compelleth, but the Counsel of Perfection persuadeth. Lastly, Origen, saith, (17) L 10. in Ep. ad Rom. c. 15 post. med. Those things which we do above debt, we do not by Command; for example, Virginity is not paid of debt, for it is not asked by Command, but offered above debt. Finally, hear Paul saying of Virgins, I have no Precept of our Lord. S. Austin repeateth many things done by Christ and his Apostles not commanded, but counseled, saying: (18) De Adulter. Coniug. l. 1. c. 14. And see l. de opere Monachorum. c. 5. Many things are to be done, the Law not commanding, but upon free Charity, and those things in our services are more grateful, which when we might lawfully not bestow, yet for Charity we do them: whereupon our Lord himself, when he had showed that he owed not tribute, yet he paid it, lest he should scandalise etc. How the Apostle commandeth these things, his words do testify, where he saith, (19) 1. Cor. 9.19. Whereas I was free of all, I made myself the servant of all, that I might gain the more; when he had said a little before, Have not we power to eat and drink? have we not power to lead about a woman, a sister, as also the rest of the Apostles etc. Who ever playeth the soldier at his own charges? who planteth a vine, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? etc. thus he showeth those things which are lawful, that is, which are forbidden by no Precept of our Lord etc. So manifest it is according to the Father's Exposition of the Scriptures, that many things are lawful, laudable, and Counselled, which are no where commanded by any Precept. SECT. iv That Prot. do agreed with Catholics in the Doctrine of Evangelicall Counsels, and works of Supererogation. TO come now to our Prot. writers expounding the Scriptures for Evangelicall Counsels, and believing the same truth; D. Humphrey testifieth that, the Waldenses did leave (1) jesuit. par. 2. rat. 3. p 270. all things, and follow the Evangelicall Perfection, professing a kind of Monastical life: and the same is reported of them by Luther; (2) Loc. come. Lutheri. class. 4. p 83. who also affirmeth, that, (3) In Assert. art. 30. john Husse believed the Evangelicall Counsels: And hus himself saith, Paul (4) In 1. Cor. c. 7. showeth, that though both be good, yet Virginity is better than Marriage. Again, (5) Tom. 2. f. 243. one is said more perfect than another, in as much as he doth not only keep the Commandments, which are of necessity, but also Counsels, which are of supererogation. And so Christ saith, Mat. 19 If thou wilt be perfect go and cell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and coming follow me. Hereof also saith Luther, (6) In Colloq. Latinis To. 2. c. de Sanctis. john Husse etc. affirmed 12. Evangelicall Counsels, & Luther himself acknowledgeth that one of (7) In Assert. art. 30. Virginity, or unmarried life, though he was content to practise the contrary with abominable sacrilege. Chemnitius affirmeth of those (8) Enchyrid. de coniugio. p. 411. who are endued with the gift of Continency, that it is good for them to remain unmarried, and yet if they will marry, they may do it without sin. And the same is decreed by the Confession (9) Harmory of Confess. p 543. 544. 545. of Bohemia in these words: Concerning the Condition of single life Virginity and Widowhood, our Preachers do teach, that every man hath free liberty, either to choose it to himself, or to refuse it: for by way of a law nothing is Commanded of God to men touching these things etc. And we now teach, that the gift of Chastity, by the peculiar goodness of God etc. both in times past was given, and at this day also is given to some etc. as Christ his speech doth evidently witness etc. And, the Examples of certain in the Prophetical and Apostolical writings, and of john Baptist, and of many Ministers, and women Ministers of the Church, do witness this thing. Again, the Lord saith, Mat. 19 (10) Ib. p. 544. Those who have made themselves Eunuches for the kingdom of heaven, that is, who be such as might be married, yet they do omit, and abstain from it, because of the affection of the inward hart, and their love towards God and his word. And a little after, speaking of the Commodities of the single life of the Minister, it saith, (11) Ib. 545. By these things he may with less hindrance, and more easily and readily with great leisure, and more commodiously employ his labour to the Salvation of the Church etc. And he may be a more Convenient Minister than others etc. Yea it is certain, that by the state of marriage, many lets many cares, and many things, whereby necessary quietness is disturbed are cast in our way: And this is it, which Paul saith, I would that you should be without such Cares; He that is unmarried, is careful for those things that pertain to the Lord, how he may please the Lord etc. Yea Paul (12) Ib. 546. concludeth after this sort: He is more happy in my judgement, if he remain such a one, that is, unmarried, then if he marry: and I think that I have the spirit of God. In like sort in comparison of others, there be bountiful and peculiar promises & singular rewards offered unto those that keep themselves, to wit, that their worthy works shallbe recompensed with a great reward; and that no man shall in vain forsake any thing, as house, Father, Brother, so also his wife etc. as the Apostles did, for the Lord's Cause. Here not only Evangelicall Counsels, but many other Catholic points of Doctrine are taught by these Bohemian Protestants. Bucer acknowledgeth that, (13) In Mat. c. 19.10. f. 150. There are who have gelded themselves, that is, when they might have married, have of their own accord chosen single life, and that for the kingdom of heaven, that they may prove themselves in all things holy in body and spirit, and that they may adhere unto him without any distraction. Caluin writing upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians cap. 7.8. confesseth that, This place showeth that the Apostle was then unmarried: and he directly confuteth Erasmus teaching, that S. Paul was married: yea in (14) In 1. Cor. 7. in ver. 26.28.32.33.34.38. several places he preferreth single life before Marriage, and concludeth thus, The sum of the whole Disputation cometh to this, that single life is better than Marriage, because in it is greater liberty, that men may more readily serve God. M. Hooker collecteth and teacheth, upon certain of the before alleged Scriptures, that (15) Eccl. Pol l. 3. sec. 8. p. 140. If when a man may live in state of Matrimony, he make rather choice of a contrary life, in regard of S. Paul's judgement 1. Cor. 7. that which he doth, is manifestly grounded upon the word of God, but not commanded in his word, because without breach of any Commandment, he might do otherwise. And again, explaining more fully, what (16) Ib. l. 2. sec. 8. p. 122. belongeth to the highest perfection of man, he affirmeth, that to do cetayne things which we may lawfully leave undone, is of great dignity and acceptance with God, and, that most ample reward in heaven is laid up for them: that, heerupon dependeth the difference between the states of Saints in glory; and so withal concludeth, that, (17) Ibid. God doth approve much more than he doth command. For which very saying, he is charged by some Puritans, (18) The Christian letter to M. Hooker. p. 14. 15. to sow the seed of the Doctrine of works of Supererogation. But he, and his Doctrine of the works of supererogation, are defended by (19) Def. of Hook art. 8. p. 49, 50, 51, 52. D. Covel. And thus we see that many of the learnedst Prot. do teach and maintain from the Scriptures, our Catholic Doctrine of Evangelicall Counsels. SECT. V Objections from Scriptures against Evangelicall Counsels, are answered. SOme pretend, because God's (1) Mat. 22.37. Command is, that thou shalt love thy Lord God from thy whole hart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind; that therefore all that we can do, we are bound unto. Answ. The word All, or whole, doth not signify all the thoughts of our hart, or all the intention possible, so that we should be commanded to think of nothing else in our hart, but only of loving God, and that with greatest vehemency of love; but thereby is only meant, that we love God in such sort, that in our love, we prefer or equal nothing with him: so the word, all, in Scripture is often taken, not absolutely, but only for many, as (2) Mat. 2.3. Herod was troubled and all Jerusalem with him; many (3) Act. 1.41. wonders were done by the Apostles in Jerusalem, and there was great fear in all, and the like. Secondly in the Prot. sense it were impossible to keep this Precept of loving God, whereas the Scriptures (4) Deut. 10.12.13. Luc. 10.25. teach it not only to be possible, but easy, as shallbe proved hereafter; and withal (5) 3. Reg. 14.8.4. Reg. 23.25. Ps. 118.10. Eccles. 47.8. giveth Example of such as kept it with all their hearts. Secondly it is objected, that (6) Mat. 7.14. the way to heaven is straight and narrow, which could not be, if a man can do more, than the law requireth. Answ. The law of God of its own nature is hard, and now the harder by the corruption of man, and so the way is said to be straight; but to one that hath God's Grace (which cureth and perfecteth nature) the same law is easy, according to that, (7) Mat. 11.30. My yoke is sweet, and my burden light: (8) 1. Io. 5.3. And his Commandments are not heavy. Thirdly such places are urged, as seem to prove that in all our works we are wanting, wherefore we do not fulfil the law, & much less do any works of supererogation. So S. Paul said, (9) Rom. 7.25. With the mind I serve the law of God, but with the flesh, the law of sin: According to Esay, (10) C. 64.6. All we are become as one unclean, and all our justices as the cloth of a menstrued woman. King David prayeth, Enter (11) Ps. 141.2. not into judgement with thy servant, because no man living shallbe justified in thy sight. Answer. S. Paul only speaketh of the involuntary motions of the Concupiscence, which are not sin, but only the punishments of sin. Esay speaketh (according to (12) In hunc locum. S. Hierome) in the person of grievous sinners, who if they did any Works at lest morally good, yet they defiled the same with many heinous crimes, whereas the question here is not of sinners, but of the just, when we say, that a man may not only fulfil the law, but do more than the same. That of K. David, (13) In hunc Ps. S. Austin, S. Hierome, and S. Gregory, do all of them expound of venial sins, in that no man liveth, who offendeth not therein, but these not depriving man of Grace, do not hinder, but that otherwise he may be just. (14) In hunc locum. Arnobius, S. Hilary, and others do hereby understand, that no man can be justified, if he be compared with God, his justice being so infinitely perfect, that in respect thereof, the justice of all men and Angels may seem Injustice, even as a Candle lighted in the sun, serveth not to shine, but to make a shadow, according to that of job, (15) C. 4.17. shall man be justified in comparison with God? Fourthly, most insist upon those words of our Saviour, (16) Luc. 17.10. When you shall have done all things that are commanded you, say, we are unprofitable servants, we have done that which we aught to do. Answer. Christ here speaketh expressly of things commanded, not of works of Perfection. And so S. Ambrose expoundeth it, saying, (17) L. de v duis post med. Those who have fulfiled the Commandment, may say, We are unprofitable servants, we have done that which we aught. This the Virgin doth not say, nor he who hath sold his goods, but expecteth rewards laid up, even as the holy Apostle saith, Behold we have left all things and followed thee, what therefore shall we have? not as an unprofitable servant doth he say, he hath done that which he aught to do, but as profitable to our Lord, who hath multiplied the talents committed unto him etc. So clearly doth S. Ambrose answer his their common Objection. And the same answer is given by (18) L. 10. in c. 16. ad Rom. Origen. Add yet hereunto, that it is not said of those who observe the Precepts that they are unprofitable servants, but only it is counselled that they say so of themselves, that is, to be humble, and not to brag of their deserts. And so Christ himself calleth not his servants unprofitable, when they have done their labour, but speaketh thus, (19) Mat. 25.21. Good and faithful servant, because thou wast faithful in a little, I will place thee over much: enter into the joy of thy Lord. Yea he affirmeth of such, that he will not now (20) Io. 15.15. name them servants, but friends. And S. Paul saith expressly, (21) 2. Tim. 2.21. If any man therefore shall cleanse himself from these, he shallbe a vessel unto honour, sanctified and profitable to our Lord, prepared to every good work. So many ways is this Objection insufficient. CHAP. XII. The State of the Question, concerning Vows is proposed. Whether Vows of Works of Perfection, as Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience, be Lawful, and Commendable now in the Law of Grace. SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. TO examine now what the Church of Christ believeth and practiseth concerning the Vows of works of Perfection; in the fourth Carthage Council it is decreed, that, (1) Conc. Carth. 4. c. 104. If any widows etc. have vowed themselves to our Lord, and casting of the lay-habit, shall appear in Religious habit under the testimony of the Bishop and the Church, and afterwards have passed to secular marriages, according to the Apostle, they shall have damnation, because they have dared to make void the faith of Chastity, which they have vowed to our lord In the second Council of Arles it is defined that, (2) Cap. 25. Those who after the holy Profession do Apostatate, and return to the world, and do not afterwards seek the remedies of Penance, shall not at all receive Communion without Penance. Whom also we command, not to be admitted to the Office of the Clergy. And whosoever he be, after Penance let him not presume to take a secular habit; but if he shall presume, let him be holden an Alien from the Church. Agreably to this the Catholic Church still teacheth, that, (3) Bellar. de Monach. l. 2. c. 14 16. & Rhem. Test. in Luc. 10. p. 169 & p. 55. A vow being a Religious promise of some greater good made freely to God, is in itself lawful, and a true and proper worship of God. Points Disputable. Some (4) Caiet. q. 89. art. 7. think, that the breach of a Vow deliberately made, though in a matter or small moment to be a mortal sin: but others (5) Sotus l. 7. de justitia. q. 2. art. 1. Navarre. in Man, c. 12. n 40. more probably teach, that it is but venial. Some (6) S. Thom. q. 88 art. 7. teach, that the solemnity of a vow of chastity doth essentially consist in a certain spiritual Consecration or Benediction of a Person, by which he is made uncapable of marriage. Others (7) Scot in 4. Dist. 38. affirm, that it essentially consisteth in the Decree of the Church, forbidding Marriage to them who solemnly do vow: Yet others (8) Sotus l. 7. de justitia. q. 2. art. 5. Richar. in 4. Dist. 38. art. 7. q. 2. most probably think, that it consisteth in an actual delivery of a man's own power, into the hands of God, and them who supply his place. (9) S. Thom. q. 88 art. 11. Some teach that the Pope cannot dispense in a solemn vow of Chastity, made by Profession of Religion: but others (10) Richar. in 4. Dist. 38. art. 9 q. 1. Navar. in Man. c. 12. n. 71. affirm the contrary. None of these are defined. Protestants Untruths. Luther (11) L. de votis Monasticis. avoucheth, that the Primitive Church & the New Testament, were wholly ignorant of the use of making Vows: but this is disproved in the next 2. & 3. Sections. Melancthon (12) In Confess. Aug. art. 27 & in Apol. eiusdem Articuli. affirmeth, that in the time of S. Austin, Monasteries were free Colleges not tied to any vows: but S. Austin (13) In Ps. 75. & 99 teacheth expressly the contrary. He also reporteth that Monachisme is but a late invention; and that we believe a Religious life to merit justification and Remission of sins, & being applied to others, will save them: but these are only his own foolish fictions. Protestant Doctrine. Luther (14) L. de votis Monast. Caluin Instit. l. 4. c. 13. §. 7. and some other Prot. teach, that though vows of things indifferent, may be made for some respects, as for the better avoiding of sin, & other good ends; yet to do the same for any worship to God, or as a thing of Perfection, they think unlawful; but as for the vows of Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience, they utterly condemn them. According to Perkins, (15) Tom. 2. in Gal. 2. Col. 82. The vows of perpetual Continency, Poverty, and Regular Obedience, are indeed the state of Abomination. And Caluin thinketh, that, (16) In Refut. Catalani, pag. 384. The vow of single life is Rebellion against God. Beza saith, (17) In Confess. c. 5. sect. 39 We think with the Apostle the vow of Perpetual Chastity to be Diabolical Doctrine; but where he findeth this in any Apostle, he doth not mention. One (18) De Cap. Babyl f. 77. thing I here add (saith Luther the Apostata Friar) which I would to God I could persuade all men, that is, that all vows might be altogether taken away or eschewed; that is, that all would break their vows as himself did. The Decree of Tyndall and Foxe is, (19) Act. Mon p. 1138. All vows are against the Ordinance of God. So that Prot. do utterly condemn all vows of Perfection. Protestants agreed with Ancient Heretics. Guido reproveth one Gerhard for teaching that, (20) De Erreribus Pseudo-apostolorum. It was more Perfection to live without Vow, then with Vow. The Lampetians are impugned by S. Damascene, (21) Lide 100 haeres. circa. fin. for affirming that Monasteries aught to be free without Perpetual vows. And the same Error is condemned in the heretics (22) Turrecrem. l. 4. Summae de Eccl. punct. 2. c. 37. Fraticelli, and Wicliffe; (23) Waldensis Tom. 3. c. 75. Conc. Constant. Act 8. yea for impugning of Religious men, the Arrians were condemned by S. Athanasius (24) In vit. S. Antoniuses. Theodoret. hist. c. 8. Ruffinus. l. 11. hist. c. 3. and other Fathers, and the Donatists by S. Austin (25) L. 3. cont. Petil c. 40. & in Ps. 132. ; and consequently are condemned for Heretics all Prot. that defend the same Errors. Protestant Errors. Luther (26) L. de votis Monast. thinketh that if a man will vow piously, he must do it in this form: I vow Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience even unto death freely, that is, that I may change it when I william. But if he promise' continency until death, how then freely? if freely, how then until death? Melancthon (27) In confess. Aug. art. 27. & in Apol. eiusdem Articuli. avoucheth, that S. Bernard and S. Francis became Religious only for corporal profit. But I persuade myself, Melancthon would deem it little corporal profit for him, to walk barefooted, to wear hayrcloth, to fast with bread and water, to sleep upon the ground & the like corporal austerities, which these good Religious men did use, and many others likewise at this day. SECT. II. It is proved from the Scriptures, that the foresaid Vows of Perfection are Lawful, and Commendable. THat God was worshipped by the vows of the faithful in all times, appeareth first by the doctrine of the Old Testament, where it is said (1) Ps. 76.11. Vow ye, and tender your vows unto God. (2) Deut. 23.21. Num. 30.3. Eccl. 5.3. When thou shalt vow avow unto the Lord thy God, thou shalt not be slack to pay it, for the Lord thy God will surely require it of thee, and sundry such like. And accordingly (3) Gen. 28.20. jacob vowed a vow, saying etc. And, (4) Ps. 131.2. David vowed a vow to the God of jacob. Now whereas Peter Martyr, Fulke, and others seek to evade, in answering that, (5) Pet. Mart. de caelib. & vot. p. 302. 303. 304. Fulk. in his Retentive. p. 153. Bulling. Dec. in Engl. p. 380. Hospin. de orig. Monach. fol. 104. Luth. to. 2. Wittemb. fol. 276. vows were Ceremonies of the old Testament etc. abolished by Christ's Coming, this is evidently false. First, In that vows were made even in the state of Nature before Moses' time, as appeareth by the forementioned vow of jacob. Secondly, in that vows are foretold (6) Esa. 19.21. See the Marg. notes of Bible an. 1576. to continued during the New Testament. Thirdly, in that, as shallbe showed in the next Section, the Ancient Fathers of the Primitive Church, taught the lawfulness of vows. And lastly, in that the Prot. themselves, as shallbe showed in the 4. Section, do likewise prove and maintain from the Scriptures, the lawfulness of Christian vows. But to come now to our time of Christianity, seeing according to M. Perkins, and other Prot. (7) Reform. Cath. p 155. Muscul. loc. come. de votis. p. 524. Willet Synop. p. 241. Now in the New Testament we have warrant to vow, certain things that be lawful, and not (8) Willet Synop. p. 241. 243. commanded us, as for example, (9) Perk. Ref. Cath. p. 156. to keep set times of fasting, to task ourselves in prayer, to give set Alms etc. it hath been proved in the precedent Chapter, that voluntary Poverty, Chastity▪ and the like are works of Perfection, & lawful, therefore it evidently followeth, that they may be vowed to God by us Christians. And to descend to particulars concerning the vow of Poverty, S. Luke relateth that, (10) Act. 5.1. Ananias sold a piece of land, and defrauded of the Price of the land etc. and bringing a certain Portion laid it at the feet of the Apostles. And Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy hart, that thou shouldest lie to the holy Ghost, and defraud of the price of the land? Remaining, did it not remain to thee, and being sold, was it not in thy power? etc. Thou hast not lied to men, but to God. Ananias, hearing these words, fell down, and gave up the Ghost. Here the words, defrauding of the Price lying not to men, but God, do convince, that his sin was the breach of his vow, he having no other Obligation to give all, or any portion of the Price. Whereas D. Fulke and M. Willet do answer herunto, that Ananias his offence was only his false (11) Against Rhem. Test. in Act. 5 sec. 4. f. 191. Willet Synop. p. 245. affirming that he brought the whole, when he withdrew a part, and so only sinned in lying and covetousness; but this is but barely said, and indeed is most untrue, for that he and his wife, had vowed with other Christians the Common life, appeareth in that, he defrauded of the price of the land, his wife being privy thereto; for he could not have been said to have defrauded, unless he had stolen away that which was bound by promise, and which after the said promise or vow so made, was due in justice to others no less than to himself. Now that they vowed a thing not commanded, is clear by these words, Remaining, did it not remain to thee, & being sold, was it not in thy power? And that this vow was made to God, and so the breach sacrilege, these words convince, Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy hart, that thou shouldst lie to the holy Ghost etc. Thou hast not lied to men but to God. Now what is it to lie to God, but to break his promise given to God? Add yet hereunto, that so grievous a punishment as the inflicting of sudden death doth strongly argue, that the fault was greater than only a Lie, or Covetousness. Yea that it was the breach of a vow, D. Fulke himself telleth us, saying, (12) Against Rhem. Test. in Act. 5. sect. 4. They that have as great power to keep the vow of Virginity, advisedly made, as Ananias had to deliver the whole price of his land, sin damnably if they break it: where he must needs suppose that Ananias vowed the giving of the whole, as the other had vowed the keeping of Virginity, otherwise their sin could not be alike damnable. To come now to the vow of Chastity, that the B. Virgin Mary vowed the same, is proved from these her words, (13) Luc. 1.34. How shall this be done, because I know not man? that is, because I cannot know man: for if she had only meant, that as then she had never known man, than her demand had been needless, and idle, seeing it might have been easily answered; that though now she did not, yet shortly afterwards she should: whereas the Angel declaring the manner how it should be, instead thereof saith, (14) Ver. 35. The holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshaddow thee. But Peter Martyr (15) De votis. replieth, that by the like reason Moses saying, (16) Ex. 6.12. How shall Pharaoh hear me, being of uncircumcised lips? And Nicodemus ask, (17) Io. 3.4. How can a man be borne when he is old? should thereby, the one vow uncircumcision of lips, and the other old age. But this is impertinent, for these things not depending of man's freewill, do therefore 'cause such impediments, whether of speaking, or being borne, as cannot be removed from man, and therefore they prudently asked those questions, though they had made no vow of the things, because without all such vow, they had such impediments of speaking, or being borne, as by themselves they could not remove: whereas the B. Virgin being married, had it in her free power to have known man: and therefore she had foolishly asked, how shall this be done, if by no law she had been hindered to know man; now there was no general or Common law, or Precept forbidding the same, therefore some Private law, which was her vow. Christ our Saviour affirmeth that, (18) Mat. 19.12. There are Eunuches which have gelded themselves for the kingdom of heaven; he is not an Eunuch who only containeth, but who cannot but contain; wherefore seeing the Eunuches here spoken of, are not such by nature, or by cutting, as is plain by the Text, where 3. several sorts of Eunuches are distinguished; it followeth, they are such by voluntary vow: Also, none can be said absolutely to have gelded themselves, who only for a time contain, and afterwards at their pleasure marry. All that D. Fulke hath to answer to this place is that, (19) Against. Rhem. Test. in Mat. 19 sect. 12. They that are assured of the gift of Chastity unto their lifes end may lawfully vow, or determine of it, but without such assurance no man can vow continency lawfully. But this doth nothing satisfy the Text, which affirmeth that some Eunuches did geld themselves, that is, did actually vow Chastity, but of any assurance they had to continued chaste, there is no mention. But beside I would know what assurance this is which D. Fulke requireth? Either it is some Revelation from God of his perseverance in Chastity, and then none must vow chastity without this Revelation, which is absurd: Or else it is a confident hope in the assistance of God's Grace, and his own good care and endeavours, and this no doubt every man hath, who freely & willingly do make the said vow, to the honour of God, so that according to D. Fulke with this ordinary assurance any man may make the vow of Chastity. S. Paul's advice concerning Widows was this, (20) 1. Tim. 5.9.11.12. Let a Widow be chosen of no less than 60. years, which hath been the wife of one husband etc. but the younger widows avoid, for when they shallbe wanton in Christ, they will marry, having damnation, because they have m●de void their first faith. Here it is evident, that whether the Widow were young or old, if after she was once chosen, or professed, she married, she thereby incurred damnation, because by her second vow or faith given to her carnal husband in marriage, she did cast away her (other) first faith, or vow made to God, when she was chosen. But Luther (21) L. de votis Monast. understandeth by faith, our Christian faith, or belief, which some Widdowes forsook, that so they might the better marry again: but besides that this faith is not properly said to be made void, but to be lost or perish, whereas of vows it is sometimes properly said, that they are irritated or made void, when they are broken; there was no cause why those widows, if they had not vowed Chastity, might not marry, unless they fell from the Christian faith, for who forbade them to marry with Christians? Doth not the Apostle say of such a one, (22) 1. Cor. 7.39. Let her marry to whom she will, only in our Lord? But Luther shallbe answered by one of his own saying, (23) Antichristus sive Prognostica finis mundi p. 148. 149. In that Luther understandeth this first faith, of justifying faith, and not of the faith of Chastity, it is plainly enforced. Which opinion, as he was the first that had it, so was it without the assent of any learned man, and against Paul The Apostle speaketh of the faith, or vow of office etc. but because Paul blamed them, that they would after marry, it is most clear that this Condition was in their vow. Caluin (24) Inst. l. 4. c. 13. n. 18. answereth, that they sinned returning to marriage, in that withal they gave themselves to all wantoness, according to that, when they shallbe wanton in Christ, they will marry. In answer heerto, some understand (25) Tertul. l. de Monogamia. Cypr. l. 3. ad Quirinum c. 74. those words of Spiritual delights, with which those Widows being replenished in the house of God, became ungrateful to their heavenly Spouse, by desiring earthly Marriages. Others, (26) Theodoret & D. Th. in bunc locum. of the abundance of temporal things, wherewith they were sustained at the charges of the Church: (27) Chrysost. in hunc locum. Hier. Ep. ad Ageruchiam de Monog. Others of Carnal fornication, which having committed, they withal proceed to marriage. But howsoever it be understood, the answer is of no force, for if it be not taken for fornication, then could they be only reprehended, in that they would marry against their vow: If it be taken for the same, then if they had not vowed, instead of reprehension, they should have been much commended, for passing from Fornication to honest Marriage, Lastly, Caluin confesseth, that they not only sinned by dishonest life, but also in breaking their faith given to the Church; which, saith he, was a bond of continual unmarried life, the breaking whereof was sin and damnation; but what is this in plain words, but that they had made a vow or promise or unmarried life? Caluin yet further replieth, that by the first faith is understood the faith given in Baptism: But this is idle, for none at Baptism, do promise' not to marry, therefore why should they be damned marrying after? A third answer yet hath Caluin, that these widow's promised Continency, which promise' they made void by marrying; but none could make this promise but such as were 60. years old, and so not fit for Marriage, S. Paul saying, Let a Widow be chosen of no less them 60. years. But first here is granted a Promise of Continency, the breach whereof was damnable. Secondly, though the Apostle adviseth old Widows to be chosen, yet not them, but the young Widows he accuseth, that by marrying they will make void their first faith: which reprehension the Apostle would not have given to young Widows, if they might not have vowed. Thirdly, when he saith, Let a Widow be chosen, he meaneth not to the vow of Continency, but as some (28) Tertul. l. de velandis Virg. & l. 1. ad uxorem. think to the Prefecture or Order of Diaconesses: or as others (29) Chrysost. & Ambr. in hunc loc. Hier. Ep. ad Saluianum. think more probably, to the number of those Widows who were maintained by the Church, of which number S. Paul would not have the young widows to be, both because they were able by their own labours to maintain themselves, as also in that it would be greater difficulty to keep them continent, which otherwise would tend to the dishonour of the Church and scandal of others. So unanswerable are our clearest Texts of Scripture in proof of Christian vows. SECT. III. That the Fathers do expound the foresaid Scriptures in proof of the vows of Poverty, Chastity, and the like. TO begin with S. Austin, he expounding these words of the Psalmist, Vow ye and tender to our Lord your God, saith of the Christians of his time, (1) In Ps. 75.11. One voweth to God Conjugal Chastity, that besides his wise he will not know another. Others also vow, that although they have made trial of such marriage, yet never after they will, nor desire, or admit any such thing; and these have vowed something more than the o●her: Others do vow Virginity itself from their very youth, that they will not experience that which others have, and have left, and these have vowed much: others vow their house to be an hospital to all holy people coming to it, these make a great vow: Another voweth to leave all the goods he hath, giving them to the poor and to enter into a Common life, into the Society of Saintes, this man voweth a great vow. Yea S. Austin gathereth from those words of S. Paul, (2) Cor. 6.10. As having nothing, and possessing all things, (3) In Ps. 113. that the Apostles did vow Poverty. See the variety of lawful and holy vows, recounted by S. Austin, and practised by the Primitive Christians, & still continued by Catholics: but amongst Prot. not so much as ever heard of, that they were ever practised by any one of them. Theodoret adviseth that, (4) Quaest 19 in Deutr. After thou shalt promise' any thing to God, thinking the promise to be due, use diligence that forthwith thou perform it; for this he saith (5) Deutr. 23.21. Thou shalt not slack to pay thy vow, because our Lord thy God will require it; and it shallbe reputed to thee for sin. Afterwards teaching, that it is in the power of the mind to promise' or not to promise' he addeth but if thou wilt not vow, it shall not be sin unto thee; Whereupon also B. (6) Ps. 65.13. David, I will pay thee my vows. The Fathers with unanimous consent do expound the Scriptures in behalf of Ananias his vow, S. Hierome writeth, (7) Ep. ad Demetriadem. Ananias and Saphira fearful dispensers, yea of double heart, and therefore condemned, because after vow they offered as their own, & not as his to whom they had once vowed them, and now reserved part to themselves of another's substance. S. Austin, Whilst he (8) De verbis Apost. serm. 17. withdrew apart of that which he had promised he is condemned both of sacrilege and fraud. And, if (9) De Diversis. ser. 10. alias 12. it displeased God to take from the money which they had vowed to God, how is God angry when Chastity is vowed and not kept? And a little after, that may be said to a sacred Virgin marrying, which Peter said of the money; Thy virginity remaining, did it not remain to thee, and before thou hadst vowed it, was it not in thy power? For whosoever have vowed such things, and have not paid them, let them not think to be condemned to corporal death, but to everlasting fire. A fearful saying for Luther and other Apostates. S. chrysostom, (10) Ho. 11. in Act. Ap. Why hast thou done this? wouldst thou have it? thou shouldest at the first have kept it, and not promised it, but now after thou hast consecrated it, thou hast committed greater sacrilege: for he that stealeth other men's goods, peradventure doth it for the desire of them, but it was lawful for thee to have kept thine own, wherefore then didst thou consecrated them, and afterwards take them? S. Fulgentius, (11) Ep. de Debito Coniugali. c. 8. How evil it is, and how carefully to be eschewed, if any man, of that which he vowed to God, shall endeavour by deadly transgression, to retain or steal any thing, let Ananias and Saphira serve for Example. S. Gregory, (12) L. 1. ep. 33. ad Venantium. See S. Basil. de Instit. Monach. ser. 1. Ananias had vowed money to God, which afterwards he withdrew, being overcome by the persuasion of the Devil, but thou knowest with what death he was punished. If then he were worthy of that death, who took away the money that he had given to God, consider what great peril in God's judgement thou shalt be worthy of, which hast withdrawn not money, but thyself from Almighty God, to whom thou hadst vowed thyself under the habit or veil of a Monk. How different are these Expositions from D. Fulkes, affirming that Ananias his sin, was only lying, not breaking any vow. As touching our B. Virgin Mary's vowing of Virginity, Saint Austin writeth, (13) De S. Virginit. c. 4. Greg. Niss. Orat. de Natiu. Domini. Bern. ser. 4. super Missus est. & Ser. signum magnum. Christ before he was conceived, had chosen her dedicated to God, of whom he would be borne. This the words show, which Mary gave to the Angel telling her of her offspring: How saith she, shall that be done seeing, I know not man? which truly she would not have said, if she had not formerly vowed herself a Virgin to God. But because the customs of the Israelites did yet refuse this, she was despoused to a just man, who would not violently take away, but rather preserve against the violent, that which she had vowed. This is so clear, that D. Fulke saith, (14) Aga. Rhem. Test. Luc. 1.34. sec. 13. Though S. Austin gather, that she vowed Virginity, yet it followeth not etc. And although Gregory Nyssen be of S. Augustine's opinion etc. In like sort touching the Eunuches, S. Epiphanius writeth, (15) Haer. 58. Valesiorum. who were these who gelded themselves for the Kingdom of heaven, but the generous Apostles, and Monks, and Virgins? Now that Monks and Religious Virgins do vow Chastity it is certain. S. Austin alluding to this place, saith, (16) De S. Virginit. c. 30. He that can take, let him take, but you who have not yet vowed this, who can take, take. And, (17) De S. Virginit. c. 23. what can be said more true or more clear? Christ saith, Truth saith, Virtue and the Wisdom of God saith, those who with godly purpose contain themselves from Marriage, do geld themselves for the kingdom of heaven. And on the contrary, humane vanity with impious rashness contendeth, that those who do this, do only avoid the present necessity of the troubles of Marriage, but in the kingdom of heaven shall have no more than others. S. Fulgentius expressly saith, (18) L. de fide c. 3. Whosoever hath gelded himself for the kingdom of heaven, and vowed to God Continency in his hart, etc. not only if he be stained with the deadly Crime of fornication, but also if either a man will take a wife, or a woman marry, according to the sentence of the Apostle, he shall have damnation, because he hath made his first faith void. In proof that the widows mentioned by S. Paul vowed Chastity, S. Austin writeth, (19) In Ps. 85. de S. Virgin. c. 23. de bono viduitatis. c. 8. 9 see de Ciu. Dei. l. 17. c. 4. What saith the Apostle of some who vowed, and performed not? Having damnation (saith he) because they have made voided their first faith; what is this, They have made voided their first faith? they have vowed and not performed. And the same he teacheth most plainly in sundry other places. In the fourth Carthage Council it was decreed that, (20) Can. 104. Conc. Tolet. 4. c. 55. If any widows though of younger years &c. have vowed themselves to our Lord, and casting away their Laical habit, have appeared in Religious habit under the Testimony of the Bishop, and the Church, but afterwards shall return to secular marriages, according to the Apostle, they shall have damnation, because they dared to make voided their faith of Chastity, which they had vowed to our lord This Canon is so disliking to Daneus, that he chargeth the Council and S Austin, (21) Primae part. alt. part, p. 1011. with abusing manifestly the word of God; and as Osiander thinketh, (22) Cent. 5. l. 1. c. 1. p. 20. This Canon hath great errors in it. But I suppose all of judgement will give greater credit to this Exposition of Scripture, made by this Council and S. Austin, then to any given by New Sectaryes. S. Epiphanius, (23) Haer. 61. Apostolicorum. If she who is a widow, and dedicated to God, and afterwards hath married, shall have judgement and Condemnation, because she hath cast away her first faith; how much more the Virgin dedicated to God, and marrieth, and being wanton against Christ, and casteth away a greater faith, shall have judgement? S. chrysostom, (24) Ho. 15. in 1. Tim. When they have vowed themselves, they will marry, having Damnation, because they have made voided their first faith. And the same exposition is given by sundry other (25) Tertul. l. de Mon●g. propè fin. Basil. l. de. Virginit. post med. Hieron. l. 1. in jovin, & in. c. 44. Ezech. Ambr. Theodor. in hunc locum. Fathers. The ancient Fathers did so confessedly allow of vows, as that Chemnitius saith, (26) Exam. part. 3. p. 41. We are not ignorant that the Fathers allowed the vows of perpetual single life, and that they also brought them to be Obligatory. Peter Martyr thinketh (27) De votis. p. 524. Epiphanius with many other of the Fathers to err, in that they said, It was sin to break such a vow, when need required, and that they badly ascribed it to Apostolical Tradition. Caluin, (28) Instit. l. 4. c. 13. n. 17. They say this was observed from longest memory, that those who would dedicated themselves wholly to our Lord, should bind themselves with the vow of Chastity: Truly I confess that this Custom was anciently received, but I do not grant that this age was free from all vice. Hospinian affirmeth further, that, Not (29) De orig. Monach. fol. 102. only Austin, but other Fathers also erred in the vowed Chastity by mutual Consent of married Persons. So clear and confessed it is, that the Ancient Fathers did expound the Scriptures in behalf of the lawful use of vows, and that themselves did approve and practise the same Doctrine. SECT. iv That Protestants defend with Catholics the vows of Poverty, Chastity, and the like: And that they confirm the same from the sacred Scriptures. BVllinger confesseth that in the Old Testament, (1) Decades in Engl. p. 380. The Nazarites, because they should more freely attend upon God, did of their own accord, take upon them a more strict trade of life, than the Common people used: and so (2) Ib p. 381. were consecrated to the Lord, by a certain peculiar kind of living: Of whose Vow and Profession the (3) Numer. 6.2.3.5.9.12.21. Scriptures make mention. And although (4) Aga. Rhem. Test. f. 191. D. Fulke will not acknowledge any sacrilege in Ananias, yet Bullinger affirmeth tha●, (5) Dec. in Engl. dec. 4. 8. p. 717. Peter accused Ananias of theft, yea and also of sacrilege. M. Hooker maintaineth that, (6) Eccl. Pol. l. 2. p. 103. It was indifferent for Ananias to have sold or held his possessions until his solemn Vow and promise' unto God had strictly bound him one only way; So confessed it is that Ananias vowed, & committed sacrilege by breaking his vow. Caluin affirmeth of S. Paul's Widows, that in regard of their attendance upon the Church, (7) Instit. l. 4. c. 13. sec. 18. They had undertaken the law of a perpetual unmarried lice, and that if they married they cast of the Vocation of God etc. and sinned. And he is otherwise so agreeable with us, that as D. Bancroft allegeth him, (8) Survey. p. 218. by the wife of one husband in that place, he doth (as doth also (9) In 1. Tim 5.9. p. 374. Marloret) understand such a Widow as was never married but once: his (10) Survey p. 218. judgement (being that) there might no Widow have attained to the said Church Office, if she had been twice married: which exposition being the same with Catholics concerning Bigamy, is therefore misliked by (11) Survey p. 219. Fulke ag. Rhem. Test. in 1. Tim. 5. sec. 5. fol. 180. Beza, Cartwright, and D. Fulke. Chemnitius (12) Exam. part. 3. p. 23. 38. Bohemian Confess. in the harmony. p. 544. and other, Prot. do confess, that the said Widows made public profession to live unmarried; Marloret saith more fully of them, (13) In 1. Tim. 5.21. pa. 375. they will marry (saith the Apostle) and truly to marry is of itself without fault, for marriage is honourable etc. but because they did once give their faith to Christ the spouse, and the Church, and willingly barred themselves from marriage, hence it is etc. that their marriage doth decline to the ignominy of Christ. Another Prot. saith, that (14) Anticbristus pag. 148. 149. Luther understandeth this first faith, of justifying faith, and not of the faith of Chastity, it is plainly enforced etc. the Apostle speaketh of the faith, or vow of office etc. But because Paul maketh it a fault, that they would afterwards marry, it is most clear that this Condition passed by vow. With these agreeth M. Alison, telling how some of (15) Confut. of Brownisme. p. 71. these younger widows through the lust of youth, do betake themselves to marriage again, which, saith he, though it be a matter lawful in itself, yet it is unlawful to those, that before God and his Church have vowed the Contrary. And thus is this place (of Paul) expounded by Theophilact, Ambrose, Bullinger, Claudius, Guilliand, and others. john Husse is so confident in this, that he wisheth all to (16) In 1. Cor. c. 7. note, according to Hierome, that for such as vow Virginity, it is not only a sin to marry▪ but to will to marry etc. The third impediment of Marriage is a vow made to God, to keep Continency. But what shall we expect from Luther? certainly no less ●hen this, tha● (17) D● Ecclesiasticis & Monasticis votis. To. 6. Germ. p. 181. 216. No man can deny that it is commanded by God▪ that vows be kept, as the Scripture saith, Vow y●e and pay, so that it is lawful for no man to dispute, whether vows are to be kept. It is God's Commandment Vow ye and p●y. This will deceive no man but him alone who doth not believe that it is commanded and agreeable to truth. Again (18) De 10. Praeceptis in 6. Praecepto. It is sacrilege, when a Religious man, Priest, Nun, and all o●hers who have vowed Continency to God to commit fornication etc. It is Sacrilege, where not only Chastity is defiled, but she who also was offered to God alone, is taken away etc. But this in Priests is rather from the Institution of the Church, then from God, but in Religious men it is most grievous, because they have of their own accord consecrated themselves to the Lord, and withdrawn themselves again. But this being most true which Luther here teacheth, what may we think is become of Luther, who not only through Pride and Carnality broke his own vows, which he had made in a Religious life, but withal took away her also, who was offered to God alone, Katherine Boar? But it seems he would have us to do what he saith, not what himself doth. But howsoever, it is manifest by the Premises, that many of the Primest Protestants have expounded the sacred Scriptures agreably with Catholics, in proof of the lawful use of vows. SECT. V Objections from Scripture against the vows of Poverty, Chastity, and the like, Answered. PEter Martyr (1) L. De vocis & cae●batu. objecteth, that vows are only mentioned in the Old Testament, not in the New: but when there is mention made of judaical vows, therefore they only belong to the jewish Ceremonies. Answ. Though the word, Vow, be not in the New Testament, yet the thing itself, I have formerly proved from several places thereof: Usury is mentioned, and forbidden expressly in the Old Testament, in the New testament it is not expressly mentioned, and yet is forbidden to Christians. But this Peter further urgeth, that professing ourselves Christians, we are thereby bound to give ourselves wholly to Christ, and therefore no place is left for vows. Even as it were ridiculous for a Child to bind himself by Bill or Bond to obey his Father; and therefore were the Israelites forbidden to vow to God the first borne of their , because they were otherwise dew. Ans. The jews were wholly bound to God by reason of their Creation and delivery from Egypt, and yet according to Prot. they might lawfully vow. Wherefore true it is, that all we have, we have from God, who if he pleased might require it from us again, and we bound to do what he commandeth; But because he leaveth to us many things free, in which according to our liberty, we may do this or that, therefore many things are both Gods and ours; Gods, because by his gift we have them; ours, because we may freely dispose them, so that it be not against God, and of these we may therefore vow. And so a son may bind himself to his Father in those things, which are in his own power, of which sort, is to marry or not to marry: So that if he promise' to marry, when, and in what sort his Father commandeth, he is bound to perform it. That of the first borne of , maketh for us, for the rest of them might be vowed to God, and yet all are Gods gifts. The next Objection is taken from those texts, which affirm that good works aught to be done freely and voluntarily, not of necessity, which vows cause: (2) 2. Cor. 9.7. Every one as he hath determined in his hart, not of sadness, or of necessity, for God loveth a cheerful giver. And, (3) Philem. 14. that thy good might be not as it were of necessity, but voluntary. Answ. These places only speak against Necessity by compulsion or coaction, whereby a man is forced by fear, to do that which willingly he would not; but as for necessity which ariseth by Precept, or vow, which a man at first doth voluntarily undergo, and afterwards if he will sinne, hath power and liberty to break the same, this doth so well stand with the commendation and merit of a good work, as it doth rather increase then diminish the same. And this is so fare from any compulsion, that it is often done with greatest alacrity, according to that, (4) 1. Paral. 29.9. The people rejoiced when they promised vows of their own accord, because they did offer them to our Lord with all their hart. And if at any time it fall out otherwise, the fault is not in the nature of the vow, but in the vice of the Votary. Thirdly, (5) Roger● Def of the Art art. 32. p. 188. are objected such places, as seem to persuade marriage to those who suffer temptations, (7) Ver. 2. and therefore the vow of Continency should be rash and unlawful, seeing no man knoweth how long he shall live without the said temptations: (6) 1. Cor. 7.9. If they do not contain themselves, let them marry, for it is better to marry, then to be burnt: Because of Fornication let every one have his own wife: (8) 1. Tim. 5.14. I will therefore the younger to marry, to bring forth children. Answ. In none of these places are those called to marriage who only are tempted, but who live incontinently: for first the words are, because of Fornication: If they do not contain: for your incontinecy, and the like. And this Exposition is made by sundry (9) Clem. Alex. l. 4. storm. init. Hieron. in Apol. pro libris conc. jovin. Aug. l. de S. virginit. c. 34. & de bono Coniug. c. 10. fathers, Besides, (10) 2. Cor. 11.7.8. Rom. 7.15.16.19.23.25. Saint Paul, (11) Hieron. Ep. 22. ad Eustoch. S. Hierome, and sundry others have suffered m●ny temptations of the flesh, & yet never married, which they had been bound unto, if the Objection were of force: Yea seeing according to Prot. all motions of the flesh, even the most involuntary are mortal sins, and none without special Privilege are free thereof, it followeth, that all without exception were bound to marry, which is against common, and allowable practice. Secondly, though by burning we understood not only Incontinency; but even every Temptation, yet in none of these places objected is there found any Command, but only a permission of Marriage, as let them marry, let them have a wife: and so is this place understood by several (12) Ambr. l. de viduis. Hieron. Ep. 11. ad Agerucb. Aug l. de bono viduit. c. 8. Chrysost. in hunc locum. Fathers. Besides this is confirmed by the reason given by S. Paul, saying, It is better to marry, then to be burn, for this concludeth not, that marriage is necessary, but only lawful, and better than fornication; and yet there is a third thing better than them both, to wit, by fasting, praying, and other holy Exercises to contain. As if one should say, he that will not fight, let him fly, for it is better to fly, then to be slain; this man doth not forbidden fight, and overcoming, which is better than either flying, or being slain, but only permitteth flight: So also the Apostle, when he bade the married, who by consent had contained for a time, to return again together, explicateth himself, saying, but I say this by Indulgence, not by Commandent. The words, Let every one have his own wife, are spoken of those (according to S. Gregory) (13) In l. Regum. l. 6. c. 1. who are married already, whom, for fear of incontinency, he persuadeth to live together, and this not by Command, but by Indulgence. Lastly, as he saith, I will therefore the younger to marry, so he also saith, I would all men to be as myself: therefore if the first should imply a Precept, the second also should do the like, and so he should command contraries: he therefore wisheth the one absolutely, and permitteth the other, in regard of the weakness of the younger widows. Thirdly I answer, that whether the words objected, import Permission or Command, yet they concern nor such as are bound with vow, but only such as are at liberty to marry: & thus is this place understood by many (14) Ambr. ad virg. lap. c. 5. l. 1. in jovin. Aug. l. 1. de Adult. coniug. c. 15. & de bono viduit. c. 8. Greg. l. Pastor. part. 3. Admon. 28. Chrysost. l. de Virgin. c 39 & bo. 19 in 1. ad. Cor. Epiph. haer. 61. Fathers. Fourthly, are objected such places as teach, that Continency is the gift of God, which is not given to all, and therefore that none may vow the same, seeing that none knoweth whether he hath, or still shall have the said gift, (15) Mat 19.11.12. not all take this word, but they to whom it is given; he that can take, let him take. I (16) 1. Cor. 7. would all men to be as myself, but every one hath a proper gift of God, one so, and another so. (17) Ver. 37.7. He that hath determined in his hart, being settled, not having necessity, but having power of his own will etc. to keep his Virgin, doth well. Answer. Some gifts of God are given to man without his own cooperation, as health, beauty, prophecy, working of miracles, and the like, and these are not in our power, neither can every man have them that will, and so cannot be vowed. Others depend of God's grace and assistance, & withal of man's freewill and Election, as to believe, hope, love, resist temptations etc. and these are also most truly Gods gifts, because if God by his Grace should not prevent, move, and help us, we were not able to do any of them; and yet withal they do depend of man's choice, and are in his power, because though God doth help, yet he doth not compel, or necessitate him thereto, and in these things man is said to have ability to do good; of which sort of gifts is Continency, and therefore in our Power. And as they only have the gift of faith, who indeed truly believe, which as we see, all do not, according to that, (18) 2. Thess. 3.2. All men have not faith, and yet all may believe if they will when they hear the word preached, otherwise their Infidelity were no sin: so likewise of Continency it is said, All take not this word, but to whom it is given, and yet all may contain, if they will, because sufficient Grace thereto is denied to none. And as it were Childish and ridiculous to conclude, that because faith, hope, charity, resisting of temptations etc. are the gifts of God, therefore we aught not to believe, hope, love, or resist temptations; so though Continency be the gift of God, yet it is absurd thereupon to infer, that therefore it is unlawful to live a single life. And the same Exposition is given by (19) De bono viduit. c. 17. S. Austin. But S. Chrisostome directly answereth this, saying, (20) I de virginit. c. 36. which things I have spoken, that when thou shalt take that from him, (21) 1. Cor. 7.7. Every one hath his proper gift, thou shouldest not faint in mind, nor reason thus with thyself; for this matter there is no need of my labour and study, for Paul hath called it a gift; for he said not so, because he would rank Continency amongst the number of heavenly gifts, but he called it a gift for modesty, for he would not have so differed from himself and from Christ, whose that is, There are Eunuches who have gelded themselves for the kingdom of heaven; and that, He that can take, let him take. He should less agreed with himself, condemning them who when they had chosen widowhood, remained not in that mind, for if it be a gift, why dost thou threaten them? Having damnation, (22) Math. 19.12. because they have made void their first faith. For Christ never punisheth those who have not had gifts, but he always punisheth those who live dishonestly. So many ways is this great Objection easily answered. These things observed; that the gift of Continency (God's Grace supposed) is ever in our power, may be proved first by such places as plainly teach, that the same is in man's freewill. (23) 1. Cor. 7.36. Let him do what he will: she sinneth not if she marry. (24) Mat. 19.12. There are Eunuches who have gelded themselves. (25) 1. Cor. 7.25. Concerning Virgins a Commandment etc. I have not, but I give Counsel. (26) Mat. 19.12. He that can take, let him take: the two first places expressly teach, that it is in man's will, and power to be Continent; the two later contain an exhortation to the same. Now who of wisdom will exhort men to that which is impossible? And in this sense are these places expounded by many (27) Tertul. de Monog. propè fin. Orig. & Hieron. in illud, Non omnes capiunt. Nazianz. orat. 31. Ambr. l. 3. de virg. & l. de viduts. Aug. in Ps. 137. Fathers: neither doth Peter Martyr satisfy, by answering that these exhortations are directed to those only, who have the gift of God, for such (according to (28) In Math. 19 Bucer) cannot but contain: if therefore those who have not the gift, cannot contain, and those who have it, cannot but contain, to whom doth Christ, and the Apostle direct their Exhortations? Secondly, if all cannot contain that will, than many may lawfully commit fornication; for if the husband or wife be long languishing, of if he be long detained, by reason of Captivity, banishment, or tedious journeys upon traffic or merchandise, than the party tempted, not being in their power (according to Prot.) to contain, might lawfully commit Adultery. But in these Cases (29) Synop. Controu. 6. 9 4. p. 250. Calu. Harm. in Mat. 19.9. Luther serm. de Matrimonio. Willet confesseth, that God doth give possibility and grace to contain, because (as (30) Cont. Duraeum l. 4. p. 341. 342. Whitaker answereth) these things are necessarily imposed upon us, and not voluntarily, or by our own default; but the merchant's absence upon adventure is not enforced, but voluntary, as also the adulterous wife, who through her own offence, is by her husband lawfully dismissed, & yet she may not marry again, (31) Mat. 5.33. for he that marryeth her (so) dismissed, committeth Adultery: as also the offendor against the state, who is many years detained in prison, and his wife not suffered to converse with him; in these cases the parties voluntary offences, are the very causes of the Necessity imposed upon them. And so Willet and Whitaker have said nothing to the purpose. To Conclude then this answer, where it is said, All take not this word, it is not meant, that all are not capable thereof, or have it not in their power, for then in vain should our Saviour have exhorted all hereunto, saying, he that can take, let him take; but as when it is said, (32) Mat. 1●. 9. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear, it is not meant, that all have not ears, but all are admonished thereby, to use that faculty of hearing, which they have. In the last place objected, Necessity, doth not signify necessity of Marriage, for want of the gift of Continency, but only extrinsecall necessity of the Father, either because his daughter will not live single, or because himself being a Bondman, is compelled by his master to marry her away. Fiftly, many object, that if all should contain, the world would perish. But S. Hierome (33) L. 1. in jovin. Aug. de bono Coniugali. c. 10. and S. Austin answer, that there is no danger thereof, seeing there will always be more imperfect, then perfect. Yea S. Austin thinketh, that though the world should perish thereby, yet it were good for all to contain. His words are these (34) Ib. & l. de bono viduit. c. 2●. I have known some who murmur (doubtless our Prot. Predecessors) what, say they, if all would abstain from generation, how should mankind subsist? I would to God all would this only in Chastity from a pure hart, and good Conscience, and faith unfeigned; much sooner would the City of God be filled, and the end of the world would be haestened. What else doth it appear that the Apostle doth exhort, where he saith, when he spoke thereof, I would have all to be as myself? or in another place, (35) 1. Cor. 7.29. This therefore I say Brethrens, the time is short, it remaineth that they also which have wives, be as though they had not etc. For the figure of this world passeth away: But I would have you to be without carefulness. So clearly Saint Austin answereth this Objection. But if in that extremity of the world's perishing, men were bound to return to marriage, the former vow were no let, seeing that vows bind not, when God's law prescribeth otherwise, as in this Case it would. Sixtly, Propension to Generation is natural & good, as being when nature was perfect and continuing in all living Creatures, wherefore to hinder the same altogether by vow of single life, is sinful, seeing this is to resist nature, & God himself who ordained nature. Answ. The natural inclination of man is twofold; one, to a thing absolutely, & as it is considered in itself; another, as it is considered with all Circumstances. If we consider death, sickness, and the like, as they are in themselves, we dislike and abhor them; but if we consider them as matter of patience, the way to heaven, and occasion to glorify God, we love and desire them. Now because this later propension only is truly and properly humane, as being according to true judgement and reason, therefore to do against this, is sin: But single life is only against the former propension, and agreeable with the latter, and therefore there is no offence to do against the former. Many Prot. object those words of S. Paul, (36) Heb. 13.4. Marriage honourable in all; therefore the vow of single life is unlawful. Answ. It is honourable in all such as may lawfully marry, & are lawfully married; not in brother and sister, nor in persons, that have vowed the contrary, to whom the same Apostle saith, (37) 1. Tim. 5.11. it is damnable. Hereof also saith very well an ancient writer, (38) De fide ad Petrum. c. 3. apud Aug. in fine. The Apostle saith, Marriage honourable in all, and the bed undefiled; And therefore the servants of God, in that they are not married, think not the good of Marriage to be a fault, but yet they doubt not perpetual Continency to be better than good Marriage, specially in this time, when it is said of Continency, He that can take, let him take. But to see how Prot. corrupt this place, first, they insert the verb, is, which is not in the Original. Secondly they make it of the Indicative Mood, where it aught rather to be the Imperative, Let Marriage be honourable, that so the speech may be an Exhortation, or Commandment to those that be, or willbe married, to use themselves in that state in all fidelity, and conjugal Continency. And this is evident by other parts and circumstances of the place, both before and after, all which are Exhortations according to the Protestant Translations: this only being in the mids, and as indifferent to be an Exhortation, as the rest (by their own Confession) they restrain of purpose. Thirdly, they (39) Engl. Bible of 1577. translate, in all, among all men, whereas they cannot tell either by the Greek or Latin, that in omnibus, in all, should be the Masculine gender, rather than the Neuter (as not only Erasmus, but the Greek Doctors (40) See S. Chrysost. & Theophilact. in hunc locum. Oecum●nius in Collect. also take it) to signify that Marriage should be honourably kept in all respects, for there may be many abuses in Wedlock. Fourthly, Beza (41) In Novo Testam. Graeco. Lat. an. 1565. instead of, in omnibus, in all, shameth not to translate, inter quosuis, amongst every one, with a Marginal interpretation to signify all Orders, Conditions, States, and qualities of men. This shameless and impious corrupting of the word of God, doth evidently convince, that the Texts of Scripture taken and understood in that true sense, which the words of themselves do import, do directly make against all such Errors, as these Prot. Corrupters do obstinately maintain. CHAP. XIII. The true State of the Question, Concerning the Marriage of Priests. Whether the Vow of Chastity be so annexed to holy Orders, that after Ordination, they who are consecrated, can neither marry, nor use their wives formerly married. SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. I DO not here dispute of Prot. Bishops and Ministers, who being merely lay men, and devoid of all sacred Ordination, no man doubteth but that they may lawfully marry, & enjoy their wives, and all their Neighbours will profess it to be expedient: But the Question here is, only of Catholic Bishops and Priests duly consecrated. Concerning whom, in the first Council of Nice, is was decreed that, (1) Can. 4: Arab. Bishops do not devil with women etc. And, the same is decreed of every single Priest, and of Deacons unmarried: only after there are excepted, old women, the Mother, Sister, Aunt, and Grandmother. But there is no mention or allowance for a wife, which would have been in the first place, if it had been approved. In the Council of Neocaesarea it is defined, that, (2) Can. 1. If a Priest shall marry, he shallbe deposed from Order: but if he shall commit fornication or Adultery, let him be cast out of the Church, and do Penance amongst the Laity. In the second Council of Carthage, (3) Cap. ●. By all the Bishops it is said, It pleaseth all, that Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, or such as touch the Sacraments, keepers of Chastity, shall abstain even from wives. And it giveth this good reason thereof, that what the Apostles have taught, and Antiquity itself hath observed, we also may keep. And the same is defined by sundry other (4) Conc. Elibertin. c. 33. Conc. Arelat. 2. c. 2. Conc. Latera. Sess. 9 Reformationes Curiae etc. Counsels: and is the (5) Bellar. de Clericis. l. 1. c. 19 Rhem. Test. in 8 14. general Doctrine and practice of the present Catholic Church. Points Disputable. Some (6) Mayor in 4. Dist. 24. q. ●. think that the vow of Chastity made by Priests, is ordained by God's Law, and therefore indispensable: but (7) S. Tho. in 1. 2. q. 88 art. 11. others more truly teach, that it is commanded only by Decree of the Church, and therefore is dispensable. Protestants untruths. Melancthon (8) In Confess. August. art. 23. averreth that the first law imposed upon Clergy men for single life, was in Germany, some 400. years ago: And that no such law is to be found in any Council, but was only brought in by the Pope, against the mind of the Counsels. But all this is disproved by the Counsels here before cited. Caluin (9) Instit. l. 4. c. 12. §. 51. avoucheth that all the Ancient Fathers allowed Marriage in Bishops: But this to be false, willbe yet further showed in the next 3. Section following. Roger's falsely affirmeth us to teach that, (10) Def. of the Articl. art. 28 p. 187. None may be a Priest though he will vow a single life, if he have been a married man: for this he citeth the Rhemists in 1. Tim. 3.2. But there is not any such thing to be found: and the falsehood hereof is convinced, by the frequent practice to the contrary, in the Catholic Church. The English Church decreeth that, (11) Article 32. Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God's Law, either to vow the state of single life, or to abstain from Marriage. Therefore it is lawful also for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better for Godliness. And the same is taught (12) See the Harm. of Conf. p. 348. etc. generally by all Protestants. Protestants agreed with Ancient Heretics. S. Hierome writing against Vigilantius for his impugning the single life of Priests, relateth the general practice of the Church of those times, saying, (13) Cont. Vigilant. c. 1. What do the Churches of the East, of Egypt, and of the Sea Apostolic who take Clergy men either such as are Virgins, or Continent, or if they have wives yet cease to be as husbands? D. Fulke granteth that jovinian was condemned for, that, (14) Answ. to a Counterf. Cath. p. 4●. See Hier. l. 1. Cont. jovin. c 14. & 19 & Apol. ad Pamach. c. 8. Epiph. haer. 59 He taught that such as could not contain, though they had vowed virginity, should nevertheless be married. And (15) Prot. Appeal. p. 604. D. Morton acknowledgeth that Vigilantius and jovinian are condemned by S. Hierome for impugning the unmarried life of Priests. And so also was Simon Magus by S. Irenaeus. (16) L. 1. c. 20. And whereas Bellarmine affirmed, that Vigilantius taught, that Ecclesiastical persons aught to be married, Whitaker answereth, (17) Controu. 2. q. 5 c. 7. p. 516. If Vigilantius meant the lawful marriage of Pastors, in that he thought rightly. So that the Ancient heretics Vigilantius and jovinian, condemned by S. Hierome and S. Austin, are here defended, and followed by our Carnal Ministers. Protestants Errors. Luther thinketh, (18) Tom. 2. de votis fol. 271. it is impossible, that God approve the vow of Continency, and not rather detest it. (19) Tom. 5. serm de matrim. fol. 119. Increase and multiply is not a Precept, but more than a Precept. Swinglius avoucheth that, (20) Tom. 1. in Paraenesi ad Heluetoes. fol. 114. The sacred Scripture is so far from prohibiting the Ministers of the Church the use of holy Marriage, as that it doth often command the same. Yea saith Bullinger, (21) In. 1. Tim. 3. pag. 438. A Bishop is the Minister of God's word: but this man aught to be the husband of one wife, even because he is a Bishop. So that such Prot. Bishops & Ministers, as do not marry, do contrary to the command given by the Scripture, as these Prot. dream. SECT. II. It is gathered from the Scriptures, that the vow of Chastity is rightly annexed to holy Orders. THe vow of Chastity in Priests not being a Divine Precept expressed in Scripture, but an Apostolical Tradition and law of the Church, it cannot be expected, that clear Texts of Scripture should be produced for it, yet from thence may be deduced many strong probabilities: as first that, in the time of the Old Testament, Continency from wives was required, when the husbands were to be busied in any holy Office. Those that were to eat the Paschall lamb, were commanded to do the same with their (1) Exod. 12.11. loins girded, that is, according to S. Gregory, (2) Greg. bo. 22. super Euang. observing Continency. When the People of Israel were to receive the law from God, Moses commanded, that they should, (3) Exo. 19.15. be ready against the third day, and not come near (their) Wives. Achimelech the Priest, (4) 1. Reg. 21.4.5. would not give the holy bread to David, and his company, except they had contained some time from women; much more than aught Priests now to contain from wives, seeing they consecrated, receive, and give to others, the body of Christ, which was prefigured in that holy bread. To these and sundry other such places, (5) Calu. Instit. l. 4 c. 12. §. 25. Caluin answereth, that the Leviticall Priests, being types and figures of Christ, were to represent his Excellency with what purity and sanctity they could, but now by Christ's coming, those figures and shadows are ceased. But this helpeth nothing, for as those Priests did bear the figure of Christ to come, so Christian Priests represent him as comen, and therefore the like and greater purity is required in them. But indeed the chief reason why the Levitical Priests were to abstain from their wives, was not because they were the figure of Christ, but because they ministered unto God, for it is said, (6) Ex. 19.21. The Priests that come to the Lord, let them be sanctified, lest he strike them. David also was always the figure of Christ, and yet he was only commanded to abstain from his wife, when he was to eat the hallowed bread. In the New Testament S. Paul teacheth, that a Bishop must be given (7) Ep. ad Tit. c 1. 8. to Hospitality, gentle, sober, just, holy, Continent: he saith to S. Timothy, (8) 2. Ep. 2.3.4. Labour thou as a good soldier of Christ jesus: no man being a soldier to God, in tangleth himself with secular businesses, but the state of marriage necessarily causeth many secular businesses and cares. He counseleth the married, (9) 1. Cor. 7. ●. by consent to contain for a time, that they may give themselves to prayer. Wherhfore Clergy men aught still to contain, seeing daily they aught to persist in prayer. SECT. III. The Fathers do gather from the Scriptures, that the Vow of Chastity is rightly annexed to holy Orders. IN the second Carthage Council it is thus decreed, (1) Can. 2. It pleaseth us all, that Bishops, Priests, Deacons, or those who handle the Sacraments, keepers of Chastity, shall abstain themselves even from wives, that what the Apostles have taught, and antiquity itself hath observed, we also may keep. (2) In Numer. ho. 23. Epiph. haer. 59 Ambr. in. 1. Tim. c. 3. If the prayer of the just (saith Origen) be offered as incense in the sight of our Lord etc. And the Apostle saith to them who are married, (3) 1. Cor. 7.5. Defraud not one another, except perhaps by consent for a time, that you may give yourself to prayer; it is certain that the daily Sacrifice is hindered by them who serve the necessities of marriage; whereupon it seemeth to me, that he only is to offer the daily Sacrifice, who hath vowed himself to daily & perpetual Chastity. Agreably heerto saith S. Hierome, (4) L. 1. cont. jovin. c. 19 If a lay man etc. cannot pray unless he want the duty of marriage; a Priest must always pray, who always must offer sacrifice for the people. If he must always pray therefore he must always want marriage: for in the Old law they who offered hosts for the people, not only were not in their own houses, but were purified for a time, separated from their wives, and they did not drink wine and sicer, which provoke lust. Married men are chosen to be Priests, because there are not so many Virgins, as are necessary to be Priests. Again, (5) Apol. ad Pamach. c. 3. If married men take it ill, let them not be angry at me, but at the holy Scriptures, yea at bishops, Priests, and Deacons, and at all the Priestly and Leviticall Quyre, who know they cannot offer Sacrifice, if they serve the act of Marriage. And, (6) Ad. c. 11 ad Titum. If the Laity be commanded, that for prayer they abstain from the company of their wives, what is to be thought of a Bishop, who daily is to offer unspotted Sacrifices to God for his own, and the people's sins? Let us read the books of kings, and we shall find, that the Priest Achimelech would not give to David and his servants the bread of Proposition, until he had demanded whether they were pure from women, not only strangers, but their own wives. And unless he had heard, that for two days they had forborn the act of Marriage, he would not have given them the bread, which formerly he had denied. There is so great difference between the bread of Proposition, & the body of Christ, as between a shadow and a body, between an Image and the truth, between the patterns of things to come, and the things themselves which are prefigured by those Patterns. And (7) L. 1. cont. jovin. c. 14. he proveth, that the Apostles after they were called to follow Christ, had no more carnal company of their wives, by those words of our Saviour, (8) Mat. 19.29. He that hath left wife etc. But the Father's Doctrine and practice, were so clear in behalf of the unmarried life of Priests, that jewel saith, (9) Defence of the Apology. p. 195. Here I grant M. Harding is like to find some good advantage, as having undoubtedly a great number of holy Fathers on his side. And Bucer acknowledgeth that, (10) Gratulatio ad Angl. p. 35. The Church of the East, Egypt, and the Sea Apostolic were accustomed in S. Hieromes' time, not to take for Priests, but either such as were not married, or ceased to be, by abstaining from their wives. The Council of Nice, which Whitguift calleth, that notable and famous Council of Nice, & which is of all learned and wise men reverenced, esteemed, and embraced next unto the Scriptures themselves, did (as Cartwright acknowledgeth) teach that, (11) In his second Reply. part. 1. p. 483. Unto those that were chosen to the Ministry unmarried, it was not lawful to take any wife afterwards etc. And, Paphnutius showeth, that not only this was before the Council, but was an ancient Tradition of the Church, in which both himself, and the rest of the Council rested. So confessedly are the Ancient Counsels & Fathers, against the Marriage of Priests. SECT. iv That Protestants teach the Vow of Chastity to be rightly annexed to holy Orders. THe allowance of wives to the Clergy, is a Doctrine so pleasing and agreeable to the Prot. Ministry, as that little can be expected to be said by any of them against the use thereof. I found that the Church in (1) The book of the 6. Articles, set forth in the time of K. Henry the eight. K. Henry the eight his time (which (2) Fulke against Heskins. p. 564. sec. 80. 82. Protestants acknowledge for a true Church) and also the now Waldenses do both of them maintain, and defend the unmarried life of Priests: the Waldenses (saith (3) De Ecclesia. p. 150. 224. 226. Morgensterne) do enforce their Ministers of the word to single life: They deny (saith (4) Confil. Theol. part. 2. p. 152. Melancthon) marriage to their Priests. It is likewise confessed that, (5) Harmony of Conf. & the observation thereto annexed upon the Confess. of Behemia▪ obseru. 4. For the most part it is used in the Churches of Bohemia, that a single man should be taken into the Ecclesiastical Ministry; whereof also saith Lascitius, (6) De Russorum &c Relig. pa. 157. All the Ministers for the most part in Bohemia and Moravia do live unmarried most holily. john Husse teacheth that, (7) In. 1. Cor. c. 7. Order is the seaventh impediment of Marriage, because a Clergy man in greater Orders, aught not to marry, because he hath made a vow. Again, (8) Serm. de pace. Clergy men are greatly bound above the Common people to keep Chastity, both by reason of Divine Precept, and by reason of their proper Vow, and by reason of the most holy Ministry, and by reason of the profitable Example. All these reasons notwithstanding, I do not find amongst all the brood that are come from Luther, any one to allow the Vow of Chastity, to be annexed to the Clergy. Yea that which deserveth our observation is, that whereas through this whole book I do confirm every Point of our Catholic Doctrine, even by the Testimonies and Grants of the learnedst Prot. themselves, yet in this of obliging the Clergy to a single life, they especially here of England do all forsake me. So pleasant is Wedlock to our fleshly Ministers. SECT. V Objections from Scriptures against the Vow of Chastity in Priests, answered. MOst Prot. do urge that S. Paul foretelleth (1) 1. Tim. 4. 1. 2. 3. that in ●he last times, certain shall departed from the faith, attending to spiri●s of Error, and doctrines of Devils &c. forbidding to marry etc. Answ. (2) L. 1. in jovin. Aug. l. 30. cont. Faust. c. 4. 6. Ambr. & Chrysost. in hunc locum. Fulgent. de fide. c. 3. S. Hierome, S. Austin, S. Ambrose, and other Fathers, do understand this of those who absolutely forbidden Marriage in all men, as being of its own nature evil; of which sort were Tacianus, Martion, and Manichaeus. He forbiddeth (saith S. Austin) (3) L. 30. cont. Faust. c. 6. to marry, who saith that it is evil, not he who preferreth before this good, another thing better. Whereas Catholics think Marriage to be a holy Sacrament, and compel none absolutely to Continency, but only for just respects require that Condition in them, who of their own accords desire to take holy Orders: even as the Church doth not prohibit temporal judges, or the office of a tormenter or Executioner, & yet those Offices she will not suffer Ecclesiastical men to execute. Some reply, that the foresaid Heretics are to come in the last times, & therefore it cannot be verified in Tatian, Martion, & Manichaeu: but by last times is understood the last whole age, from Christ until the end of the world; for the Apostle speaking of himself, and others of his time saith, that upon them (4) 1. Cor. 10.10. the ends of the world are come: and S. john speaking of his own time, saith, (5) 1. Ep. 2.18. Little Children it is the last hour: And though amongst the Manichees many did marry, yet (as (6) L. 30. cont. Faust. c. 6. S. Austin testifieth) this was not because they thought it lawful, but because they would not be debarred thereof. Secondly it is objected by M. Rogers, (7) Roger's Def. of the Art art. 32. p. 186. that S. Paul requireth in a Bishop, that he be (8) 1. Tim. 3.2. the husband of one wife. Answer. If this proveth any thing for Protestants, it proveth that every Bishop aught to have a wife, and consequently if they have not (as many of their own Superintendants are wanting) they do not as Saint Paul prescribeth. Besides in the same verse he teacheth, that a Bishop must be chaste, the true meaning than is, that he aught not to have been twice married; even as in the like phrase, & in the same Epistle, he saith, (9) 1. Tim. 5.9. Let a widow be chosen etc. which hath been the wife of one husband: Whereby it is plain, that the former place cannot be understood, as Caluin (10) In. 1. Tim. c. 3. & in c. 1. ad Tit. Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. Col. 451. and others would enforce, to wit, that S. Paul only counseleth or commandeth, that a Bishop shall not have many wives at once, for there was no reason that he should command, that a Widow should be chosen who had but one husband at once, seeing in no time or place was it ever used, that one woman at the same time should be wife to many husbands. Besides in the time of S. Paul, it was not usual amongst the Gentiles or jews, and much less amongst Christians, for one man to have many wives at once, therefore needless had it been to have prohibited holy Bishops the same. As for the Gentiles in the Roman Empire, wherewith the whole world was as then governed, Polygamy was infamous, and prohibited by many laws, (11) ff. de his qui nota. infam. l. 1. & e. de incest. nup. L. neminem. & add L. juliam. de Aduet. L. Eum qui. which though they were enacted after the Apostles time, yet do they show the prohibition thereof, to have been much more Ancient. And as for the jews and Christians, we see that when mention is made upon any occasion in the New Testament (12) Mat. 5.33. & 19.3.29. Luc. 14.26. 1. Cor. 7.2.27. Eph. 5.28.31.33. of wife, the same is done in the singular number: and we may well think, that if as than it had been lawful, that Zacharias, and others who had their wives barren, would have married others, which yet neither he, nor other private man did; though K. Herod peradventure and some other great Princes would sometimes be careless thereof. This understanding of this place, to wit, that he should not be chosen Bishop who had been twice married is given by S. Austin, (13) Aug. l. de bono Coniug. c. 28. Hieron. in c. 1. ad Titumm. Ambr. l. 10. op. 82. Tertul. l. 1. ad uxorem. Epiphan. haer. 39 Chrysost. ho. 2. in Ep. ad Tit. S. Hierome, S. Ambrose, and sundry other Fathers. But S. chrysostom answereth directly to this place, saying, (14) Hom. 2. in job. Paul the Apostle when he went to the Gentiles, did not impose upon them the greatest weight of virtue; but willing to place Pastors in the world which was replenished with Adulteries and fornications: and because virtues were rarely found, ordaining Bishops he said to Titus Ordain (15) Tit. 1.5. Bishopes, as I have also appointed thee etc. the husband of one wife not so, that now this be observed in the Church, for a Priest aught to be adorned with all Chastity; but because that to those who lived in fornication, it was a great thing, therefore he sa●d, Ordain Bishops etc. the husband of one wife not that he made this a law but that he pardoned their Error or infirmity. Thirdly it is objected that, (16) Instit. l. 4 c. 19 §. 27. Roger's Def. of the Art art. 32. p. 188. Marriage is honourable in all. Ergo in Priests. Answer. By the like reason might be proved, that marriages of kinsfolks in the first and second degree, and of Children without consent or their Parents, is honourable and lawful, which yet Caluin denyeth. The meaning therefore is, that it is honourable in all lawfully joined together, whether they be old or young, noble or base, Greeks' or Hebrews &c. And thus is it expounded by (17) In hunc locum. Theophilact. Also it is honourable in all things which belong to Marriage, as in that it is a Sacrament, in that thereby they mutually give their faith, in regard of their issue. Lastly, this place maketh as much against those who have the gift of Continency, as against Priests, seeing such, according to Protestants, are bound to contain. But S. Austin's answer will peradventure better satisfy, who saith, (18) Quaestionibus vet. ac. Nou. Test. q. 127. fin. But perhaps it willbe said, if it be lawful and good to marry, why it is not lawful for Priests to have wives? To this he presently answereth, who knoweth not that every thing hath its order; for there is something which is not altogether generally lawful, to all, and there is something which is lawful to some, and not to others: and which is sometimes lawful, and sometimes not. It is never lawful for any man to commit fornication; but it is lawful to bargain sometimes and sometimes not; for before a man be of the Clergy, he may lawfully bargain, but after not. It is lawful sometimes for a Christian to company with his wife, sometimes not. Upon days of Procession sometimes it is not lawful, because abstinence must be even from lawful things, that what is desired may more easily be obtained etc. Is every thing Lawful before an Emperor, which is lawful before others? how much more in matters concerning God? Hereby it is, that the Bishop aught to be purer than others, for he seemeth to bear his person, for he is his Vicar, that what is lawful for others, may not be lawful for him; because he must daily supply the place of Christ, either praying for the people, or offering, or baptising. And generation is not only unlawful to him, but also to his Ministry, because he aught to be purer, seeing the things which he ministereth are holy. So plainly is this Objection answered by S. Austin. Fourthly, is (19) Roger's Def. of the Art art. 32. p. 186. objected that the Apostles themselves had wives, and that they carried them about with them when they peached, (20) 1. Cor. 9.5. Have we not power (saith S. Paul) to lead about a woman a Sister, as also the rest of the Apostles? etc. And, (21) Philip. 4.3. I beseech thee my sincere companion: in both which places Prot. dream of wives. Answ. But I will refer them to (22) L. 1. cont. jovin. c. 14. S. Hierome, answering herein their forefather jovinian in these words: Peter, and the rest of the Apostles, that I may grant him for the present, out of our abundance, had wives; but such as they took when they knew not the Gospel: who afterwards taken to be Apostles, they relinquish the Office of Marriage. For when Peter in the person of the Apostles, said to our Lord, Behold we have left all, and followed thee? Our Lord answereth him: Amen, I say to you, that there is no man who shall leave house, or Parents, or Brethrens, or wife, for the kingdom of heaven, who shall not receive much more in this world, & in the world to come life everlasting. But if he shall object that unto us (as Prot. do) to prove that all the Apostles had wives, Have we not power to carry about women or wives (because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Grecians signifieth both) as the rest of the Apostles and Peter? let him join that which is in the Greek books. Have we not power to carry about sisters, women, or wives? Whereby it appeareth that he speaketh of other holy women, who according to the custom of the jews, did minister to their Masters of their own substance, as we read, they did to our Lord himself. And the order of the words doth signify this. Have we not power to eat and drink; or to carry about sister's women? where etc. it is plain, wives aught not to be understood etc. or if we will by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, understand wives, not women, that which is added, sisters, taketh away wives, and showeth that they were allied in spirit, not wives. Although, excepting Peter the Apostle, it is not plainly recorded of the other Apostles that they had wives. And seeing it is written of one, and nothing said of the other, we aught to understand that they were without wives, of whom the Scripture signifieth no such thing. Thus far S. Hierome. Add yet hereunto, that in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as (23) De opere Monachorum. c. 4. S. Austin noteth) according as the Apostle hath put it down with all circumstances, there it no ambiguity, for that Saint Paul had no wife, himself witnesseth, saying, (24) 1. Cor. 7.8. I say to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they so abide, even as I also; but if they do not contain, let them marry. And the same is the consent of (25) Chrysost. de virgin. c. 34 Hieron. Ep. 22. ad Eustoch. c. 8. Hilar. in Psal. 127. Aug. l. de Gra. & lib. Arb. c. 4. cir. med. Epiph. baer. 58. Valefiorum. Ambro. in 1. Cor. c. 7. Tertul. l. ad uxorem. Chrysost. & Theodor. in c. 4. ad Philip. Antiquity. Besides the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of itself, (as (26) Annot. in Mat. 5.28. & 1. Cor. 7.1. Beza confesseth) doth rather signify a woman, than a wife, and therefore he reprehendeh Erasmus for translating, It is good for a man not to touch a wife, because (saith Beza) there is no circumstance annexed, why it should so signify; Wherhfore much more when the circumstance (as S. Austin saith) maketh it certain, that so it doth not signify. But let us hear S. Austin's own words, (27) Lib. de opere Monachorum. c. 4. Faithful women having earthly substance, went with them, and ministered of their goods, that they might not be in need of any thing which belongeth to the necessities of this life; which blessed Paul showeth was lawful to him, even as the other Apostles did; but afterwards he relateth that he would not use that power. Some not understanding this (let our Protestant Translatours and Interpreters attend) do interpret not a woman a Sister, but a wife, whereas he said, (28) 1. Cor. 9.5. Have not we power to carry about a woman a Sister; The ambiguity of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deceived them, in that, wife and woman by the same word in greek is signified, although the Apostle hath so placed it, that they aught not to have been deceived: for he neither speaketh only of a woman, but a woman Sister, nor of marrying, but of carrying about. But this ambiguity hath not deceyved other Interpreters, expounding a woman, not a wife: so particularly doth S. Austin satisfy this common Objection. Lastly, note, that whereas amongst all the Fathers, only (29) Lib. 3. Strom. Clemens Alexandrinus understandeth the foresaid places of wives, yet he addeth, that the Apostles lived not with them, as with wives in the state of Marriage: yea (30) Lib. ●. c. 24. Eusebius thinketh, that he wrote the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by way of Contention or disputation, whilst he wrote against them that impugned marriage: so that in the true sense, it is spoken of holy women, who followed the Apostles, and ministered unto them of their goods. In like sort, whereas in the later place, Protestants translate for a faithful Companion, a faithful yokefellow, that thereby cannot be understood S. Paul's wife, besides what hath been said it is plain, in that faithful, german, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is the Masculine gender, and so translated by Caluin and Beza: thereby therefore is meant, some man who was fellow with S. Paul in preaching of the Gospel. Lastly, it is so certain, that S. Paul was not married, that Caluin commenting upon these words, I say to the unmarried and Widows, it is good for them, if they so abide, even as I also, affirmeth thus plainly, (31) In. 1. Cor. 7.8. This place showeth the Apostle then to have been single. For whereas Erasmus argueth that he was married, because amongst married men he maketh mention of himself, it is trifling and weak, because it might by the same reason be gathered, that he was a widower, because amongst widowers he speaketh of himself. But the words sound, that then he was not married. Neither do I admit that Conjecture, that he left his wife somewhere, and of his own accord debarred himself of the use of the Marrriage-bed. So trifling and weak are these Objections, and so clearly answered by Scriptures, Fathers, and Protestants. CHAP. XIV. The true State of the Question, Concerning Christ his descending into Hell. Whether Christ our Saviour truly descended in soul into Hell; And there redeemed those who were in Abraham's bosom, or Limbus; Or that by Hell, should only be understood his Grave; Or his suffering, the pains of Hell. SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. WHAT the Church of Christ believeth concerning this Article of our faith, will clearly appear by her holy Decrees, amongst which that of the ancient Council of Ariminum was this. (1) Apud Athanasium de Synodo Arimin. We believe the son of God according to the will of his Father, to have been crucified and died, and to have descended to hell, and there to have performed what belonged to his charge whom the Porters of Hell beholding were afraid, and that the third day he rose from hell, and conversed with his Disciples. The Council of Toledo further defineth, that, (2) Conc. Tolet. 4. c. 1. He descended to hell that he might take out from thence the Saints that there were kept, and the power of death overcome, he rise again. This it the faith of the Catholic Church, this Confession we keep and hold. According to the Council of Laterane, (3) Cap. 1. The only begotten son of God etc. suffered upon the wood of the Cross and died, he descended to hell, &c But he descended in Soul, he rose in flesh, ascended alike in both. And it is the constant faith of all (4) Bellar. de Christi anima. l. 4. c. 12. etc. Rhem. Test. in Luc. 16, 22. & in. 1. Pet. 3.19. Catholics, that Christ in soul truly descended into hell, and delivered the holy Fathers that were in Limbus, or Abraham's bosom; and that by Hell is not understood his grave, or his suffering any pains of Hell, which were most impious to imagine; but a place under the ground, where the said Fathers were reserved until Christ's Coming. Points Disputable. Some (5) S. Tho. 3. part. q. 52. art. 2. teach that Christ descended by real presence only to Limbus Patrum, and by effect to all places of hell. Others (6) Bellar. de Christo. l. 4. c. 16. think that his soul truly descended to all places of Hell. Some (7) Caiet. in Act c. 2. S. Tho. 3. part. q. 52. art. 13. affirm, the dolours of death to have continued with Christ until his resurrection, by reason of the penalties, which by death were left, as the separation of the soul, the being thereof in a place unworthy of it, and the being of the body in the Grave. Others (8) Bonau. 3. Dist. 22. q. 4. better teach, that Christ's soul, whilst it was in hell, was without all pain, the same ceasing with his death. Some (9) S. Tho. 3. p. q. 52. art. 8. teach that Christ descending, delivered only such souls out of Purgatory, as had made due satisfaction, or that had peculiar Devotion to the future Passion of Christ. Others (10) S. Bonau. 3. Dist. 22. q. 5. Tho. Argent. eadem. Dist. q. unica art. 4. Gab. eadem Dist. q. unica art. 3. dub. 3. affirm that he delivered from pain all the just and Elect of God, and consequently those that were in Purgatory. Protestant Doctrine. Protestants in this Article of faith are much divided amongst themselves. For some (11) Bucer in c. 27. Mat. Beza in ●. 2. Act. teach, that Christ only descended to his grave, and that by hell is understood his Grave. Others by Hell understand, that he suffered the pains of the Damned. thus Caluin: (12) Instit. l. 2. c. 16. §. ●. & ad. c. 30. job. & in Catech. edit. 1562. Teaching further, that to use his words, This fable of Limbus Patrum, for the delivery of whom they say Christ descended, although it have great authors, yet it is nothing but a fable. Whitakers faith concerning this Article of our Creed is this, (13) Cont. Dur. l. 9 sec. 27. I do believe that the soul of Christ loosed from the body, not only not to have descended to Hell, but forthwith to have been taken into heaven. And the like is taught by sundry other Prot. (14) Perkins in his Exposition of the Creed. To. 1. Col. 678. Polanus in Disput. periodo 2. disp. 236 some whereof (15) Apud Aret. in loc. part. 1. fol. 72. do plainly say, that this sentence, or (Article) is to be taken out of the Creed. D. Hill a Prot. wrote a book in defence of this Article according to our Catholic understanding thereof, in which he citeth for his opinion Aretius, Apinus, M. Nowell, and Melancthon. M. Carlisle wrote another book directly to the contrary, citing sundry Prot. in his behalf. So that the Reformed Church is yet to determine what is to be believed concerning this Article. Protestants agreed with Ancient Heretics. Origen (16) Hieron. Ep. ad Auitum. taught that Hell was nothing but the horror of Conscience. And the same is taught by (17) Iust. l. 3. c. vlt. Caluin. Protestant Errors. Brentius (18) In Catechismo Anni 1551. understandeth, by descending into hell, to be utterly Destroyed. Caluin, (19) Inst. l. 2. c. 16. §. 8. 9 10. 11. 12. in Ha●mon. Euang. ad c. 27. Math. that Christ suffered the pains of the damned souls. And others profess, that, (20) L. Concordiae. p. 750. they simply believe, that the whole person God and Man after Burial descended into Hell. But if Christ Man descended into Hell, than he descended alive not dead, for he that is dead is not man, seeing every man by death ceaseth to be man. And if a living man he descended, than not only his soul, but likewise his flesh descended, for the soul alone cannot be said to be man. Now if the soul and flesh descended, what remained in the Grave? M. Rogers acknowledgeth certain Prot. to teach, that, (21) Def of the Art art. 3. p. 16. Christ alive upon the Cross humbled himself usque ad Inferni tremenda tormenta even unto the dreadful torments of Hell: endured for a time those torments which the Reprobate shall everlastingly suffer in hell: even despaired of God's mercy, finding God at this time, non Patrem sed Tyrannum, not a Father, but a Tyrant: and overcame despair by despair, death by death, hell by hell, and Satan by Satan: suffered actually all the torments of Hell for our Redemption: & descended into the heaviest torments that Hell could yield: suffered the torments of Hell, the second death, Abjection from God, and was made a Curse, that is, had the bitter anguish of God's wrath in his soul and body, which is the fire that shall never be quenched. And in like sort, Parkes affirmeth, that, (22) Against Willet p. 114. Luther, Illyricus, Latimer, did teach Christ to have descended into hell in soul and body, and there suffered torments after Death. But these Blasphemies are to be abhorred, and yet they are uttered by Luther, Caluin, and other principal Protestants. Neither do they stay here, but even proceed to the taking away both of Heaven and Hell, and to sundry other such Errors tending to Atheism. Luther saith, (23) Tom. 6. in Gen. c. 25. fol. 321. I cannot affirm whether the souls of the wicked be tormented presently after death. I am (24) Tom. 4. in c. 2. jonae. fol. 418. not very certain what Hell is before the last day. Schultetus, (25) Medul. in Tertul. part. 1 c. 42. That assertion of his as it is new, so false; the souls to suffer in hell before the bodies. Schlusselburge, (26) Theol. Caluinist. lib. 1. art. 27. fol. 145. The Catechism of the Heidelbergians, maketh it doubtful, whether indeed there be any Hell, and place ordained, in which the wicked and the damned after this life, together with the Devils, must be afflicted with Eternal punishments. (27) Apud Hospin. part. 2. Hist. anno 1562. fol. 308. Brentius, I laugh at your Old wife's fooleries, of that your corporal and local Heaven and Hell. (28) Ib. p. 331. Local Hell is feigned. Perkins, (29) Tom. 2. in Apoc. 2. Col. 90. We must not feign Hell to be some certain determined & corporal place. Caluin, (30) Instit. l. 2 c. 16. §. 9 It is childish to enclose souls in the Prison of the Dead. And, (31) In Mat. 3.12. & in Mat. 25.39. & in. c. 30. Isaiae. Concerning fire eternal we may gather, that it is a Metaphorical speech. Danaeus, (32) Controu. 6. p. 1●81. It is a thing impossible that the souls of men, separated from their bodies, can be tormented and afflicted with any Corporal fire. (33) Ibid. That the sacred Scripture treating of the Punishment of damned men, even in their souls, doth call it fire, those speeches are not natural, but Metaphorical, neither there is it treated of material fire. Perkins, (34) Tom. 2. in Apoc. 2. Col. 90. Vorstius in Antibel. p. 269. Tilenus' in syntag c. 68 Lobech. disput. 6. p. 1●3. & Disp. ●9. p. 459. Polanus in syllog. Thes. part. ●. p. 508. We must not feign the Torments (of Hell) to be corporal, but rather spiritual, seeing it is the apprehension of God's wrath and revenge. B● D. Bilson confesseth that, (35) In his Survey p. 44. S. Austin long since hath plainly resolved that the fire of Hell is not only a true fire, but a corporal fire, that shall punish both men and Devils. Yea S. Hierome condemneth Origen, for teaching that, (36) Ad Au●tum. An● see Bilsons Survey p. 51. The fire of Hell etc. doth not torment, but the Conscience of sinners. And it is undoubted, that these broachers of such impious Doctrines do presently after their deaths see and feel their errors, finding a local Hell, and corporal Fire, tormenting their souls for all Eternity. SECT. II. It is proved by Scriptures, that Christ our Saviour truly descended in soul into Hell; And there redeemed those who were in Abraham's bosom, or Limbus. THe truth of this Article of our Creed is proved by such Scriptures as teach, that Christ was the first that ascended into heaven: for hence it followeth, that the souls of the just departed before his time, were detained somewhere else To this purpose saith S. Paul, (1) 1. Cor. 15.20. Now Christ is risen again from the dead, the first fruits of them that sleep. And in this respect Christ is called, (2) Col. 1.18. Ap. 1.5. the first borne of the dead: And we are further taught, that, (3) Heb. 7.19. The law brought nothing to Perfection, but an Introduction of a better hope. And therefore that, (4) Heb. 9.8. the way of holyes (by which is meant (5) Heb. 9.24 & 10.19. heaven) was not yet manifested, the former Tabernacle (by which is understood the (6) Heb. 9.1, 2. Old Testament) as yet standing. And this way of holyes is called, (7) Heb. 10.19. A new and living way, which (Christ) hath dedicated (or begun, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) to us. And in regard hereof the Fathers of the Old Testament, are said to have (8) Heb. 11.13. died according to faith, not having received the Promises: (9) Heb. 11.40. God for us providing some better thing, that they without us should not be Consummate. All these Texts show, that the way to Heaven was not opened before Christ's Resurrection, and that himself was the first that did dedicated, or begin this way unto us. The same truth is confirmed by such places, as show that the foresaid souls of the just before Christ's Coming were in hell. jacob bewailing his son josephs' supposed death, saith, (10) Gen. 37.35. I will descend to my son in Hell. jacob & joseph were both just, and yet here it is said, that they descended into Hell. Dives being in Hell, saw Abraham (11) Luc. 16.23. a far of, and Lazarus in his bosom: which argueth that both souls were in the same gulf, though far distant amongst themselves. Neither will it suffice to answer that, this of Lazarus is only a Parable, and therefore not strong in proof: for in the judgements of S. Ambrose, (12) In c. 16. Luc. Hier. l. 2. in jovin. Aug. de cura pro mort c. 14. Greg. l. 4. Dial. c. 29. S. Hierome, S. Austin, and S. Gregory (the 4. great Doctors of the Catholic Church) it is a true History, their proper names being set down. And though it were a Parable, yet it maketh fully for the present purpose, as every Circumstance thereof doth clearly show. In like sort that it was Samuels soul that ascended from the Earth, and appeared to Saul, it is plain by these words, (13) 1. Reg. 28.11. When the woman had seen Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice etc. And Saul understood that it was Samuel, etc. And Samuel said to Saul, why hast thou disquieted me, that I should be raised up? And it is placed among the praises of Samuel, that, (14) Eccl. 46.23. After this he slept, and he notified to the king, and shown him the end of his life, and he exalted his voice out of the Earth in Prophecy etc. This place showeth that Samuels Soul was raised out of the Earth. Neither was the Soul of so great a Prophet subject to the enchantment of a Witch, but prevented the same, whereat the woman (15) 1. Reg. 28.12.13. was much troubled. The same is confirmed by such Texts as show, that Christ delivered the Captive out of Prison, so the Prophet Zachary saith, (16) Zach 9.11. Thou also in the blood of the Testament, hast let forth thy Prisoners out of the lake, wherein is no water. This to be spoken of Christ, is evident by the (17) 9.10. precedent verses: And S. Peter saith of Christ, In (18) 1. Pet. 3.19. the which spirit coming he preached to them also that were in Prison, which all understand of the Prison of Hell. All such places prove the same, as teach, that before the Ascension of Christ, the souls of sundry dead persons returned, and were reunited again to their bodies: whereof we may found examples of (19) Io. 11.43. Lazarus, the (20) Luc. 8.55. Maid, & of (21) Mat. 27.52. many bodies of the Saints that had slept (and) rose. Now that these reuturned from heaven, or the Hell of the damned, none do imagine. This also is yet further convinced by all such places as teach, that Christ himself was in Hell, or the lower parts of the Earth, (22) Mat. 12.40. As jonas was in the whales belly, three days & three nights: so shall the son of man be in the hart of the Earth 3. days, and 3. nights. Now by the hart of the Earth is understood Hell, which is in the depth of the Earth, as the hart is in the depth of a body: whereas the Grave is in the superficies of the Earth, and Christ's sepulchre was peradventure above the Earth: beside in the sepulchre was only Christ's dead body, whereas jonas was alive in the body of the whale. In like sort it is said, (23) Act. 2.27. Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell; this being plainly spoken of Christ, is so convincing that Beza to avoid the same, doth translate most absurdly, Thou shalt not leave my carcase in the Grave, or, my soul in the Grave, as shallbe showed next hereafter. S. Paul's words also are most pregnant (24) Eph. 4.8. Ascending on high, he led Captivity captive etc. And that he ascended, what it is, but because he descended also first, into the inferior parts of the Earth. These words literally taken, do convince Christ to have descended into Hell, & to have delivered the just that were Captives. But now to observe how Prot. corrupt the Texts of Scripture in favour of their heresy: because these words, (25) Act. 2.27. Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, do prove Christ's soul to have descended to hell, Beza in his (26) Anno 1557. Translation changes it thus, Thou will not leave my carcase in the Grave; which he defendeth in these words, (27) Ad defence. Castal. p. 460. My soul, in the Text, I Interpreted, my Carcase, but in the Annotation, my Life. And we may take my soul, instead of the pronoun (me) which exposition is most simple. And whereas he addeth, he observeth Error to have risen by the Old Translation, animam meam, my soul, he saith, I did it not rashly seeing we see this place principally to be wrested by the Papists, for the establishing of their Limbus, and the Ancient (Fathers) also from thence have found out that descending of Christ's soul into hell. In like sort where it is said, (28) Act. 2.31. overseeing he spoke of the Resurrection of Christ, for neither was he left in hell; the (29) Anno 1562. 1567. 1568. 1605. Prot. of Geneva, in their Bibles instead of Hell, do make Grave. And (30) Anno 1603. Tremelius followeth them therein in his latin Bible. And the like corruption is frequently (31) See the Engl. Bib. of 1578. Ose. 13.14. Ps. 85.13. Gen. ●7. 35. to be found in our English Translations. In like sort, where S. Paul saith, that (32) Heb. 10.20. Christ hath dedicated to us a new and living way, to wit, the way into Heaven, (33) Eng. Bib. of 1578. Fulk. in Heb. 10.20. Prot. translate, he prepared: whereas the Greek word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, intravit, signifieth to make new, to begin a thing, to dedicated. SECT. III. That the Anciet Fathers do agreably expound the Scriptures in proof of Christ's descending into Hell, and his delivering of the just in Captivity. SAint Irenaeus expoundeth many Texts of Scripture for Christ's descending into Hell, saying, (1) L. 5 fine. During the 3. days he conversed where the Dead were, (2) jonas. 2.2. as the Prophecy saith of him he remembered his Holy Ones that were dead, those that before slept in the land of Promise, he descended to them to fetch them out, and save them. And our Lord himself, (3) Mat. 12.40. As jonas was in the Whale's belly etc. The Apostle also, (4) Eph. 4.9. He ascended, what is it, but because be descended first into the inferior parts of the Earth. David also prophesying of him, saith, (5) Ps. 86.13. Thou hast delivered my soul from the lower Hell: so fully S. Irenaeus. Origen teacheth that, (6) Ho. 15. in Gen. Towards the end of the world, the only begottten son for the salvation of the world, descended even to hell, and from thence recalled (Adam) the first framed: for that which he said to the Thief, (7) Luc. 23. This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise, do not understand as said to him alone, but also to all the Holy Ones, for whom he descended to hell. S. Basil (8) Ho. in Ps. 48.16. upon these words, God will redeem my soul out of the hand of Hell, affirmeth that, he plainly prophesieth the descending of Christ to Hell, who was to deliver together with others the soul of the Prophet himself, that he should not remain there. S. chrysostom avoucheth that, (9) Ser. 5. de resurrect. Christ the sun of justice this day ascended, having preached to the souls of the Just, lifting up with him from Hell their bodies, as it were the Quyres of spiritual stars. Jerusalem shined, wherein those who rose are seen etc. And it is truly called the day of light, in which the darkness of blindness fell away; they shouted out (10) Isa. 9.2. who were in darkness, because they saw great light, and to those who dwelled in the Country of the shadow of death, light is risen. Again, alleging these plainest words of the Prophet Isay, (11) C. 45.2. I will break the brazen gates, & will burst the iron bars, And, I will give the hidden treasures etc. he saith, (12) Demonstrat adverse. Gentiles, quod Christus fuit Deus. Thus he calleth Hell, for though it were Hell, yet it kept the holy souls and precious vessels, Abraham, Isac, and jacob: for which cause he calleth them treasures, but hidden ones, because as yet the sun of justice hath not shined there. Lastly, (13) Ho. 4. in Mar. Before the coming of the Saviour, before Christ with the Thief opened the gates of Paradise, all the souls of the just were carried to Hell. Finally, jacob saith, (14) Gen. 37.35. Mourning and groaning I will descend to Hell; Therefore our Lord died, therefore he descended to Hell, that the souls which were there bound, might be loosed. What more plain for Christ's descending into Hell? And yet in no less plain terms speaketh S. Hierome, (15) Ep. 25. c. 3. jacob bewailed his son whom he thought was slain, to whom himself also was about to descend into Hell, saying, (16) Gen. 37.35. Mourning I will descend to my son in Hell; because Christ as yet had not broken open the gate of Paradise; as yet his blood had not quenched the fiery sword etc. of the Cherubims that had charge: Whereupon Abraham also, though he was in a place of rest, yet it is written, (17) Luc. 16.23. that he was with Lazarus in Hell. Again, (18) Ad. c. 3. Ecclesiastici. Before the Coming of Christ, all things were carried together to Hell, whereupon jacob said, that he was to descend to Hell. And job complained that both the Godly, and the wicked were detained in Hell. And the Gospel testifieth, that there is a great Chaos in Hell, placed between, and that Abraham is with Lazarus, and that the rich man is in punishment. And indeed before Christ with the Thief had at the gates of Paradise laid open the flaming wheel, and burning sword, the heavens were shut. So manifest it is, that before Christ's coming none ascended into heaven. But no man explaineth the Scriptures more plainly in this behalf then S. Austin, who alleging these words of our Saviour, This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise, affirmeth that, (19) Ep. 57 ad Dard. Christ jesus Man was not to be that day in heaven, but according to his soul in Hell and according to his flesh in the grave: and of the flesh, that it was laid that day in the grave, the Gospel is most manifest. And that the soul descended into Hell, the Apostolical Doctrine teacheth, (20) Act. 2.27. Because thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell, nor give thy Holy One to see corruption. Again, (21) Ep. 99 ad Euod. that our Lord dead in flesh, came to Hell, it is plain enough, for the Prophecy cannot be gainsaid which saith, Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, which lest any should presume to understand otherwise, Peter expoundeth the same in the Acts of the Apostles, even in those his words in which he affirmeth, that, (22) Act. 2.24. he loosed the sorrows of Hell, according as it was impossible that he should be holden of it. Who therefore but an Infidel, will deny that Christ was in hell etc. That according to his soul he was in hell, the Scripture plainly declareth &c. And in another place, (23) In Psal. 85. And see Tract. 111. in joan. Our Lord was not yet come to Hell, that he might deliver from thence the souls of all the Just that went before him, & yet Abraham was in rest; and Dives tormented in Hell, when he saw Abraham, he lifted up his eyes, for he could not see him with eyes lifted up, unless Abraham were above, and himself below. This was so clearly his Doctrine, that (24) Survey of Christ's suffer. p. 626. 598. 599. Aret. loc. come p. 33. D. Bilson and Aretius do allege S. Austin for Christ's descending into Hell. So that in S. Austin's judgement they are Infidels, who deny this Article of our faith, He descended into Hell. That it was truly the soul of Samuel that was raised up, and appeared unto K. Saul, it is constantly taught by S. Austin, (25) De cura pro mort. c. 15. Ambr. in Luc. 1. Bas. Ep. 80. Hier. in Isa. 7. S. Ambrose, S. Basil, and S. Hierome. Lastly S. Thaddaeus, one of Christ's Disciples in his Doctrine published by Eusebius, and by him (26) Euseb. Hist l. 1. c. vlt. Collected from Ancient Chronicles, and public tables thereof reserved in the City of Edessa, where the said Doctrine was by Thaddaeus delivered, saith of our Saviour, (27) Ibid. fin. He descended into Hell, and broke in sunder the wall, which during the world's space remained whole and unmoved. After he rose the third day, he raised the dead, who had slept for many years; and although he descended alone, yet he ascended to his Father with great multitude. This was so certainly the saying of S. Thaddaens, that Frigivilleus Gaunius a Prot. maketh mention hereof from Eusebius, and concludeth that, (28) Palma Christiana p. 74. Those things which Eusebius delivereth of the Preaching of Thaddaeus at Edessa, and the Conversion of Agbarus to Christ, no man of mature judgement will impugn. And D. Hill allegeth sundry times this Testimony and saying of Thaddaeus in his book of the Defence of the Article, that Christ descended into Hell. This the Fathers so plainly taught, that M. jacob confesseth that, (29) In Bilsons full Redemption p. 188. All the Fathers with one consent do affirm, that Christ delivered the souls of the patriarchs and Prophets out of Hell at this coming thither, and so spoilt Satan of those that were then in his present possession. D. Barlow saith, (30) Def. of the Articles of the Prot. Rel. p. 173. This passeth most rife among the Fathers, who taking Inferi, for Abraham's bosom, expound it that Christ went thither, ad liberandum liberandos, to coney the father's deceased before his Resurrection, into the place where now they are. Duraeus alleging many testimonis of the Fathers for Limbus Patrum, Whitaker his best answer is this, (31) Cont. Duraeum. l. 8. p. 567. That I may freely and briefly answer thee what I think, one little word of Scripture uttered, hath more weight than a thousand Fathers without Scripture; therefore do not expect whilst I particularly do wash away these errors of the Fathers. But Whitaker, and all Heretics must know, that the Fathers not opposing, but grounding themselves upon Scripture, as this Section convinceth, do thus unanimously teach, Christ his descending into Hell. SECT. iv That Protestant writers do teach the Descending of Christ into Hell, and the delivery from thence of the just that were in Captivity. LAscitius a famous Protestant affirmeth, that, (1) De Rustorum, Muscovit. etc. Relig. p. 122. Abraham's bosom was not in heaven, And in proof that the Fathers of the Old Testament were not in heaven before Christ's coming, he allegeth aswell the (2) Ib. p. 123. Scriptures before cited, and the foresaid Testimony of Thaddaeus, and another of Ignatius, as also the like answerable opinion and Doctrine of the Hebrews, (3) Ibid. and of the remote Christians both in Syria and Aethiopia: and the like plain testimonies for this Doctrine may be seen in (4) Common plac. in Engl. part. 2. c. 18. p. 621. & part. 3. c. 16 p. 377. 378. Oecol. in l. Epist. Oecolamp. & Swing. l. 1. p. 19 Swingl. ib. l. 3. p 560. 561. Peter Martyr, Oecolampadius, and Swinglius. Our English Prot. Church teacheth that, (5) Art of Relig art. 3. As Christ died for us and was buried, so also it is to be believed, that he went down into Hell. And in the Apostles Creed in English meeter they sing loudly and justily in the Churches, His spirit did after this, descend into the lower parts, to them that long in darkness were, the true light of their hearts. A saying so evident, that (6) Def. of the Engl. Transl. c. 7. p. 204. Whitak. count. Dur. l. 9 p. 773. D. Fulke and D. Whitaker, do therefore greatly dislike it. Schlusselburge in proof of Christ's Descending, (7) Theol. Calu. l. 1. f. 146. allegeth the authority of the Ancient Fathers; and saith thus fully: (8) Ib. l. 1. c. 27. The Catholic and Orthodoxal Church of Christ hath ever believed from the beginning to these very times the Descending of Christ, and hath always numbered it amongst the Articles of Faith, and hath always proved it by the Testimonies of Scripture: Therefore it is not to be suffered that, that Article, as added, should be confounded with the rest, or be wholly taken away by obstinate Swinglians, deserving Hell. Caluin affirmeth that, (9) In 1. Pet. c. 3. The souls of the faithful gone out of the bodies, were detained in Prison, where they were bound with a burning desire of Christ's coming; because as yet they were not fully enriched with the spirit of liberty. But what other Prison this was then Abraham's Bosom, no man can imagine. This doctrine of Christ's descending in soul into Hell, is taught by D. Hill in his Defence of the Articles that Christ descended into Hell, throughout that Book: Also by D. Bilson (10) Pag. 650. etc. in his Survey of Christ's sufferings etc. And of his descent into Hell: by the Author (11) Pag. 112. of Catholic Traditions: By Luther, Aretius, Apinus, Nowell, and Melancthon, alleged in (12) P. 23. 44. See. 33. 34. Hill his foresaid book; by the Lutherans generally, & many Caluinistes. Add herunto that some Prot. teach, that the souls of the Justice shall not before the day of judgement enjoy heaven and the sight of God: so Luther (13) Praelect. in Gen. And see in c. 9 Ecclesiastic. & in jonam. & in c. 5. Gen. , so the Protestants (14) See Lascitius de Russ. etc. Relig. p. 123. of Bohemia, and thereto doth Caluin (15) Inst. l. 3. c. 20. sect. 20. etc. 25. sect. 6. most dangerously incline. Yea (16) In Psal. 16. Appinus, (17) In Fulke Def. of the Engl. Transl. c. 7 p. 204. Latimer, and some (18) See Melanct. in Consil Theol. part. 2. p. 131. & in l. 1. Ep. p 376. And Beza in Act. 2. other Prot. trembled not to maintain, that Christ did after his bodily death, descend into Hell in his soul, therein to suffer torments of the damned. In so much as Melancthon testifieth the dissension had among Prot. concerning this Doctrine. Into such Blasphemies and absurdities do Heretics fall, when they forsake the sure Rule of the Catholic Church in the understanding of Scriptures. SECT. V Objections from Scripture against Christ's descending into Hell, answered. FVlke demandeth, (1) Confut. of Purgat. p. 57 To what end was Christ called the Lamb (2) Apoc. 13.8. that was slain from the beginning of the world, but that the benefit of his Passion extendeth unto the Godly of all ages alike? Answer. Protestants themselves do understand (3) Marg. note of the Engl. Bible of 1576. in Reuel. 13.8. only by those words, that his death was so long before preordained of God, and prefigured, and that in the faith of Christ, the Just from the beginning of the world, were to be saved. Others object, that before Christ's Ascension, the Thief was in heaven, to whom our Saviour said, (4) Luc. 23.43. This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise. Answ. D. Hill proveth (5) Def. of Christ's Desc. into Hell. f. 19 20. that, This day may signify, for ever, comparing it with this other Text, (6) Ps. 2.7. Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee: and so it importeth only the perpetuity of the joys promised him. Secondly though the words should concern the only natural day then present, in which Christ descended into Hell, or Limbus Patrum; yet I answer with S. Austin (7) Ep. 57 ad Dardan. solut. 1. quaest. Orig. ho. 15. in Gen. and Origen, that the foresaid Hell, or Limbus Patrum, was then to the Thief made a Paradise, or a place of blessedness by reason of the Essential Beatitude, which as then there accompanied the soul of Christ. Thirdly I say again with S. Austin, (8) Ep. 99 ad Euod. that even before Christ's descending into that place, it was a place of rest freed from sensible pain, and of great blessedness in regard of the great Comfort and Expectation of those that were therein, and was therefore called (9) Luc. 16.12. Abraham's Bosom. CHAP. XV. The true State of the Question, Concerning Purgatory, and Prayer for the dead. Whether besides Heaven and Hell, after this life there be a place of Purgatory, wherein the souls of the Faithful are temporally punished for their sins committed in their life time: and whether they may be relieved by the Sacrifices, prayers, and alms of their living friends. Or otherwise, that instantly after death, every soul either immediately ascendeth into Heaven, or descendeth into Hell. SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. WHAT the Church of Christ universally teacheth concerning Purgatory, and Prayer for the dead, her irrefragable Decrees will presently tell us. For in the Council of Trent it is defined that, (1) Concil. Trident. Sess. 25. Decret. de Purgatorio. Seeing the Catholic Church instruted by the holy Ghost, hauh taught in Sacred Counsels etc. from the holy Scriptures, and ancient Tradition of Fathers, that there is a Purgatory, & that the Souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but especially by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar: The holy Synod commandeth Bishops, that they diligently take care, that the wholesome Doctrine of Purgatory, delivered by holy Fathers, and sacred Counsels, be believed, holden, taught, and every where preached by faithful Christians. By the first Nicene Council it was appointed that, (2) Cap. 65. Arab. When a Bishop dyeth etc. notice of his death be given to all Churches and Monasteries in the Parish, that Prayer may be made for him. And the like is taught in sundry (3) Conc. Cath 3. c. 20. C●n. Carth. 4. c. 79. Conc. Florent Sess 1 Quaest de Purgatorio. other Counsels. In the second Council Cabilonense, it is thus decreed. (4) Cap. 39 It further seemeth good to us, that in all the solemnities of Masses, our Lord be prayed in due place for the souls of the dead: for as no day is excepted wherein our Lord is not beseeched for all Necessities, so no day aught to be excepted, but that prayers be poured to our Lord in the solemnities of Masses, for the souls of the faithful. Therefore the holy Church keepeth anciently this custom, that in the solemnities of Masses, and other prayers, she may commend to our Lord the Souls of the departed etc. What these Counsels have defined, the Catholic Church (5) Bellar. de Purg. l. 1. c. 3. etc. & l. 2. c. 15. Rhem. Test. in Mat. 12.31. still believeth, to wit, that after this life, for such as die in the Grace of God, and have not done due Penance, for their sins, there is a place of Purgatory or satisfaction, wherein they are temporally punished, & may be relieved by the Prayers, Sacrifices, and other good works done for them by their living friends. Points Disputable. Some Catholic (6) S. Tho. in 4. Dist. 10. q. 1. art. 2. writers affirm, that Poena damni, the punishment of loss, is the greatest punishment either in Purgatory or this life. And that the lest pain in Purgatory, is greater than the greatest in this life. But (7) S. Bonavent. in 4. Dist. 20. q. 2. others teach, that the foresaid punishment of loss in Purgatory, is not greater than all the other punishments in Purgatory, or this life. And that the greatest punishment in Purgatory is greater than the greatest Punishment in this life, though some punishment in Purgatory, is less than some punishment in this life. M. Rogers (8) Def. of the Art art. 21. p. 121. objecteth that Catholics differ amongst themselves in assigning the place of Purgatory, as whether it be in the centre of the Earth, the bottom of the Sea, or in Hell. As also in the Tormentors, whether they be holy Angels, or devils; in the Torments, whether they be only by fire, or fire and water, and sundry such like. All this is true, but impertinent, for none of these Points are defined by the Church. Protestants untruths. Rogers avoucheth that according to Catholics, (9) Def. of the Art art. 22. p. 122. the Pope is God, in that he can at his pleasure discharge guilty souls, both from the guilt of sin, and from the punishments due for the same. And (10) Ib. p. 12●. Purgatory in another world, both denied hath always been by the Greek Churches etc. But this appeareth to be most false, by S. Epiphanius, a Greek Father, immediately hereafter cited, condemning for the same Aerius, and in him M. Rogers for heretics. And I must also needs condemn M. Rogers for an egregious Liar, in avouching, that Catholics affirm the Pope to be God, and that at his pleasure he can discharge guilty souls both from fault and punishment: both which all Catholics disclaim, as mere untruths. Protestant Doctrine. The English Protestant Church hath Decreed, that (11) Article 22. The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory etc. is a fond thing, vainly invented, & grounded upon no warrant of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God. According to D. jewel, (12) In Art 18 sect. 3. p. 158. This kind of praying for the Dead is plainly superstitious, and wanteth all authority of God's word. And so most Prot. profess (13) Harm. of Conf. p. 483. to believe that the faithful after the bodily death, go directly unto Christ, and therefore do not stand in need of the help or prayers for the Dead, or any such duty of them which are alive. In like manner we believe that the unbelievers be cast headlong directly into Hell etc. This is the ordinary Doctrine of Protestants. Protestants agreed with Ancient Heretics. Aerius was condemned by S. Austin (14) Haer. 53. and S. Epiphanius, (15) Haer. 75. for denying prayer for the Dead. (16) Answer to a Counterf. Cath. p. 44. 45. I will not dissemble (saith D. Fulke) that which you think the greatest matter: Aerius taught that prayer for the dead was unprofitable, as witness both Epiphanius and Austin, which they count for an error. And the like of Aerius is acknowledged by (17) Of the Church. l. 3. p. 138. Osiander. cent. 4. p. 434. D. Field, and sundry other Protestant writers: the same heresy is also condemned in the (18) Guido de Armenijs. Armenians, and (19) Casarius l. 5 c. 21. Albigenses. Protestant Errors. If it were not that men were drunk with heresy, they would never broach such absurd and contrary positions, as these that follow. And first that of Brentius (20) In Dominic. 12. post Trinit. Although it be lawful to wish all things happy to the dead, yet prayer for the dead is vain: here is a mystical difference between wishing and praying. And yet the like maketh Caluin, (21) Ep. 366. The form of prayer that God may give to the dead a good and happy resurrection, because it doth not square with the Rule of Praying well, let it be rejected: I do not urge, but that it is lawful to conceive such a desire, Here a man may lawfully conceive a Desire of a thing, and yet must not pray for it. Caluin affirmeth that, (22) In Explicat Perfidiae Gentilis. p. 677. A certain Prot. said often, there was no better short way to take away the Patronages of Saints, superstitions Prayers for the dead, the fiction of Purgatory, and the like, then if we should believe death to be the destruction of souls. And certainly that man said very wisely, supposing that he could make that belief good of the mortality of the soul. But who doth not hereby well discern, the desperate case of them, who think it the best and shortest way to impugn the truth, to fall into Atheism, and so at once to pull up all Religion by the root? SECT. II. It is proved by Scriptures, that after this life there is a place of Purgatory: and that therein the souls of the faithful may be relieved by the Sacrifices Prayers; and other spiritual helps of their living friends. THis truth is manifestly taught in the Books of Maccabees, by the Charitable fact of judas Machabaeus, (1) 2. Machab. 12.43.44.45. who making a gathering he sent 12000. drachmas of silver to Jerusalem, for sacrifice to be offered for sins, well and religiously thinking of the Resurrection, (For unless he hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it should seem superfluous, and vain to pray for the dead.) And because he considered, that they which had taken their sleep with Godliness, had very good Grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and healthful Cogitation, to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins. This place is so convincing for Purgatory, and prayer for the dead, that for want of all other answer, Prot. pressed herewith, are forced to betake themselves to that shameful, last, and desperate refuge, of denying the Books of Maccabees to be Canonical Scripture. The wickedness and falsehood of which answer is (12) See before Chap. 5. etc. heretofore most evidently discovered. This also may be confirmed by the Example of David, and the whole people of God, and more particularly by the singular seven days fast of the men of jabes Galaad, for the death of their K. and master Saul. And first as the Princely Prophet (3) 2. Reg. 12.21. Fasted and wept for his sick Child whiles it was alive, as thinking thereby to obtain that the Child might live: But when the chield was dead, be did rise up and eat, and so gave over fasting. (for Infants who die freed from original sin stand not in need of any further prayer or suffrage, because they never committed any actual sin, thereby to deserve punishment.) So also after the death of Saul and jonathas, it is said, that he than king with all his Court & people, in like manner mourned (4) 2. Reg. 1.12. wept, and fasted for them. Neither could this fasting so generally made be only in sign of sorrow for the loss or death of a friend, whereas the fast was extended by the men of jabes Galaad to seven (5) 1. Reg. 31.13. days, which to do only for sorrow, were unlawful, (6) 1. Thess. 4.13. immoderate, unreasonable, unworthy the people of God, and the approbation of so great a Prophet, and incomparably more than he either did, or permitted to be done, upon the death of his own Child: Therefore the probable Collection hence to be made is this, that as he wept and fasted for his sick Child being yet alive, not altogether for sorrow, but especially that God would have mercy upon the Child, that it might live: so in like manner he wept and fasted, blessed the men of jabes Galaad, for showing mercy unto their Lord and King, all which he did and approved to be done for Saul and jonathas, being dead, not only in sign of sorrow, but chief to obtain mercy for them, as hoping of their Repentance before their death, and that they were capable of relief, by this mercy, of the living showed to them. But to come now to the Scriptures of the New Testament, which do strongly confirm the same: first, these words of our Saviour seem very express, (7) Mat. 12.32. And whosoever shall speak a word against the son of Man, it shallbe forgiven him; but he that shall speak against the holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. The conclusion hence deduced is, therefore at lest some other sins may be forgiven in the world to come; but in Hell there is no remission, since out of Hell there is no redemption, & in Heaven there needed no remission, since none polluted with sin can enter thither, therefore a third place must be admitted, where those sins may be forgiven. Some reply that Christ compareth here some sins with others, to wit, sin against the Father and the son, with sin against the holy Ghost, therefore if he mean, that any sins may be remitted in the world to come, chief those which he compareth with the sin against the holy Ghost, but not these, seeing only venial sins are there remitted. But the answer is easy, for Christ speaketh of a full and perfect Remission, including remission both of fault & Punishment, and so not only venial, but also mortal sins, are pardoned in the next world, because the guilt or fault of Mortal sin being in this world pardoned, but the punishment not always here satisfied, but afterwards discharged in Purgatory, the remission therefore even of mortal sins is there perfected. Others yet would evade by affirming, that of a negation doth not necessarily follow an affirmation, as for example (say they) king john is not king of the Venetians, therefore some other is their king: or, final impenitence shall not be forgiven in this world, nor in hell, therefore some sins may be forgiven in hell. But this forceth nothing, for although the Rule be not so general, that every negation doth enforce an affirmation to follow upon it: yet in our present case, it must needs follow, since it were impertinent to say, this sin shall not be forgiven in this world, nor in the next, if none could be forgiven in the next; even as it were impertinent to say, King Charles' will neither pardon thee in England, nor in Spain, since in Spain he hath no authority to pardon. And therefore as it is well said, king Charles will neither pardon thee in England, nor in Ireland, nor in Scotland, because he hath equal power of pardoning in those places; even so proportionably it is fitly said by our Saviour, that Blasphemy against the holy Ghost, shall neither be forgiven in this world, nor in the world to come, partly for that our Saviour hath equal power to pardon in both places, and partly for that this double Distribution of time and place, I mean this world and the next, equally belongeth to God's judgement seat; and lastly for that this World, signifying a time, and Hell a place, are not opposite members in the division used by our Saviour, as this world and the next be. And most certain it is, and granted by all, that by the next world cannot be meant hell, since out of Hell there is no redemption, as in hell there is no remission. Lastly, it is objected against this place, that whereas S. Matthew saith, neither in this world, nor in the world to come, S. Mark (a sure Interpreter of these words (saith (8) Against Rhem. Test. in Mat. 12.32. D. Fulke) explicateth the same, saying, (9) C. 3.29. he hath not forgiveness for forever. This evasion being a mere illusion of the text, will not serve D. Fulkes turn, for every one who explicateth aught to be larger, than he whom he explicateth; now S. Mark is not larger than S. Matthew, but contrariwise S. Matthew is larger than S. Mark, and therefore S. Marks briefly touched never-forgivenes, is dilated and explicated by Saint Matthew his distribution, neither in this world, nor in the world to come: since it is evident, that never-forgivenes importeth both times of this world and the next, where sins may be forgiven. Besides this manner of objecting, is of set purpose a wilful mistaking of the point urged, for without all Conference or explication falsely by D. Fulke supposed to be used by S. Mark, it is manifest of itself, that he who is not forgiven neither in this world, not in the world to come, shall never be forgiven; what needeth then any Explication to be added by S. Mark in a point so clear. A second place for Purgatory, is that Exhortation of our Saviour concerning reconciliation, (10) Mat. 5.26.27. Be at agreement with thy adversary betimes, whilst thou art in the way with him: lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the Officer, and thou be cast into Prison. Amen. I say unto thee, thou shalt not go out from thence, till thou repay the last farthing: Here by the way, is understood this present life, by prison (out of which there is no coming, until the uttermost farthing be paid) hell, in which there are many mansions, some for the damned, and others for those that are to be purged: by the Adversary, (11) Orig ho. 35. in Luc. Ambr. in c. 12. Lucae. Hieron ep 8. ad Demet. some understand the Devil, (12) Hilar. & Hieron. in Mat. 5. others, some other man, but (13) Ambr. in Luc. 12. Aug. in Mat. 5 & ho. 1. de verbis Dom. Greg. ho. 39 most, the Law of God, or God himself, as he commandeth things contrary to the flesh; or the Conscience, which objecteth to a sinner the breach of God's law; all may be true, as meant by that allseeing spirit: but howsoever it be taken it little importeth, as not hindering the main point hence to be inferred. The (14) Io. 5.22. The Father hath given all judgement to the son. judge, all agreed to be Christ, the officer, the good (15) Ambr. in Luc. c. 4. Aug. l. 1 de ser. Dom. in Monte. c 21. Angel or the (16) Greg. ho. 39 Theophil. in Luc. 12. Devils, either is probable: by the last farthing little sins are understood. Now of this it followeth, that there is a place of imprisonment, after this life, forth of which there is an out-coming, when the uttermost farthing is discharged. Now whereas some object that, until, doth not signify a certain determined time, but Eternity, accordingly as where it is said of the B. Virgin Mary, (17) Mat. 1.25. He knew her not till she brought forth her first borne son, as much as to say, he had never knowledge of her: the answer is, that this is a wilful dissembling of the point urged, for the word, until, or before, though it signify a determined time, yet it referreth the accomplishment of that time, not to that which goeth before the said word, but only to that which followeth the same: and so, for so much as it is said, he knew her not until (or before) she brought forth her son; the argument hence is good, that therefore she brought forth a son, and that before his birth joseph did not know her: but it neither inferreth this knowledge, or not knowledge of her, after the birth of that son. And so likewise in our present case, where it is said, Thou shalt not go out from thence, until thou repay the last farthing, proveth, that the uttermost farthing may be paid, and so the prisoner discharged. Which truth yet appeareth more plainly by the end and scope of the Parable, for the similitude is not taken from a murderer, thief, or traitor, who are ordinarily condemned to death, or perpetual imprisonment; but from a deptour, who not for any crime, but for debt, is cast into prison, until he pay the same, the which ordinarily after some time he doth, and so is freed. The third place for proof of this Doctrine, is that of the Apostle S. Paul, (18) 1 Cor. 3.12.13.14.15. And if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, or precious stones, wood, hay, stubble, the work of every one shallbe manifest; for the day of our Lord will declare, because it shallbe revealed in fire; and the work of every one of what kind it is, the fire shall try: if any man's work abide, which he built thereupon, he shall receive reward; if any man's work burn, he shall suffer detriment: but himself shallbe saved, yet so as by fire. The Apostle here useth the similitude of two workmen, the one building his house upon a stony and solid foundation of precious matter, which feareth not fire, as gold, silver, & precious stones: the other building upon the the like solid foundation, but after the manner of poor men, of wood, clay, covering the same with hay or straw. Now supposing fire were put to these two houses, & the workmen with in them, the first would receive no hurt, but the other would shortly be consumed with fire, and if the workman within will escape, he must pass through the fire: In which passage though he die not, yet shall he receive some hurt or pain. In this similitude, by the builders, (19) Aug. l. de fide & oper. c. 16. & in Enchyr. c. 68 some understand all Christians; Others (20) Ambr. & Sedulius in hunc loc. Pastors and Preachers, which sense is more literal, as may be gathered by the words precedent and subsequent. By the foundation is understood Christ preached, and made known by the Apostles. By gold, silver, & precious stones, is understood the profitable, and wholesome doctrine of other preachers, who instruct them that already believe, by word and example. By wood, hay, and stubble, is understood doctrine not heretical or false, but curious, vain, and unprofitable, which some preach to Catholic people, but not with that fruit, which God requireth, but rather with venial sins in themselves; a fault whereunto the Corinthians were addicted. By the day of our Lord, is understood the day of judgement, partly for that the word, day, is so taken in (21) 2. Tim 1.12.18. 2. Tim. 4.8. Hebr. 10.25. Rom. 2.16. other places of Scripture; partly for that here in this life every one's work is not tried, tribulations being common both to the good and evil; partly for that the Greek Article going before the word in the original, (22) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. hath an Emphasis in it, importing as much as, (23) 1. Cor. 5.5. 2. Cor. 1.14. Philip. 16.10. 1. Thess 5.2. 2. Thess. 2.1. dies illa, or dies Domini; and lastly for that dies Domini doth usually (24) 2. Pet. 3.10. Luc. 17.24.26. signify the day of judgement. By the fire which shall try the work of every one, cannot be understood the fire of Hell or Purgatory, or of that fire which shall consume the world at the day of judgement, for all these being fires for punishments, cannot try those who have built gold, silver, and precious stones, upon the foundation Christ; therefore the fire here meant, is the fire of God's judgement, which shall not purge or torment, but try and examine every man's work. By fire in the last place where it is said, he shallbe saved, yet so as by fire, must needs be understood some temporal and Purgative punishment, to which such are judged after death, as in their particular judgement are found to have builded wood, hay etc. and that thereby cannot be meant Hell-fyre, is plain, in that it is said, they shallbe saved, nor the fire which shall burn the world at Doomsday, for then those who committed venial sins could not enter into heaven before the day of judgement: nor yet, as Caluin and other Prot. would, by fire, understand the judgement of God approving sound Doctrine and confuting false, which happeneth (say they) when a man is converted, and chief in the hour of death, at which time many are enlightened, and so perceive themselves to have been deceived, at which they are ashamed, and so are saved as by fire. But this Explication is false: for first, many who have builded stubble etc. die so suddenly, as that they have no time for repentance and amendment of their Errors, and yet they shall not be damned, because they had Christ for their foundation; and the Apostle avoucheth of all such, that they are saved; neither can they be saved, unless Purgatory be admitted, because seeing they died in the stubble, hay, and straw of their venial sins, they cannot be saved, but as by fire. Secondly, he that shall be saved, yet as by fire, shall suffer detriment, or as the original hath it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, shallbe punished; whereas he that is enlightened to see and follow the truth, thereby receiveth gain, comfort, and reward: even as he would not think himself to suffer less, who having found a counterfeit Diamond, at first thinking it good, perceiving afterwards his error, should have a true one given him instead thereof. Some reply that S. Paul in the same sentence would not use the word, fire, so diversely, as for the judgement of God, & Purgatory fire. But besides the former reasons proving the different acception of the word, fire, to be necessary, S. Paul useth one and the self same word of, sin, in other places in a double signification: for example, (25) 2. Cor. 5.21. him that knew no sin, he made sin for us, and in another place (26) Rom 8.3. even of sin, damned sin; where in both places, sin, signifieth a Sacrifice for sin, as also the transgression of the law. Others reply, that as the other words, gold, silver, building etc. are taken Metaphorically, so also may the word, fire, be taken, and the rather, for that it is not said, they shallbe saved by fire, as though it were a true fire, but, as by fire, to insinuate thereby unto us, a similitudinary, or metaphorical fire only. By the like reason the words, work, saved, Christ, and the like being in the same sentence, should be taken metaphorically, which is absurd. And as for the word, as, or, quasi, it doth not signify a similitude with fire, but with one passing through the fire, so that the sense is, he that buildeth hay &c. shallbe saved, but after the manner of him, who to come to some place, passeth through the fire: yea the word, quasi, doth not always extenuate the truth of the thing, but doth sometimes much strengthen & confirm the same, as where it is said (27) Io. 1.14. We saw the glory of him, glory as it were (quasi) of the only begotten of the Father, that is, we saw him glorious, as became the only begotten son of God. Thirdly, it is pretended that this place is obscure, & admitteth great variety of Interpretations, both by the Fathers, and others, wherefore it cannot be of force to prove any point of Faith. By the same reason many other places of Scriptures, especially the Epistles of S. Paul, (which in the judgement of S. Peter are hard) might not be used in argument against Heretics. Again, are the Scriptures hard & obscure, and so granted to be by Prot. here being pressed with this place for proof of Purgatory, as indeed they be, both of themselues, or notwithstanding any Conference of other places; how then standeth this with their pretended facility of Scripture at other times? Lastly, as for variety of Interpretation, it is no let for proof of doctrine, when one place (as I have formerly (28) See heretofore Preparative. sect. 7. proved) may admit many true literal senses, so long as the same are not repugnant to themselves, to other places, or points of faith: yea what one place almost is not diversely interpreted, by ancient Fathers, and yet all senses may be meant by the holy Ghost, who indicted the Scriptures. And do not Prot. themselves bring diverse Interpretations of one and the same Scripture? Fourthly, S. Paul (29) 1. Cor. 15.29. proving the Resurrection, amongst other arguments, useth this for one, proposed by way of Interrogation, intimating this great absurdity, following upon the denial of the Resurrection, What shall they do that are baptised for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why then are they baptised for the dead? Here whether we take it, that the Apostle (in proof of the resurrection of the dead) doth reason from the Error of those, who knowing the great force of Baptism, and thinking the dead were in case to be relieved, did, upon these true grounds, erroneously practise to be baptised for, and in the name of their dead friends, (an Error reported of those beginning times by S. (30) Haer. 28. Epiphanius) or that in this place by Baptism he understand the Baptism of Tears and Penance, undertaken for the dead by Alms, fasting, and prayer, in which like sense of voluntary affliction, the word, Baptism, is often used in the Scriptures (31) Mat. 20.22.23. Mar. 10.38.39. Luc. 12.50. And Marc. 1.4. Luc. 3.3. Act. 13.24. & 19.4. and (32) Cypr. de caena Dom. Nazianz. Orat. de Epiphania. Fathers. Now this place taken in either sense, proveth, that in the Common opinion of those times, the dead were in case to be relieved. This argument is so convincing, that the Protestant Danaeus (33) Cont. Bellar. 1 part. alt. parte. p. 1174. doth therefore in answer hereto understand in this place by the Dead, not (saith he) those who are naturally dead, but such as are living upon Earth, and dead in sin, directly against the foresaid words and circumstances of the place, which do most manifestly concern the Resurrection of the dead. S. john directeth and limiteth our Prayer for the dead, saying, (34) Ep. 5.16. He that knoweth his brother to sin, a sin not to death, let him ask, and life shallbe given him, sinning not to death. There is a sin to death; for that I say not, that any man ask. Hence Purgatory is proved two ways, for first by a sin to death, all understand final impenitence, and for such dying impenitently in mortal sin, we are forbidden to pray, whereby it is insinuated, and we admonished, that for such as die in sins repent, or which are not mortal, we may lawfully pray. Secondly, whereas we are forbidden here to pray for certain sinners, and allowed to pray for certain others, to wit, for such as sinne not to death, this place must be understood either of prayer for the living, or for the dead; if of prayer for the dead, than it proveth the thing in question, namely that as we are forbidden to pray for some dead, so also we are admonished to pray for others. And that it cannot be meant of prayer for the living, is proved by the foresaid sin unto death, for which we are forbidden to pray, and whereof S. Austin saith accordingly, (35) De ciu. l. 21. c. 24. And see Conc. Brachar. 1. c. 34. If any unto death have an impenitent hart etc. doth the Church pray for them, that is, for the souls of such departed? And this cannot be meant of any sin of the living, because there is no sin so great and heinous, but we may (without particular Revelation to the contrary) lawfully pray for the remission thereof, and for the amendment and conversion of the Committer thereof, whilst he is yet living. And though there were a degree of sin so grievous in this life, as were irremissible, (the contrary whereof the learnedst of the Prot. (37) Vrbanus Regius loc. come. c. de pec. fol. 20. 21. Wigandus. Syntag. Col. 380. 581. 584. Chem. in Enchyr. p. 269. 273. Smyth in his Treatise of prayer in general for all men etc. writers affirm) yet were the committing thereof in others, known to God only, for we are not able to discern the secrets of the hart, much less to know, if the party have proceeded to that height of iniquity, and therefore this sin (though admitting there were any such) cannot be the sin meant in this place, for the remission whereof, we are forbidden to pray. Now whereas some object, that the Prophet Hieremy was forbidden to pray for the jews then living, (38) C. 11.14. Thou therefore pray not for this people, & take not to thee praise and prayer for them: therefore we may not pray for all sinners during life. To this the answer is first, that the Prophet had a special Revelation to the contrary, and therefore might not do it. Secondly, this objection is impertinent, for he was not forbidden to pray for the Remission of their sins, but for remission only of the (39) Hier. 11.11 12.23. plague, or temporal punishment which they should not escape by God's Decree: which is nothing to this present purpose, where we speak of praying for the Remission of sin. SECT. III. The ancient Fathers expound the foresaid Scriptures agreably with Catholics in proof of Purgatory, and Prayer for the Dead. BEcause (1) Against Rhem. Test. in Mat 12.32. D. Fulke thinketh, It is sufficient, for (Prot.) that, neither the Scripture teacheth Purgatory, neither the Primitive Church did admit of it for many hundred years after Christ etc. and that, S. Austin doth not affirm any thing certain of it; as I have next before proved our Doctrine of Purgatory from sundry clearest Texts of Scripture, so now I intent the like by the Ancient Fathers, and particularly by S. Austin. S. Austin then having taught that some departed this life so bad, that they are incapable of any relief by their living friends, and others so good, that they need not the same; doth yet notwithstanding in proof of the practice of the Catholic Church praying for such departed, as in their life time merited the same, further confirm the same out of the Book of the Maccabees in these words following, (2) L. de cura pro mort. c. 1. We read in the Book of the Maccabees Sacrifice offered for the dead, but although it were nowhere at all read in the Old Testament, yet notwithstanding not small is the authority of the universal Church, which shineth with this Custom; where the Commendation of the Dead hath its place in the prayers of the Priest, which are poured to our Lord God at his Altar. Here S. Austin teacheth first, that the books of Maccabees are part of the Old Testament; Secondly that the said books do teach Sacrifice offered for the dead; Thirdly that though it were not taught in the old Testament, or the Scriptures, yet the authority of the universal Church, which shineth with this Custom, would suffice; Fourthly, that Priests at the Altar, did pour out their prayers to God for the dead. And lastly as Prot. reject the books of Maccabees, because they teach Sacrifice, and prayer for the dead: so S. Austin believeth, and approveth Sacrifice, and prayer for the dead, because (amongst other reasons) they are taught in the said books. The same S. Austin likewise in proof of the same Doctrine, expoundeth the foresaid place of S. Matthew thus, (3) De Ciu. Dei. l. 21. c. 13. for neither cold it be truly said of certain, that they should not be forgiven neither in this world, nor in the world to come; unless there were some who though they were not forgiven in this world, yet should be in the world to come. Conform to S. Austin saith S. Gregory, (4) Lib. 4. Dial c. 39 So as a man departeth hence, so is he to be presented in judgement; but yet purging fire of certain light sins, before the general judgement, is to be believed to be, in that Truth saith: Because, if any shall blaspheme against the holy Ghost, he shall neither be forgiven in this world, nor in the world to come: In which sentence there is given us to understand, that certain sins may be forgiven us in this world, and that certain may be released in the world to come; for that which is denied of one, in true consequence is granted of some. With these accordeth S. Isidore, saying, (5) De Officijs Ecclesiasticis. c. 8. q. 818. When our Lord saith, He that sinneth against the holy Ghost, shall not be forgiven neither in this world, nor in the world to come, he doth demonstrate, that unto some, sins are there to be forgiven, and to be purged with a certain Purgatory fire. So express are the Father's expositions of those words of our Saviour in behalf of Purgatory. Now touching the father's interpreting those other words of our Saviour, Agreed with thy Adversary etc. Origen writeth thus, (6) In Ep. ad Rom. & ho. 35. in Lucam ho. 14. in Levit. ho. 25. in Num ho. 2. in Ps. 38. bo 12. in Hieremiam. & l. 8. in Rom. c. 11. Although a releasement out of Prison be sometimes promised, yet it is designed, that none can get forth thence, but he which payeth the uttermost farthing. With Origen agreeth S. Cyprian speaking of the same Text thus: (7) Epist. 52. ad Antonianum post med See also S. Cyprian in his 66. Epistle. &. l. 3. ad Quirinum. c. 57 It is one thing to stand awaiting for pardon, another thing ●o come to glory: one thing for one to be cast into Prison, and not to come forth until he have paid the uttermost farthing, another thing immediately to receive the reward of faith and virtue: one thing, that one tormented a long time for sins, be amended and purged long by fire, another to have purged all sins by suffering, or Martyrdom. With Origen and S. Cyprian agreeth Eusebius Emissenus, his words are these: (8) Ho. 3. de Epiphania. But these who have done things worthy of temporary punishment, shall pass through a flood of fire, to whom the word of God is directed, that they do not go out thence, till they pay the utmost farthing. Which utmost farthing S. Hierome expoundeth to be little sins, saying, (9) In c. 5. Mat. And see S. Ambr. in Luc. c. 12. Tertul. l. de anima c. 35. This is that which he saith, Thou shalt not go out of Prison, until thou shalt pay even to thy little sins. Lastly S. Bernard, (10) De obitu Huberti. Know ye this, that after this life in purging places, those things which are here neglected, are to be paid a hundred fouled, even unto the last farthing. So certainly are these words of our Saviour, understood of Purgatory by the Ancient Fathers. But to Examine now, what the Father's thought of that hard place of S. Paul 1 Cor. 3. etc. S. Ambrose expoundeth it thus, (11) Ser. 20. in Ps. 118. & S. Hier. in c. 4. Amos. & l. 2. in jovin. post med. & in fine Comment. in Isaiam. But whereas S. Paul saith, yet so as by fire, he showeth indeed that he shallbe saved, but yet shall suffer the punishment of fire, that being purged by fire he may be saved, and not be tormented for ever, as the Infidels are, with Everlasting fire. With S. Ambrose agreeth S. Austin, writing thus, (12) In psal. 37. & l. 2. de Gen. cont. Manichaeos'. c. 2 & l. 21. de Ciu. c 13. Purge me in this life, and make me such a one, as shall not further need the amending fire, being for them which shallbe saved yet so as by fire: wherefore, but because here they build upon the foundation wood, hay, and stubble: but if they should build gold, and silver, and precious stones, they should be secure from both fires, not only from that everlasting, which shall torment the wicked for ever, but also from that which shall amend such as shallbe saved by fire. For it is said, he shallbe saved, yet so, as it were by fire. And because it is said, he shallbe saved, this fire is contemned: yea verily although they are saved by fire, yet notwithstanding that fire is more grievous than whatsoever a man may suffer in this life. Again, (13) Serm. 41. de Sanct. prope init. There are many, who not rightly understanding this reading, are deceived with false security, whilst they believe, that if they build Capital sins upon the foundation of Christ, those sins may be purged by transitory fire, and they afterwards come to life everlasting. This understanding etc. is to be corrected, because they deceive themselves, who so flater themselves; for with that transitory fire, whereof the Apostle said, He shallbe saved, yet so as by fire, not Capital (or deadly) but little sins are purged. So clear is S. Austin for the difference of little and great sins, and of temporal and eternal fire in the next life, S. Gregory expoundeth the same words to the same sense, making the like difference of little & great sins, saying, (14) Lib. 4: Dial. c. 39 See the like in Ps. 1. Poenit. propè init & Ps. 3. Poenit. init. Seeing Paul affirmeth Christ to be the foundation, he addeth. If any shall build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble, the work of every one what kind it is, fire shall try: if any man's work abide which he built thereupon, he shall receive reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer detriment, but himself shallbe saved, yet so, as by fire. Although this may be understood, of the fire of Tribulation given us in this life; yet if any shall understand it of the fire of future purging, it is diligently to be considered that he saith, he may be saved by fire, not he who buildeth upon this foundation, Iron, brass, or lead, that is, greater sins, and therefore harder, and then unsatifysable: but wood, hay, stubble, that is, little sins, and the lightest, which fire may easily consume. S. Chrisostome proveth Sacrifice for the dead, by the fact of job, saying, (15) Ho. 41. in. 1. Cor. See ho. 3. in Ep. ad Philip. If the Sacrifice of the Father did satisfy for the sons (16) job. 1.5. of job, why dost thou doubt, whether we sacrificing for them, who have departed, they have any comfort thereby? for God is accustomed to bestow his benefits upon some, for others. To conclude, the Fathers are so clear in this, that D. Fulke (directly contrary to what he said before) acknowledgeth that, (17) Confut. of Purg. p. 110. Austin de ciu. Dei. l. 21. c. 13. concludeth very clearly, that some suffer temporal pains after this life, this may not be denied. And, (18) Ibid. p. 78. Austin speaketh indeed of the amending fire, etc. but had no ground of that fire, but in the common error of his tyme. Again, (19) Ibid. p. 319. See Cent. 4. c. 6. In the burial of Constantine is mention of prayer for his soul, according to the error of the tyme. (20) Ib. p. 320. 326. Ambrose indeed alloweth prayer for the dead: it was a common error of his tyme. M. Gifford affirmeth, that, (21) Demonstration. ag. Brownistes. pa. 38. This corruption of prayer for the dead was general in the Church, long before the days of Austin etc. It was the practice of the Church in general, and the Corruption so ancient, that Tertullian saith, It was observed by Tradition from the Apostles etc. The Doctrine of Purgatory was crept in also. So ancient and general was the Doctrine of Purgatory, and Prayer, and Sacrifice for the dead. SECT. iv Purgatory, and Prayer for the dead taught, and believed by Protestants themselves. IOhn Husse expressly teacheth that, (1) In fidei suae elucidatione & serm. de Exequijs & suffragiis defunctorum. & adc. 3. in. 1. joan. The universal Church is divided into three parts, the Church militant, triumphant, and dormitant etc. The Church dormitant is the number of the Predestinate suffering in Purgatory etc. The blessed in this life do help with their prayers, fastings and Alms, and other holy works, the holy dormitants of the Church, that they may go out of the pains of Purgatory, and be sooner placed in the Country of the blessed. By the University of prague it was thus decreed, (2) Tom. 1. operum Hussi. f. 82. We confess even with believing 3. receptacles of souls loosed from the flesh, to wit, Heaven, Purgatory, and Hell. Perzibran doubteth not to say, (3) In professione fidei. c. 23. I profess and firmly believe, that a place of Purgatory fire after this life of souls departed from the body, and to be saved, not here fully purged by the remedy of satisfaction, is to be placed: and that the faithful here in the way, for the band of Charity and spirit, may and aught piously help them, by fasting, prayers, alms▪ and other holy Oblations. Almost all Doctors do ground this opinion upon the words of Christ, saying: Some sin, not to be forgiven neither in this world, nor in the world to come. D. Martin Luther's Confession of faith, is this, (4) In assert. art. 37. I do believe there is a Purgatory; And again, (5) Tom. 2. Wittenberg. 1545. in resolutionibus de Indulg. conclusione 15 fol. 112. prope fin. & concls. 16. 17. 19 I am sure that there is a Purgatory: which Doctrine he doth there more at large defend, calling it, (6) Ibid. fol. 112. b. initio. Fidem tot saeculorum, the belief of so many ages. Yea, (7) Aduersus Bullam. Tom. 7. fol. 132. I never denied Purgatory. And, I yet believe it, as I have often written and confessed. And, (8) Disp. Lips. c. de Purg. I know nothing of Purgatory, but that souls there suffer to be helped by our Prayers and works. It sufficeth that we know them to suffer, and that we aught to help them etc. Lastly the said D. Luther in another place is so confident of this Doctrine, that he concludeth thus, (9) In Disput. Lypsic. cum Ecchio c. de Purgat. I do strongly believe, yea I dare avouch I know, that there is a Purgatory, for I am easily induced that there is mention made thereof in Scriptures; as Gregory in his dialogue induceth that of Matt. 12. This sin shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. And I admit that of 2. Machab. 12. It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead. So fully doth Luther believe, and teach Purgatory, even from Scriptures themselves. Vrbanus (10) 1. Part. operum ●n formula caute loquendi. fol. 86. & loc. come. c. 19 Regius, fellow-labourer with Luther, alloweth prayer for the sins of the dead; and in proof thereof allegeth the practice of the Ancient Church, (11) Loc. come. c. 18. de Purg. & part. 1. de Missae negotio fol. 72. and testimonies of Nazianzen, Nyssen, chrysostom, Ambrose, Austin, Damascene etc. He also thinketh that, Baruch (12) Loc. come. impress. 1545. de Sanctis n. 16. f. 124. prayed for the dead: and yet further allegeth his own judgement and Luther's, saying, (13) In 1 part. operum in formula caute loquendi. c. de Sanctorum cultu. The man of God Martin Luther, our for ever reverend master, thinketh it agreeable with Christian piety, that of our free devotion we should pray for our deceased friends. M. Fox acknowledgeth, that M. Latimer (14) Act. mon. p. 1313. & p. 1315. acknowledged Purgatory. And William Thorpe a constant Professor, prayed for his Fathers (15) Act. mon. p. 149. and mother's souls. Melancthon confesseth, that, (16) Apol. Confess. Augustanae in Disput. de vocabulis Missae. Epiphanius testifieth, Aerius to have thought that prayers for the dead are unprofitable: that he reprehendeth, neither do we defend Aerius. Sundry Prot. through evidence of truth, not daring absolutely to deny Purgatory and prayer for the dead, do yet speak thus doubtfully and inconsequently thereof: (17) Confess. Wittenberg. It is lawful to wish for the dead all quiet and happiness in Christ, but it is not lawful to pray for them. Luther thinketh, (18) Postil. in Dom. 2. post Trin. fol. 286. & in die omnium Sanctorum. fol. 441. that it is lawful sometimes to pray for the dead, but not often: also to pray for them at home, and in our Chamber, but not in the Church. And the same is taught by Vrbanus Regius (19) In. form. caute loquendi. tom. 1. fol. 86. . D. Field (20) Of the Church. l. 3. c. 17. is of opinion, that it is lawful to pray for the dead presently after death, but not afterwards. Zwinglius saith of himself, (21) In Art 60. If one careful for the dead, doth implore or beseech favour for them from God, I do not condemn him: but it is Diabolical to determine the time for this. M. Ant. de Dominis thinketh that, (22) De R●pub. l. 5. c. 8. n. 132. At the Intercession of the Church, God doth remit lesser sins a little after death, but not long after death. But these are caprices reigning in the brains of men distracted, unworthy of Confutation. And we have here seen, that other Prot. without all exceptions, have taught the Doctrine of Purgatory and prayer for the dead, even from the Scriptures and practice of the Primitive Church. SECT. V Objections from Scriptures against Purgatory and Prayer for the Dead, answered. THe first Objection is taken from those words of the Psalmist, (1) Ps. 126.3. When he shall give sleep to his beloved, behold the Inheritance of our Lord. Hence our Adversaries would prove, that immediately after death the inheritance of Heaven followeth. To this I answer with S. Austin, (2) In Ps. 126. circa med. this place is meant of the general Resurrection, Dat ergo dans etc. saith he, God therefore bestoweth this when his beloved shall sleep: then his beloved, to wit, of Christ shall arise for all shall arise, but not as his beloved, for there is Resurrection of all. And then citing that place of the Apostle, (we shall all indeed arise, but we shall not all be changed) he addeth, they do arise to torment, we arise as our Saviour arose, that we may follow our Head, if we be his Members. So that this place is meant, in S. Austin his judgement, of the General Resurrection, after which the Elect go presently to heaven, and are to expect no Purgatory. Besides where Protestants (3) Engl. Bible of Anno 1592. translate the same words thus, behold Children are the Inheritance of the Lord, and the fruit of the womb his reward: this place is altogether impertinent, & making nothing at all against Purgatory. Secondly, that of Ecclesiasticus is objected, (4) C. 9 10. Whatsoever thy hand is able to do, work it instantly: for neither work, nor reason, nor wisdom, nor knowledge, shallbe in Hell. Answer. S. Hierome (5) In Comment. huius loci, affirmeth Solomon to speak this, in the person of the wicked, who take away both Purgatory & Hell, thinking no life to remain after this: his words are, Now he (meaning the Preacher) induceth as it were the humane Error and Custom, whereby they exhort each other to enjoy the goods of this life, and making a Prosopopeia, after the manner of Poets and Rhetoricians, say: O man because then after death thou art nothing, and death itself is nothing, hear my Counsel; and whilst thou livest in this short life, enjoy thy pleasure etc. Secondly the same S. Hierome thinketh, that Solomon may speak this to those, who living wickedly, went directly to Hell, where it is most true, that there is no Comfort for them, and therefore concludeth thus of them. As (6) Ibid. fishes are taken with the hook and nets, and birds flying at liberty through the air, are ensnared at unawares, so also men according to their desert, shallbe brought to Eternal torments etc. Thirdly, this Text may also be applied to those in Purgatory, for such only are helped by the Prayers of their living friends, who by their good works in their life time, deserved the same, and therefore every one had need to work instantly in this life. And thus it is expounded also by S. Gregory (7) L. 4. Dial. c. 39 . Thirdly, some object that of Ecclesiastes, (8) 11. 3. If the tree shall fall to the South, or to the North, in what place soever it shall fall, there shall it be: therefore there is no Purgatory out of which it may be taken. Answer. Literally this is spoken of Corporal death, that men are necessarily to die, and being dead, they can no more rise by themselves, than the tree that falleth: But if we will apply this to the Condition of the Soul, than the meaning only is that, in what state or condition soever, be it of Salvation or Damnation, that a man departeth out of this life, in the same State shall he ever remain, fall the wood to the South, that is, die the man in state of Salvation, or fall it to the North, that is, die he in state of damnation: In what place it falleth, there it shall be, that is, his Condition shall never be changed: for neither if he departed in grace, shall he be able any more to lose it, neither if he die out of the state of Grace shall he be ever able hereafter to recover it, or to raise himself unto it, as the tree being fallen, cannot arise up itself. Now he who is in Purgatory, is fallen to the South, because he died in state of Salvation, and therefore after due purging shall go to Heaven. Nothing therefore can be enforced out of this place against Purgatory, since it belongeth to the South. Lastly this place of Ecclesiastes, maketh no more against Purgatory, then against Limbus Patrum, which was the place where the Fathers were before Christ's Incarnation and death. Fourthly, others do urge those words of the Apostle, (9) 2. Cor. 5.10. For we must all be manifested before the judgement Seat of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the body, according as he hath done, either good or evil, by which it may seem that Purgatory is quite taken away. S. Austin giveth the answer unto this Text, thus, (10) In Enchyr. ad Laurentium. c. 110. & l. de Cura p oh Mort. c 1. Dionysius de Eccles. Hier. c. vlt. Greg. l. 4. Dial. c. 39 But the time interposed betwixt man's death, and the last Resurrection, doth keep the souls in secret Receptacles, as every soul is worthy either of ease or misery, according as the soul hath wrought living in flesh: neither is it to be denied, that the souls of the Dead are relieved with the piety of their living friends, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is offered for them, or Alms given in the Church. But these things avail them, who living merited, that these things might afterwards profit them: for there is a certain manner of living, neither altogether so good; that it may not require these helps after death, nor altogether so bad, that these things may not help it after death. But some kind of living is so good, that it needeth not these helps, and again, another so evil, that it cannot be helped with these after this life; wherefore here all the merit is to be got, whereby any may be relieved, or pained after this life etc. These things therefore which the Church frequenteth for the Commending of the Dead, are not against that saying of the Apostle, We shall all stand etc. Because each indeed merited this for himself whilst he lived, that these things might avail him, for these things do not profit all, and why do they not profit all? but for the difference of life which every one held in flesh, therefore when Sacrifices either of the Altar, or of what Alms soever are offered for all the dead baptised; for those who are very good, they are thanks-givings, for those which are not very evil they are propitiations, for those which are very evil, although they are no release of such dead, yet are they some Consolations to the living. So far S. Austin, both in proof of Purgatory, and Sacrifice and prayer for the dead, and for full answer to this Objection. Fiftly those words of S. john are commonly objected, (11) Apoc. 14.13. Blessed are the dead which die in our Lord, from henceforth now, saith the spirit, that they rest from their labours, for their works follow them, But all the Godly die in our Lord, therefore there is no Purgatory for them. Answer. S. Anselme, (12) In Comment. huius loci. by these words, from henceforth, understandeth the day of judgement, whereof S. john speaketh in all that Chapter, and so it maketh nothing against Purgatory, which then shall cease. Victor In hunc locum. and Haymo expound this place to be meant of very perfect men, and especially of holy Martyrs, whom S. john in this place is willed to comfort, and who are said absolutely to die in our Lord, not having any thing after death to be purged: whereas those who die in venial sin, or with punishment to be paid for mortal, die not absolutely in our Lord, but partly so, by reason of their Charity, and partly otherwise, by reason of their sin, and so they are called by S. Austin, (14) L. 3. contr. duas Ep. Pelag. c. 3. partly the sons of God, and partly the sons of the world. A sixth Objection is taken from that Promise Christ made to the Thief converted at his death; S. Luke recordeth it thus, (16) C. 25. 43. This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise: therefore no Purgatory remaineth, not not for those who have done no Penance. The answer is: A death so cruel, suffered so patiently, and a Confession of Christ so admirable, even then, when the Apostles themselves denied him, might well be taken for a full satisfaction: neither do the Privileges of a few, make a Law; but beside, seeing the good Thief ready to die, desired our Lord that he would remember him when he came into his kingdom; it strongly argueth that the Thief thought, that immediately after death, he was not to go to heaven, otherwise he would have prayed him to have taken him with him to his kingdom, and yet withal, he hoped not to be damned; whereupon it followeth, that he thought there was some other place besides heaven, and hell, where he was to remain for a time, until Christ, coming to his kingdom, should remember to take him thence, which was the uttermost which the good Thief could hope for. Brentius objecteth, that all are included within these words, Come ye blessed etc. and go ye accursed etc. Answer. The words precedent and subsequent, do manifestly show, that this is spoken of the day of judgement, when Purgatory shall cease. Some argue thus: In Purgatory a man cannot merit, therefore neither satisfy. But for answer, I may truly say that the Consequence is false, for to merit, besides Grace is required liberty, and the state of this life, whereas a man may truly satisfy, though he be compelled thereunto by the judge. Lastly M. Rogers thinketh that, (17) Def. of the Art art. 11. p. 119. In the sacred Scripture there is mention but only of two ways, one leading unto destruction the other bringing unto life; of two sorts of men, whereof some believe, and they are saved, some believe not, and they are damned: And of two states, one blessed, where Lazarus is, the other cursed, where Dives doth abide. A third way, or sort, or state, cannot be found in the word of God. Answ. It is rrue, that ways, states, and sorts of men, in regard of Eternity, are but two, but this nothing hindereth but that temporally, and before the day of judgement come, there may be more, as hath been proved formerly from the Scriptures themselves, the Ancient Fathers, and sundry Protestant writers. CHAP. XVI. The true state of the Question, concerning the Intercession, and Invocation of Angels, and Saintes. Whether the Angels and Saints in Heaven, do pray for men upon Earth; And whether we may lawfully pray to them as Intercessors to God for us: Or whether the said Angels and Saints do hear our Prayers, or know things done upon Earth: and their Intercession be not a derogation from Christ's Mediation. SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. ALTHOUGH it be the ordinary practice of Prot. to endeavour the privation of all honour to Angels and Saints from men upon Earth, and to hinder men from the help of their suffrages; yet the Church of Christ to the contrary hath ever exhibited unto them their due honour, and hath made use of their holy prayers. So the Church of Christ commandeth, (1) Conc. Trid. Sess. 25. Decret. de intercessione Sanctorum. all Bishops and others sustaining the Office and charge of teaching, that according to the use of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, received from the very first time of Christian Religion, and according to the consent of holy Fathers, and the Decrees of sacred Counsels, they first of all diligently teach the faithful concerning the intercession and invocation of Saintes etc. teaching them that the Saints reigning together with Christ▪ do offer their prayers to God for men; that it is good and profitable humbly to invocate them, and to fly to their prayers, help, and aid for the obtaining of benefits from God by his Son jesus Christ our Lord, who is our only Redeemer and Saviour: And that those who deny, that Saintes enjoying eternal felicity in heaven are to be invocated, or such as do affirm, either that they do not pray for men, or that by Invocation of them, they pray not for us in particular, is Idolatry or against God's word, or opposite to the honour of one Mediator of God & man, jesus Christ; or that it is foolish either by word or thought to supplicate the Saints reigning in heaven, are of wicked opinion. Thus the Council of Trent. The Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon pray thus, (2) Act 11. Flavian liveth after death, the Martyr pray for us. The Council of Constantinople decreeth, (3) Conc. 6. Constantinop. c. 7. See Conc Gangrense can. 20. that a Christian adoring only God his Creator, may invocate Saints, that they would vouchsafe to pray for him to the divine Majesty. And the Bishops in the Council of Cabilonense make this prayer to S. Vincent, (4) Cap. 1. Being assembled together in the Church of S. Vincent, ask the Intercession of this holy Martyr, that we may deserve by his suffrage the long life of the foresaid Prince. The second Council of Nice adviseth thus (5) Act. 6. & Act. 3. Let us do all things with the fear of God, ask the intercessions of the unspotted Mother of God, & always Virgin Mary, also of the Angels, & all Saints. Agreably to these Counsels the present Church (6) Bellar. de Sanct. l 1. c. 17 etc. Rhem Test. in Luc. 16 9 & in 2. Pet. 1.15. of Christ teacheth, that although it be not lawful to pray to Angels or Saints, as the authors and givers either of Grace or glory, or of any thing requisite to salvation; or as though they were our so immediate intercessors to God, as to ask any thing without Christ's mediation, and his merits; yet that they do pray for us both in general and particular, & that we may pray to them, all Catholics believe. Points Disputable. Some (7) August. l. de cura pro mort. c. 15. Catholic writers teach that the Saints in heaven do know things upon earth by the relation of Angels. (8) S. Hieron. count. Vigil. Others, that by the celerity of their nature, they are as it were, every where, and do hear by themselves the prayers of their suppliants. (9) Aug. l. de cura pro mort. cap 15. Others yet, that our prayers when we make them, are revealed to them by God. But (10) S. Greg. l. 12. Moral. c. 13. S. Tho. 3. part q. 10. art. 2. others most probably, that from the very beginning of their beatitude, they do see all things in God, which in any respect do belong unto them, and therefore our prayers, directed unto them. Protestant Untruths. Luther affirmeth, that, (11) Ad Euangelium de festo Annuntiationis. The Papists make the Virgin Mary a God, they attribute unto her omnipotency in heaven and in earth etc. In the Papacy all have betaken themselves to Mary, and have expected more favour and grace from her, then from Christ himself. According to Caluin, De necessitate reformandae Ecclesiae. We do not only adore Saints instead of Christ, but also their bones, garments, shoes and pictures. And, (13) Instit. l. 3. c. 10. §. 22. every one takes to themselves peculiar Saints, into whose custody they give themselves, no otherwise then if they were guardian Gods. Yea he avoucheth, (14) Ib. l. 1. c. 20. §. 21. that in our Hymns and Lytanies we make no mention of Christ. Other Prot. avouch, that, (15) Confessio Mansfieldenfium cap. de erroribus jesuitarum. The error of the jesuitical sect is, that Christ although he was our Mediator, and intercessor, yet now he is not any more but Saints only are our Intercessors, and mediators. D. White speaking of Catholic Pastors saith, (16) Way to the Church, Pref. to the Read. n. 14. In their open service and printed books (they) serve the Saints and worship them, with the same service that they give to Christ. Again, The same titles are given to the Saints, and the same things, by the same merits asked of them, that appertain to Christ alone. And, they join the Virgin Mary with Christ in the very work of our Redemption, & ascribe to her no less than to him, the execution of all God's mercies towards us. Rogers affirmeth that, (17) Def. of the Art art. 22. p. 128. All God's people in the purer and former times have &c utterly condemned the invocating or paying unto creatures whatsoever. But these & sundry such like untruths broached by Prot. deserve no other answer, but truly to say, that they are lies uttered by the legitimate children of the father of lies, the Devil. Protestant Doctrine. The English Prot. Church decreeth that, (8) Article 22. The Remish doctrine touching invocation of Saints etc. is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warrant of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God. The French Huguenots say, (19) Confess. Gal. art. 24. We believe that whatsoever men do imagine concerning the Intercession of Saints departed, is nothing else then fraud and fallacies of Satan. Whitaker saith of himself and other Prot. (20) Ad rat. 4. Camp. p. 19 See Perkins tom. 1. c. 21. in serie causarum. col. 31. Reinolds in his Conference. c. 1. sect. 2. We do not know whether Martyrs and Saints may pray to Christ for us: But (21) Ad rat. 4. Camp. It is certain, that they are ignorant what we do. Daneus proceedeth yet further, affirming that (22) Controu. 7. p. 1310. It is a false proposition, that the Saints who are already received into heaven, do pray God in general for us who live here. And again, (23) Ib. p. 1315. Polanus Disp. 25. Cal. Instit. l. 3. c. 20. §. 21. They do not ask any thing of God either in general or particular for the necessities of men living upon Earth. And the like is taught by sundry other Protestants. Sundry Prot. likewise teach, that the Saints in Heaven do not take any care of us upon Earth, neither do know our Prayers, or other things here done. Caluin teacheth, that, (24) In Zachar. 1.12. We know the of offices of Charity are restrained to the course of this present life. And, (25) In Luc. 16.29. The Papists are here foolish subtle, whilst they will prove that the dead have care of the living, than which cavil nothing is more unsavoury. Beza admireth, (26) In Luc. 15.10. Who shall rightly persuade himself or others, that the souls of Saints received into Heaven, do take care of these things which are done upon Earth, or that they are known; much less that they aught to be invocated. But how rightly these Prot. agreed with ancient Heretics, observe. Protestants agreed with Ancient Heretics. D. Fulke confesseth, that (27) Answer to a Counterf. Cath. p. 46. Hieron. count. Vigil. c. 3. Vigilantius writ against Invocation of Saints etc. him Hierome reproveth. And the same is confessed of Vigilantius by other (28) Parker ag. Symboliz. part. 1. p. 74. 83. Crispinus' estate of the Church. p. 131. Prot. D. Humphrey saith, (29) Ad rat. 3. Camp. p. 26. Vigilantius ordained, that Saints were not to be worshipped etc. we ordain the same. And so you rank yourself M. Humphrey to be an heretic with Vigilantius. In like sort, Saravia and others acknowledge, that Aerius was also condemned by the Fathers for his then teaching that, (30) Defence. Tract. de diversis. p. 349. 346. Bucanus loc. come. p. 514. The Saints departed are not to be prayed unto. And the same heresy is taught by (31) Azoara 49. Mahomet. Vigilantius (22) and the Waldenses (33) Guido de Waldensibus. denied that Saints could hear us: and so did D. Whitakers and others next before; but they are all censured by S. Hierome, and Guido, of Heresy. (32) Hier. count. Vigil. c. 3. Protestant Errors. Caluin thinketh, it (34) Instit. l. 4. c. 25. §. 6. foolish and temerarious to seek in what place the souls of the Just are, whether they enjoy glory or not. In the mean time seeing the Scripture every where commandeth to depend of the expectation of Christ's coming, and differreth the glory and Crown till then, let us be content with these limits prescribed by God, the souls of the godly having performed the labour of warfare to fit together in blessed rest where with happy joy they expect the fruition of promised glory: here Caluin contradicteth himself, first censuring it for foolish, to inquire after the state of the souls of the just departed, and yet himself afterwards determineth the matter, and that most wickedly, by denying present glory to the souls of Saintes. Perkins acknowledged that, (35) Reform. Cath. controu. 14. c 2. when Angels did appear, they were lawfully honoured, but not now. Whereas Catholics do call the blessed Virgin Mary, our B. Lady, M. Rogers affirmeth (36) Def. of the Art art. 20. p 106. that we falsely call her so: It seems he would have no greater title given unto her, than Mistress Mary, which any Minister expecteth to be given to his wife. Caluin affirmed (as before) that (37) In Zachar. 1 12. we know the office of Charity to be restrained to the course of this present life So that according to him, there is no exercise of Charity in heaven. tindal demandeth, (38) In Fox Act. Mon. p. 1237. To what end dost thou erect Churches in honour of Saints that thou shouldest make them thy friends? they need it not, yea they are not thy friends. Most agreeable with that of Luther, (39) Postil. in Dom. 9 post Trin. fol. 309. Neither are they thy friends, but the friends of them from whom in their time they received benefit. We must not according to Luther imitate Saintes, (40) Postil. in fest. Sancti joannis. fol. 378. These trifles aught not to be preached to men, that they imitate Saintes and tread in their steps. (41) In ferijs eiusdem fol. 91. Calu. in Io. 4.20. A long error hath possessed and prevailed, that we should all consider the works and conversation of Saints, and study to follow them, we fools thinking this to be greatest piety. And the like is taught by Caluin. And their counsel is diligently observed by all their followers. SECT. II. It is proved by Scriptures, that the Angels, and Saints in Heaven do know our prayers upon Earth, and that they pray for us, and we may lawfully pray unto them, as Intercessors for us. SEeing nothing is more frequent in the mouths of late Sectaries, then that praying to Saints is no where taught in the Seriptures; I will therefore endeavour to prove from thence three points, all necessarily belonging to this Question, The first is, that Angels and Saints do hear our Prayers & know things that are done upon Earth; the second, that they pray for us not only in general, but also in particular. And the third is, that we may lawfully pray to them. The first shallbe proved from the Prophecy of holy Daniel, where it is said, (1) C. 10.11. And he (to wit the Angel) said to me, fear not Daniel; Because from the first day that thou didst set thy hart to understand, to afflict thyself in the sight of God, thy words have been heard, and I am come for thy words. Now by the words of Daniel, no man doubteth but are understood his prayers, which were both heard and known by the Angel, since the Angel giveth the hearing of his prayers to be a cause of his coming unto him. So that Daniel praying upon Earth, was heard by the Angel in heaven. Secondly this point is proved by these words of Saint Paul, (2) 1. Cor. 13.8.9.10.12. Whether Prophecies shallbe made void, or tongues shall cease, or knowledge shallbe destroyed: for in part we know, and in part we prophecy; but when that shall come that is perfect, that shallbe made void, that is in part: we see now by a glass in a dark sort; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then I shall know, as also I am known. The necessary deduction out of this place is this, that the knowledge of the Blessed, fare exceedeth any supernatural knowledge, whether of Faith or Prophecy given to man in this life, in so much, as whatsoever is known by any knowledge of this life, is much more perfectly known by that knowledge of the blessed. Now it is most certain that many Prophets and holy men upon Earth, knew the thoughts of other men's hearts, and things far distant from them, as is made manifest by the Prophet Eliseus, when he demanded Giezi (3) 4. Reg. 5.26. Was not my hart present, when the man returned out of his Chariot to meet thee? Yea he discovered unto him further, all the particulars of his bribery, together with the end, and cause which moved him, which must needs argue, that he was privy to his very inward & secretest thoughts: again, was not the same Prophet privy to all the ambushments that the King of Syria laid to entrap the King of Israel? & did he not by Prophetical foresight, premonish the King of Israel thereof, saying, (4) 4. Reg. 6.9. See the like Act. 5.3.9. Beware thou pass not into such a place, because the Syrians are there in ambushments. And the King of Israel following the counsel of the Prophet, prevented him of the ambush: and when the King of Syria suspected some of his own to betray his Counsel unto the King of Israel, did not one of his Counsellors reply? (5) Ibid. vers. 12. And see Act 5.1.2. etc. S. Peter's knowing the fraudulent dealing of Ananias and Saphira. Not so my Lord King, but Elizeus the Prophet, which is in Israel, telleth the King of Israel all words, whatsoever thou shalt speak in thy privy Chamber. Which point of living Prophets knowing men's thoughts and words, though never so secret, and distant, was so evident, that the very Infidels themselves acknowledged it; and yet our Adversary's pretending themselves to be Christian, and Reformers, will not grant this Privilege to the Angels, and Saints triumphing, and reigning in heaven. Thirdly, it is generally holden that the damned Spirits in hell do know things done upon Earth; and shall we deny the like knowledge to the Saints in heaven? Daneus saith, (6) Christian. Isagog. part. 2. c. 33. p. 83. The devils do excel with admirable knowledge of these temporal and earthly things. And experience is strong herein, as appeareth by many Examples, namely of the spirit Orthen mentioned by Froyzard, and of possessed children, which in their fits, tell of things done in their absence: In so much as that the Devils from this their knowledge of things done, did probably conjecture such things to come as were thereupon depending, as appeareth by their so many Oracles. Yea this point is so true, that Aretius (7) Loc. come. p. 546. 548. proveth the same by sundry Examples of the Scriptures. Did not Abraham after his death, and yet not in heaven, know that Moses & the Prophets were teaching upon Earth, when he said, (8) Luc. 16.29. They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them. Yea the damned Dives (9) Ibid. ver. 27.28. was not ignorant that he had five Brethrens alive. Now than if wicked spirits and damned Devils are not ignorant of things done upon Earth, shall not the blessed Angels and glorified Saints, who are nor inferior in knowledge, much the rather understand & know the same? Thirdly this point is proved by those words of our Saviour mentioned by S. Luke, (10) 15.10. there shall be joy before the Angels of God upon one sinner that doth pennace. Now none can rejoice, but such as know, what the thing is at which they rejoice: but the Angels rejoice at the conversion of a sinner upon Earth; therefore it followeth evidently, that they know of the Conversion of sinners upon earth, that being the cause of their joy.. Fourthly the same may be proved from such places as show that we have Angels to guard us, as that of S. Matthew, (11) 18.10. See that you despise not one of these litles ones, for I say to you, that their Angels in heaven, always do see the face of my Father Here amongst other reasons, it is urged, that we should take heed of despising or scandalising others, because their Angels seeing God, see the same. And when S. Peter (12) Act. 12.14.15.16. delivered out of Prison, knocked at the door where many of the faithful were assembled, it is said, at the first they would not believe, that it was he, but his Angel. The like knowledge of Angels might be proved from K. David, saying, (13) Ps. 137.2. In the sight of Angels I will sing to thee. And from S. Paul, (14) 1. Cor. 4.9. we are made a spectacle to the world, and to Angels, and to men. Which Words plainly import that Angels do look upon us. But some do reply and say, though it be granted, that Angels do know things upon earth, yet it followeth not that the blessed souls do the like. But this forceth nothing: for first, that granted to Angels that they know things upon Earth, than it evidently followeth, that they knowing our necessities, do in their Charity pray for us, and that we may lawfully pray to them. Secondly of Saintes it is said, that (15) Mat. 22.30. they are as heavenly Angels, and in another place, (16) Luc. 20.36. equal to Angels, and yet in a third place, there is said to be in heaven, (17) Apoc. 21.17. The measare of a man, which is of an Angel. All which argueth, that the Saints in heaven may enjoy equal glory with the Angels. Besides they are endued with their understanding, glorified, and elevated with the light of glory, & with the presence and true sight of God, as the Angels are, and therefore nothing is wanting to them herein, which is granted to the Angels. And they have this more than Angels, that they are members of the body of the Church, more conjoined with us, than the Angels, and have experienced our miseries and dangers. Caluin confesseth this argument to convince, if we can prove, that as the Angels have charge of men, and do guard them, & are present at their affairs, so the blessed souls of men do the like. But this is easily proved by these texts following, (18) Apoc. 2.26.27. He that shall overcome, and keep my works unto the end, I will give him power over the Nations, and he shall rule them with a rod of Iron, and as the vessel of a Potter shall they be broken, as I also have received of my Father. (19) Apoc. 3.12. He that shall overcome, I will make him a Pillar in the temple of my God. (20) Mat. 24.46.47. Blessed is that servant, whom when his Lord cometh, he shall find so doing: Amen. I say to you, that over all his goods he shall appoint him. Here we have that the souls of Blessed men after their death, and before the Resurrection, receive power over Countries, to govern and feed them, and to be pillars to support the Church, & to have care over God's goods, which S. Hilary saith, is his Church: all which show, that they have to do with our affairs in this world. The guards of Saintes (saith (21) In psal. 124. S. Hilary) and the defence of Angels, are not wanting to those that will stand. S. Ambrose also teacheth, that (22) L. 8. in Lucam fine. As the Angels have charge, so also these who have deserved the life of Angels. And S. Leo avoucheth, that S. Peter (23) Serm. 2. de Anniversario suae Assumpt. now more fully and powerfully performeth those things which are committed unto him, and executeth all the parts of offices and cares, in him by whom he is glorified. So clear it is that the B. Souls, do take care, and help our affairs in this world. The same is proved from the very state of their beatitude, for their appetite is so fully satisfied, as that nothing is wanting unto them, which otherwise naturally they could desire, agreeing with that of the Psalmist, (24) Ps. 16.15. I shallbe satisfied when thy glory shall appear; as also with that of S. john, (25) C. 16.25. Ask and you shall receive, that your joy may be full. But it is undoubted, that they naturally desire to know the state of their brethren, friends, benefactors, wife, or Children, and the like left behind them upon Earth, therefore the Saints in heaven know the affairs, much more the prayers of their friends upon Earth, otherwise they could not be satisfied in their glory, and their joy made full. ¶ Now followeth the second part of this Section, viz. That Angels & Saints pray for us. And first we read in the Prophet Zachary, that the Angel prayed for the people, (26) C. 1.12. And the Angel of our Lord answered and said: O Lord of Hosts how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem, and on the Cities of juda, with which thou hast been angry? This is now the 70. year. Hear the Angel prayeth in particular for Jerusalem, and the Cities of juda. Secondly, we read in the Book of Tobias, that the Angel Raphaell said to Tobias, (27) C. 12.12. When thou didst pray with tears, and didst bury the dead etc. I offered thy prayers to our Lord. And again, (28) C. 12.15. I am Raphael an Angel one of the seven which assist before our Lord. This place is so plain for the Intercession of Angels, that in want of better answer, Whitaker saith, (29) Ad rat. Camp. rat. 2. p. 15. Little do we regard the example of Raphael the Angel mentioned in Toby, neither do we acknowledge those seven Angels whereof he speaketh: all this is different from the Canonical Scripture, and savoureth I know not of what superstition. But it seemeth Whitaker did not well remember, that mention is made of those 7. Angels, Apoc. 1.4. and 5.6. And that the book of Toby is Canonical Scripture, I have proved before. Thirdly, it is recorded in the 2. book of (30) 15.12.14. Machahees, how judas Machabeus saw in vision Onias stretching forth his hands, praying for all the people of the jews; & that Onias said of Hieremy, This is a lover of his brethren, who prayeth much for the people, & for all the holy City. To this Whitaker only answereth, (31) Ad rat. Camp. p. 16. I let pass that dream of judas concerning Onias, whereof we read 2. Mach. 15. But it little skilleth whether thou understand intercession of the dead, or Sacrifice: both is false. So that no other answer is left to these places, but only the denial of the said books to be Canonical Scripture, whereas the contrary is already proved at large. Fourthly, Almighty God said unto Hieremy, (32) Cap. 15.1. If Moses and Samuel shall stand before me, my soul is not towards this people; which argueth, that they were wont to stand before God, praying for others. Caluin answereth, that from this place rather the contrary is to be gathered, for seeing it is said, if they shall stand, to wit, to pray, it importeth that they neither stood, nor prayed. But though peradventure it be signified, that as then they did not pray, because they understood the matter then to be desperate, yet it is signified that at other times they were accustomed to pray, when they thought they might obtain: for otherwise God's speech had not been apt & congruous. For if a man should say, If my horse should pray for thee, I will not grant it, he should speak foolish, because horses cannot pray: and in like sort, if one should say, if Demosthenes shall come, he shall not persuade me, this speech also were foolish, because dead men do not use to come. And the same, which God forbidden, might be said of those words, If Moses and Samuel shall stand before me, if they neither could, nor were accustomed to pray. And it is to be noted, that it is not said, If they should stand, that is, if by impossibility they should now live and pray, but, if they shall stand, which signifieth what they might do, to wit, pray. Fifthly, S. john relateth that, (33) Apoc. 5.8. The 24. Elders feldown before the Lamb having every one of them harps, and golden viols full of odours, which are the prayers of the Saints. These words clearly teach, that the Saints in heaven offer up the prayers of holy persons in Earth, (called here, and in other places Saints) to Christ: and that these odours were prayers. Sixtly, the Martyrs in heaven cry with a loud voice, saying, (34) Apoc. 6.10. How long Lord, holy and true, judgest thou not, & revengest not our blood of them that devil upon the Earth? Now if they pray for revenge of their enemies, much more for mercy and grace for their friends. This place is so convincing, that Prot. understand the sa●e of such prayers as the Saints made when they were upon Earth, not as they are in heaven. (35) Confess. Wittenberg. c. de invocatione Sanctorum. In the Apocalypse (say they) the souls of the Saints slain, do cry out that their blood may be revenged, not that now resting in the Lord, they are desirous of revenge, according to the manner of men, but that the Lord even after their death, is mindful of the prayers, which whilst they lived upon Earth, they poured out for the delivery of themselves and the whole Church. But this is directly contrary to the words of the Text, which affirm, that they then in heaven did actually pray for revenge. Besides, it is false and injurious to Martyrs, to say, that whilst they were living, they desired revenge of their Persecutors, for they rather with Christ our Saviour, and S. Steven, prayed for their pardon: whilst they were living, they were subject to sin, and so might have been in danger if they had asked revenge, to have done it upon anger, hatred, and malice: Whereas now in heaven, according to S. Bedes exposition, they do it in regard, and love of justice. S. Peter promiseth to pray for his flock after his death, saying, (36) 2. Ep. c. 1.13.14.15. I think it meet as long as I am in this Tabernacle, to stir you up by admonition, being certain that the laying away of my Tabernacle is at hand, according as our Lord jesus Christ also signified unto me: and I will do my diligence, you to have often, after my decease also, that you may keep a memory of these things. Now it is evident, that by the laying down of his Tabernacle, he meaneth his death, as by being in his Tabernacle he understandeth the term of his life: & where he saith, that after the Deposition of his Tabernacle or decease, he will do his diligence to have them often, what else can be meant, but that after his death, when he is in heaven, he will often have them in mind, and pray unto God for them: signifying plainly that his care over them, should not cease by death, and that by his Intercession before God, after his departure, he would do the same thing for them, that he did before in his life by teaching and preaching. And agreably to this, it was a common practice among ancient (37) See Euseb. Hist. l. 6. c. 4. Cypr. Ep. 57 fin. & de Discipl. & habitu virginum Hier. Ep. 1. ad Heliod. c. 2. Christians of the Primitive Church, and always since among Catholics, to make covenant in their life time, that whether of them went to heaven before the other, he should pray for his friend yet living. D. Fulke for his best evasion corrupteth the Text, for where it is said, I will do my diligence, you to have often, after my decease also, that you may keep a memory of these things, he translateth it thus, (38) Against Rhem. Test. in 2. Pet. 1.15. I will ever also give my diligence, that ye may have wherewith to stir up the remembrance of these things after my departing; which saith he, (39) Ibid. p. 443. he performeth in writing this Epistle: So making the Epistle to be that, which must stir up the remembrance of those things after his departing, whereas S. Peter speaketh of himself, that he will do his diligence, them to have often after his decease also. Lastly, the Scriptures plainly teach the Communion of the Church Triumphant, with the Milirant, for so the Apostle saith, (40) Heb. 12.22.23. We are come &c. to the Church of the first borne, which are written in the heavens, and so are Citizens thereof. (41) Gal. 4.26. And Jerusalem which is above &c is our Mother. And, (42) Col. 1.18. Eph. 4.15. Christ is the head of the body, the Church. Now this Communion doth necessarily require, that, all the Members of this body be careful and helpful one to another, this being the nature of members living under one Head, as the same (43) Rom. 12.4. 1. Cor. 12.12. Apostle teacheth. And so S. Austin expressly teacheth that, (44) De Civit. Dei. l. 20. c. 9 Neither are the souls of the godly deputed separated from the Church, which also now is the kingdom of Christ, for otherwise there should not be Commemoration made of them at the Altar of God, in the Communication of the body of Christ: So certain it is that there is a holy Communion between the Saints in Heaven, and the faithful upon Earth. Having thus declared already, that the Angels and Saints know and hear our prayers, and further that they pray for us; because D. Fulke thinketh that, (45) Against Rhem. Test. in 2 Pet. 1.15. p. 443. if it were proved, that the Saints departed do pray for us, yet have we no warrant out of Scriptures to pray to them: I will now in the residue of this Section, endeavour to prove from the Scriptures, that we may lawfully pray to them; which indeed necessarily followeth by force of Argument drawn from the premises, thus. We may lawfully and profitably pray unto them, who are able in respect of their power with God, fit for their knowledge of our Estates, and lastly willing to pray for us, in regard of their great and excessive Charity: But the Saints and Angels have power with God, & so are able, have knowledge of our affairs, and therefore fit, are full of Charity, and therefore willing to pray for us; Therefore we may, and do lawfully and profitably pray unto them. But this is proved further by warrant of Scripture & manifold examples therein contained: for fitst the Patriarch jacob coming to bless the children of his son joseph, Ephraim, and Manasses, invocated the Angel thus, (46) Gen. 48.16. The Angel who hath delivered me from all evil, bless these Children. To this some (47) See the Marg. notes of the Engl. Bible of 1578. Prot. answer, that by Angel, is understood Christ: which is impossible, seeing he was not incarnated for some thousands of years after. The Prophet Osee also saith of jacob, (48) Cap. 12.4. He prevailed against the Angel and was strengthened, he wept, and besought him. Hear the Prophet expressly affirmeth, that jacob besought the Angel, (49) The English Bible of 1578. or as some Prot. translate, he wept, and prayed unto him: so clear it is, that jacob prayed to the Angel. Moses' desiring to avert Gods heavy wrath greatly kindled against the Israelites, for their Idolatry of the golden Calf, cold light upon no more effectual means to stay God's hand from destroying them at once, then thus to pray, (50) Exod. 32.13. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel thy servants etc. which place doth virtually imply both invocation of Saints, as also invocation of God by the merits of his Saints, as we shall see when we come to the exposition of the Fathers upon these places. In the mean time observe that, the Just who died before the coming of Christ, did not enter into heaven, or see God, neither could they ordinarily know the prayer of the living; and therefore it was not usual in the Old Testament to say, Holy Abraham pray for me, but men of those times only prayed to God, and alleged the merits of Saints, who then were dead, that by them their prayers might be helped. Caluins' reply to this place is, that God is not here invocated by the merits of his Saints, nor elsewhere, but only that there is a rehearsal made of the Covenant, which God made with the patriarchs, concerning the helping & protecting of their posterity. But this evasion being a mere collusion of Caluin, will not serve his turn; for in these kind of prayers, not only mention is made of God's Covenant, but further, the righteousness & merits of God's Saints are commemorated. And so you shall read in the Psalms, that Solomon invocating God, prayed thus, (51) Ps. 131.1. Lord remember David, & all his meekness: & a little after, (52) Ibid. 10. For thy servant David's sake turn not away the face of thine anointed Christ. These are the words of Solomon, invocating God by the merits of his Father David deceased, as (53) 2. Paral. 6.42. appeareth elsewhere. Again (54) 3. Reg. 15.4 5. For David's sake our Lord his God gave him a lamp in Jerusalem, that he might raise up his son after him, and establish Jerusalem because David had done right in the eyes of our Lord etc. And there would be no end, if I should city all those places, where God is invocated by the merits of his Saints, all which make against Caluins' imposture: and therefore see Daniel 3. Exodus 34. and Hieremie 32. job is sent by his friend Eliphas to the Angels, to invocate them, (55) job. 5.1. Call therefore if there be any to answer thee, and turn thee to some of the Saints. And job himself in another place invocateth the Angels thus, (56) C. 19 21. Have mercy upon me, have mercy upon me, O you my friends, for the hand of God hath touched me. S. Austin (57) In annot. in job. c. 19 by Saints in the first place, and friends in this last, thinketh the holy Angels to be understood: Which supposed, it is evident, that it was then a custom of the Church to invocate the holy Angels. S. john the Evangelist himself invocated the 7 Spirits for grace and peace to the Churches of Asia, praying thus, (58) Apoc. 1.4. and see c. 5.6. Grace to you and peace from him that is, and that was, and that shall come, and from the 7. spirits which are in the sight of his Throne, and from jesus Christ etc. where we are to note, that S. john thought it no Idolatry to invocate the 7. Spirits, in the same place, where he invocated two persons of the B. Trinity; but the meaning is, that the 7. spirits should be Intercessors, for obtaining at God's hand, Grace and peace for the Churches of Asia. Now, that by those 7. spirits, are meant 7. Angels, is confirmed by those words of Raphael, saying, (59) Tob. 12.15. I am one of the 7 holy Angels, which present the prayers of the Saints. And in the fifth Chapter of the Apocalypse, mention is made agreably to this, of (60) C 5.6. the 7. spirits of God sent into all the Earth: for which cause S. Paul calleth the Angels, (61) Heb. 1.14. Ministering spirits sent to minister for them which shall receive the Inheritance of salvation: Yea this place is so strong for invocation of Angels, that the Prot. Wygandus, though he will not acknowledge invocation of Angels hereby proved, yet saith hereof, (62) Syntagma Col. 396. Praeter morem reliquarum Scripturarum etc. Contrary to other Scriptures, he asketh grace from the 7. spirits in the first Chapter. So that this Prot. best answer, is to make this place of Scripture contrary to the rest. And it is more than probable, that the jews present at our Saviour's death, could not have been so easily persuaded to think and say, that our Saviour saying, (63) Mat 17.46. Marc. 35.34. Eli, Eli, Lammae Sabacthani, called Elias, if the Invocation of Saintes had not then been familiar and usual to them: which might be further proved by several testimonies (64) Flavius josephus de bello judaico. l 3. c. 14. josephus' Bengorion in Bello Iudai●o. c. 21. Symbolum fidei judaeorum fol 22. 28. of the ancient jews, and later Rabines. Throughout the whole Scriptures you shall read, how the living called upon the living, to pray for them; did not Abraham (65) Gen. 20. pray for Abimelech, and that by God's appointment and promise to Abimelech? Did not job (66) job 42.8 by God's appointment pray for his three friends, when God said vn●o them, Go to my servant job, be shall pray for you him will I accept & c.? Did not the Israelites cry unto Samuel, (67) 1 Reg. 7 Cease not to cry to the Lord our God for us, that he deliver us out of the hands of the Philistines? Did not God (68) Ezech. 22.30. seek for a man that should stand before him in prayer for the Land, that he should not destroy it? Did not the Israelites, when they had sinned, entreat Moses to pray (69) Numer. 21.7. for them, which he did accordingly? Did not S. Paul say, (70) Rom. 15.30. I beseech you brethren help me with your prayers, which elsewhere (71) Ephes. 6.1. Thess. 5.2. Thess. 3. Coloss 4. Heb. 13. he often beggeth? And doth not S. james (72) jacob. 5.16. give the reason, for the continual prayer of a just man availeth much? And are we not admonished to pray (73) jac. 5.16. one for another? And although these Examples do concern the living only, yet the reason which S. james rendereth, which is, because the prayer of the just availeth much, doth much more extend to the Intercession of the Saints and Angels in heaven, by how much they are more just, and also more gracious in beholding the face of God for us, for which cause they are called our Angels, as it is said before (74) Mat. 18.10. Act. 12 15. Their Angels behold God's face. The truth and sequel whereof is more certain, in that no Texts of Scripture be alleged against our invocation of Angels and Saints, but the same do as much impugn the intercession of the living. Lastly, if there can be imagined any reason or impediment to hinder this our Invocation of them, either it is because they will not help us, and this is against their Charity, which is far greater, and much more increased, than it was in this life, they being in the height of their Charity: or because they cannot; and not this, for this were infirmity, and should much derogate from their state of glory; and if they could help us by their prayers when they were here with us, and absent from God, in regard of their Pilgrimage, much more now can they aid us, being now present with God, and possessed of their kingdom of heaven: or peradventure because they know not we ask, and this were to charge them with greater ignorance, then is ascribed to the Devils, and to deprive them of a knowledge necessarily belonging to their state of happiness and content: Or lastly, for that it were derogatory to God's honour, and Christ's Mediation, if any other were invocated, and made Advocate to God; and not this, for first this maketh more for God's honour, since the more honourable the Intercessors to God for us be, the more honour redoundeth to God: And if our invocation of them for their Intercession to God for us, were derogatory to Christ's mediation, then neither could we pray for one another without injury to Christ, seeing we make one another now living, in the same sense, Mediators and Advocates to God. SECT. III. Scriptures expounded by most ancient Fathers in proof of the Intercession of Angels and Saints, and that we may lawfully invocate them. IN proof that Saints know things upon earth, S. Austin expoundeth some Texts by me alleged saying, (1) De Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 29 If the Prophet Elizeus absent in body saw his servant Giezi receiving rewards, which Naaman Syrus had given him etc. how much more shall the Saints see all things in that spiritual body, not only if they shut their eyes, but also where they are absent in body? for then shallbe perfected that, whereof the Apostle speaking, (2) 1. Cor. 13.9. In part, saith he, we know, and in part we prophesy, but when that shall come that is perfect, that shallbe made voided that is in part. S. Hilary expoundeth several Texts of Scripture for the Intercession of Angels, saying, (3) In Comment. in Ps. 129. There are according to S. john Angels deputed for the Churches of Asia and by the Testimony of Moses the limits of the Nations were appointed ●o the sons of Adam, according to the number of the Angels. And in the doctrine of our Saviour, the Angels of little ones do daily see God. There are according to Raphael speaking to Tobias, Angels assisting the divine Majesty and Clarity, and offering up unto God the prayers of such as invocate God etc. Therefore not the nature of God needeth the Intercession of these Angels, but our infirmity; for they are sent for them who shallbe heirs of salvation: God being ignorant of nothing that we do, but our infirmity needing the ministry of spiritual Intercession to entreat etc. In which passage of this glorious Confessor, two things are worthy of observation; first, that three of the very same places of Scripture cited by me, are likewise cited and urged by him, for proof of the Patronage, Intercession, and Invocation of Angels, to which he addeth a fourth out of Genesis. Secondly, that the book of Tobias is esteemed by him for Canonical Scripture, since it is ranked by him equally with the Apocalypses, and Genesis. S. Hierome writing upon those words of the Angel to Daniel, Et ego ingressus sum ad verba tua, saith, (4) In C. 10. Dan. This is the meaning thereof, After thou didst begin with good works, and tears, and fasting, to invocate God's mercy, and I took occasion that I might enter into the sight of God, and pray for thee etc. And in the same place Commenting upon these words of the Angel a little after, Et nemo est adiutor meus in omnibus his, nisi Michael princeps vester. None is my helper in all these, but Michael your prince, be concludeth thus, speaking in the person of the Angel; I am, saith he, that Angel who offers thy prayers to God, and I have no other helper to entreat God for you, but Michael the Archangel to whose Patronage & protection, the people of the jews is commended. The same S. Hierome writing upon these words of S. Matthew, Their Angels in heaven always do see etc. saith (5) In Mat. 18.10. Great is the dignity of souls, in so much that every one hath from his Nativity, an Angel deputed by God for his Patronage. And immediately after in further proof of guardian Angels, he citeth both that of (6) Apoc. 1.2. & 2. 1.8.1●.18. & 3.1.7. S. john unto the Angel of Ephesus, Thyatira, and the Angel of Philadelphia, and to the Angels of the other 4. Churches: as also that of the Apostle, (7) 1. Cor. 11.10. that women aught to have their heads covered for the Angels. S. Austin writing upon those words of the Psalmist, Annunciabitur Domino generatio ventura etc. he expoundeth it thus, (8) Epist. 120. c. 29. It is not so to be understood, that any thing should be told unto God, as being ignorant of any thing, to the end that he may know it; but even as the Angels do declare, not only Gods benefits unto us, but also our prayers unto him etc. And then for warrant of this Exposition, he citeth that place of (9) Tob. 12.12. Tobias by us formerly alleged, and so expounded by S. Hilary, as you have heard. For it is written, where the Angel saith unto men, I have offered up by way of mentioning your prayers, not that God shall know what we will, or what we stand in need of, for your heavenly Father, saith our Lord, knoweth what you stand in need of before you ask of him: but because etc. And in like sort writeth (10) Euseb. Caesar. l. 12. de Praepar. Euang. c. 1. Eusebius (11) 2. Mach. 15.14. In the book of Maccabees, Hieremy the Prophet is said to be seen after his death praying for the people, as having care of men yet living upon earth. S. Austin expounding those words of job, Miseremini mei etc. writeth thus. (12) Annot. in c. 19 job. Conc. 2. ad c. 19 He seemeth to invocate the Angels, that they would supplicate for him, or certainly the Saints, that they would pray for him penitent. And elsewhere, (13) L. 1. de locutionibus in Genes. jacob blessing his Nephews, the sons of joseph, amongst other things saith, (14) Gen. 48.16. My name shallbe called upon them, and the name of my fathers; where it is to be noted that not only hearing, but also invocation sometimes are affirmed, as things not proper unto God, but to men, also. Origen in proof that Saints do pray for us saith, (15) Ho. 3. in Cant. All the Saints which are departed out of this life bearing yet Charity towards the living in this world, it shall not be inconvenient, if they be said, to have a care of their salvation, and to help them with their prayers, and intercession with God for them: for it is written (saith he) in the book of Maccabees thus, (16) 2.15. This is Hieremy the Prophet of God, who always prayeth for the people. S. chrysostom is of opinion, that it was an Angel whom I●cob invocated, and not Christ, as Prot. imagine, when he blessed josephs' Children, his words are plain, (17) Tom. 3. ho 7 in laudibus Pauli. For if Angels be designed by him that is Lord of all, to those who only govern their own life and doing nothing for the common utility, as one of the just testifieth, saying, The Angel which hath delivered me from my youth: much more present are those heavenly powers unto them, to whom the care of the whole world is committed, and to such as carry the burdens of such gifts. S. chrysostom building as it were upon the promises of the Apostles to pray for the Church after their Martyrdoms, and especially upon that of S. Peter before mentioned, invocateth them thus, (18) Tom. 5. in orat encom. in natali Apost. seu Martyr. Pet. & Pauli propè finem. Rejoice ever (you blessed Apostles) in our Lord, without intermission pray for us, fulfil your promises: For o Blessed Peter, thou criest out speaking thus, (19) 2. Epist. 1.15. I will do my diligence, after my Coming to make mention of you. We are much bound (saith S. Leo) (20) Ser. 3. in Annivers. Assumpt. ad Pontif. to give thanks to our Lord and Redeemer jesus Christ, that hath given so great power to him, whom he made the Prince of the whole Church, that if in our time also any thing be done well, and be rightly ordered by us, it is to be imputed to his works and his Government, to whom it was said, And thou being Converted, confirm thy brethren: And to whom our Lord after his Resurrection said thrice, feed my sheep: which now also without doubt the godly Pastor doth execute, confirming us with his Exhortations, and not ceasing to pray for us, that we be overcome with no temptation. What more plain for S. Peter's praying for us after his decease? But D. Fulke (21) Against Rhem Test. in. ● Pet. 1.15 p. 443. himself confesseth that, Leo indeed etc. ascribeth much to the prayers of S. Peter for him. Yea (22) Tom. 1. Conc. Ep. 1.5. Clem. init. S. Clement affirmeth, that S. Peter encouraging him to take after his decease the charge of the Apostolic Roman Sea, promised that after his departure he would not cease to pray for him and his flock, thereby to ease him of his Pastoral burden. Thus than you see, as appeareth by these Father's Exposition of Scriptures, how clear the Scriptures are for Invocation of Angels and Saints, if credit may be given to the ancient Blessed Fathers so expounding them. But the Father's Doctrine is so clear for Invocation of Saints and Angels that D. Fulke saith, (23) Rejoinder to Bristol. pa. 5. I Confess that Ambrose, Austin, and Hierome, held invocation of Saints to be lawful: And, (23) Against Rhem. Test. p. 443. that many of the ancient Fathers held this opinion, that the Saints departed do pray for us, we deny not etc. In Nazianzen, Basil, & chrysostom, there is some mention of the Invocation of Saints to help with their prayers etc. Theodore also speaketh of prayers unto Martyrs. Chemnitius having alleged S. Austin praying to S. Cyprian martyred before, concludeth this thereof, (24) Exam. part. 3. p. 211. (34) Austin did this without the Scripture, yielding to the times and custom. (25) Ibid. p. 200. And again, (35) Invocation of Saintes began to be brought into the public assemblies of the Church, about the year of our Lord 370. by Basil, Nyssen, and Nazianzene. The Centuristes speaking of the times of Cyprian and Origen, do confess, that they (26) Cent. 3. c. 4. col. 83. Contain manifest tokens of the Invocation of Saintes. Now, whereas D. Morton would evade all testimonies of Fathers in this behalf, by affirming that they were but (27) Appeal p. ●27. Rhetorical Apostrophe's, Chemnitius shall give him a brotherly check for this so simple and untrue Evasion, by not excusing with Rhetorical Apostrophe's, but flatly accusing and rejecting (28) Exam. part 3. p 211. See Perkins vol. 2. p 592. Most of the Fathers, as Nazianzen, Nyssen, Theodoret, Ambrose, Hierome etc. who saith he, did not dispute, but avouch the souls of Martyrs and Saints etc. to hear the Petitions of those that prayed, and to carry them to God etc. they went to the Monuments of Martyrs, and often invocated the Martyrs by name. This is confessedly more, M. Morton, then to make Rhetorical Apostrophe's. But D. Whitguift, and D. Covell do both of them affirm, that, (29) Def p. 472. Covell against the Plea of the Innoc. c. 9 p. 120. Almost all the Bishops and learned writers of the Greek Church, and Latin also for the most part▪ were spotted with Doctrines etc. of Invocation of Saintes, and such like. So generally was this our Catholic doctrine of Invocation of Saints taught by the ancient Fathers. Now for the closure of this Section from Fathers, Bullinger labouring to confute the distinction of Dulia and Latria, and falsely affirming, that Catholics do attribute more by Dulia to Saintes and Angels, then by Latria to God, he addeth that, (30) Ser. 84. in Apoc. 19 S. john (the Evangelist) was enwrapped in this Error. And that, he would exhibit the worship of Dulia to the Angel: but God permitted so great a man to sin. Yea, saith he, (31) Serm. 97, in Apoc. 22. forgetful of all the admonitions by the Angel, he fell again into the same fault. So that S. john is here condemned with Catholics for worshipping of Angels with Dulia. But now whether S. john did better understand what honour was due, & to be given to Angels, than Prot. do, I leave to any man's judgement. And though S. john erred in the person of the Angel, as thinking him to be Christ himself, yet that he was ignorant in knowing what honour was due to Christ, and what to Angels, no Christian will affirm. SECT. iv That Protestants do agreably teach with Catholics that the Angels and Saints in heaven do hear our prayers, do pray for us in particular: and that we may lawfully to them. THat Angels and Saints do know things done upon Earth, and pray tor us, Piscator and Bullinger confess of Angels, (1) Vol. 1. Thes. p. 96. sec. 47. & p. 294. sec. 27. Bulling. in his Dec. in Engl. p. 739. and see Luc. 15.10. That they rejoice at our repentance. Fulke, (2) Ag. Rhem. Test. f. 115. That they know our fruits and true effects thereof. Piscator, (3) Pisc. ubi supra p. 98. That we should be ashamed to commit any unclean actions, seeing that they do behold and observe all our actions. Fulke, and others, (4) Fulke ubi sup. in Mat. 18. sect. 2. Bulling Dec. p. 741. Hippius metho. Theol. l. 2. p. 290. That they do wait for our preservation. Bullinger that, (5) Ib. p. 665. They offer the prayers of the faithful in God's presence. Others (6) Conf. of Sax. in the Harm. p. 43. that both Saints and Angels such as are in happiness do pray for the Church: and that (7) Ib p. 12. we join in prayer with all Saints in heaven and Earth: Also that (8) Oecolamp. ad serm. Chrysost. de Iwentio & Maximo. Brent. ad c. 10. Luc. Chytr. ad c. 25. Mat. Cruciger in Conc. de Natiu. See Fox in Apoc. c. 8. p. 127. The Saints in heaven, do not cease to make Intercession for us. The Lutherans that writ the Apology for the Confession of Augusta, do gather from the forcyted place of Zachary, that (9) Apol. Confess. August. de invocat. Sanctorum fol. 179. Angels pray for us. Oecolampadius (10) Ad orat. Chrys. de Iwent. & Max. affirmeth that, The Saints in heaven burning yet with their Charity do not cease to pray for us. And in another place, (11) Ad c. 12. Danielis. The blessed Spirits etc. are not without desire of our Salvation, which I think to be their prayers: And so Peter and Paul do pray with us. Thy kingdom come. Melancthon is so confident herein, as that he saith, (12) In loc. come Manlij. fol. 151. I will city a manifest place out of the New Testament, proving that the dead are careful of the Church and us, for so Matthew saith (13) Mat. 17.3. Elias and Moses spoke with Christ of things to come. It is certain that the Saints which are in heaven in care of us, are affected towards the Church of those that live upon earth: Even as they there disputed with Christ of his Passion, & the gathering of the Church through the whole world. Brentius proposeth this Question (14) Ad. c. 10. Lucae. Do the dead then pray for the living? And now he giveth his answer, Surely it cannot be denied, but these who live in Christ, do wish well to the Church and her members: for if they Angels pray for us, as (15) C 1.12. Zachary witnesseth, and if Christ himself pray for us to his Father, how then are not the Saints affected towards us in Charity in Christ, and by Christ, and with us all happiness of God. Faber writeth thus plainly. (16) De statu defunctorum. c. 7. I do not doubt but the souls of the dead remember their parents, brethren, Sisters, and kinsfolks, which they have left here, and pray, to God that he will also deliver them out of the vale of tears &c The example of the rich man Luc. 16. confirmeth this doctrine: for if a damned soul remembreth his (friends) much more a blessed Soul is so affected towards Parents, Children, Brethrens, Sisters, and kinsfolks. And whereas P●ot. to avoid the history of Lazarus and Dives, which plainly showeth that souls departed this life do yet know things done upon Earth, do affirm, that it is only a Parable: Yet Caluin for his part thinketh otherwise with us, saying, (17) Harm. in Luc. 16.19. Although to some it seem only a single Parable, yet because the name of Lazarus is expressed, I rather think, that a thing done is declared. Concerning the Patronage of Angels, Caluin writeth, (18) Inst. l. 3. c. 20. §. 23. Edit. Gal. 1562. 1563. See. l. 1. c. 14. §. 7. They say, the prayers of Angels are often read of, and not this only, but the prayers of the faithful are said to be carried by their hands into the sight of God: I confess it. And a little after, It is assigned to the Angels that they be ministering spirits, to whom the ministry is committed of the care of our Salvation, to whom the Charge is given of keeping us in all our ways, who may compass us about, who may admonish, and comfort, and may watch for us. And again, (19) Inst. l. 1. c. 14. §. 7. God appointed Angels over us, to take care of our safety: whereupon they frequent the holy assemblies, and the Church is to them a Theatre in which they admire the different and manifold wisdom of God. To conclude, I dare not affirm for certain, whether to every one of the faithful several Angels be appointed. (20) Dan. 10.13.20. & 12.1. Truly when Daniel bringeth in the Angel of the Persians', and the Grecians, he signifieth that certain Angels are deputed, as Governors over kingdoms and Provinces. Christ also when he saith, (21) Mat. 18.10. The Angels of Children do always see the face of the Father, doth insinuate, that there are certain Angels to whom their safety is committed. But I know not whether from thence it may be gathered, that every one hath his Angel to have charge over him. And somewhat after, There is one place a little clearer than the rest, which seemeth to confirm it: for when (22) Act. 12.15. It is his Angel. Peter brought out of Prison knocked at the gates of the house in which the brethren were gathered together, seeing they could not suspect that it was he, they said it was his Angel. It seemeth this came into their minds from the common conceit, that Angels are assigned as Governors to every one of the faithful. With Caluin agreeth Luther saying, (23) Ad. c. 2. Zachariae. Every Emperor King Prince, yea every man hath his Angel. And, (24( Ad. c. 18. Matthai. The Scripture testifieth every Christian to have his Angel. Add yet hereunto the professed faith of sundry of our English Foxian Martyrs, Lambert believed that, (25) Act. Mon. p. 549. a. initio. The Saints departed pray for us. The like also did (26) Ibid p. 462. b. post. med. Bilney. Latimer also acknowledged the same saying, (27) Ibid. p. 1312. a. init There be two manner of Mediators, the one by way of Redemption, the other by way of Intercession. And again, (28) Ibid p. 2315 a. paulo ante med. Take worshipping of Saints for praying to them, I never denied but that they might so be worshipped, & be our Mediators etc. by way of Intercession. Of like belief was the Church in the time of K. Henry the Eight, and so also were sundry other Prot. Martyrs in M. Fox his Monuments, whom we do not find charged with the contrary Doctrine. john Husse was accustomed to invocate the B. Virgin and other Saints, (29) In fidei suae Elucidatione. I ask also (saith he) for my very accusers the most chaste Virgin the Mother of my Saviour, the repairer of mankind, the Queen of heaven, which by the title of grace added to nature, excelleth the Angelical nature; who amongst all the blessed excepting her son, is more blessed, by singular Privilege, more glorious, by grace and the gifts of glory, more fruitful. Of whose fullness, saith Bernard, all receive; the sick health, the sorrowful comfort, the Angel's joy, the son of God the substance of humane flesh, the whole Trinity glory. And in another place, (30) In 1. Io. c. 2. We have an Advocate, to wit, in matters of Souls, not of possessions. And not only an Advocate, but also an Aduocatresse: whereupon we sing, Eia ergo Aduocata. And to other Saints he prayeth also, (31) Ep. 22. Peter and Paul glorious Martyrs, so joined to the K of glory, vouchsafe to pray for us, that by their help we being made strong, by suffering humbly, may be partakers of their glory. Again, he invocateth S. john Baptist saying, (32) Ep. 30. Vouchsafe to pray for us unto our Lord jesus Christ, Amen. To try now what Martin Luther thinketh, (33) Resp. ad Lovan. in Tom. Wittemb. I never denied (saith he) us to be helped by the merits and prayers of Saints, though imperfect. And, (34) In Ep. ad Georg. Spalatinum. I never thought the Invocation of Saints to be offensive etc. this do our heretical Picards and Bohemians know. And in another place he saith, (35) In Ep. ad Erphordienses. Suffer them to implore the Patronage of Saintes, since they so will, yet with that Condition, that they know they must take heed, lest they put any trust and presumption in any of the Saints, being induced thereto by a false persuasion. And yet more fully; (36) In purgatione quorundam Articulorum. Concerning the Intercession of Saintes, I agreed with the whole Christian Church, and judge that the Saints are to be invocated and honoured, for who can contradict those things which God doth wonderfully, and visibly work, even to this present day at the Sepulchers of Saintes? Yea his advice is this, (37) De praep. ad mort. At the hour of death, let him not cease to invocate the B. Virgin, his Apostle, and the rest of the Saints, whom he hath served in his life, that they may pray for him to our Lord. And now he teacheth the manner how we may lawfully pray to Saintes saying, (38) In fest. joan Bapt. Some man may here say, of what use, and in what steed shall Saintes be to us? Thou usest them as thou usest thy Neighbour, for as thou sayest to him, Pray to God for me, so thou mayest say to them, S. Peter pray for me. Again, (39) Super Magnificat. Tom. 6. Germ. fol 21. and see de 1. Praecepte. I said, Marry would not be a Goddess, she maketh nothing: God worketh all things. She aught to be invocated, that God by her may give and work what we ask, and in this sort all the rest of the Saints are to be invocated etc. So Catholickly Luther. With Luther agreeth Oecolampadius saying, (40) Ad orat. Chrysost. de Iwentio & Maxim● Martyribus. Neither will I affirm it to be Idolatry, to request the Patronage of Saintes, for the Saints in heaven burning yet with their Charity, do not cease to pray for us, and what evil is it, if we request that to be, which we believe God would, although he hath not commanded any such thing etc. This do chrysostom and Nazianzene; and this also almost all the Churches of the East and West do observe. Bucer affirmeth, that (41) In Defence. count. Abrincensem Episcopum. If any weighing the infinite Indulgence etc. of God towards his Saints etc. And do entreat them to make intercession to God for them, although that be not taught in the Scripture, yet if it be done, none of us condemn it. And in another place he justifieth our Catholic manner of praying to Saints saying, (42) In Disp. Ratisb. de publicis Ecclesiae precibus. Seeing in these prayers whatsoever is ascribed to the Intercessions and merits of Saints, all that is asked is not from the Saints themselues▪ but from the mercy of God by our Lord jesus Christ: hereby such as pray thus, confess and testify themselves to acknowledge those things to be the free gifts of God, which they beg of God by the intercession and merits of Saints. Haffenrefferus (43) Loci Theol. l. 3. stat 4. loco. 5. p. 463. affirmeth, that the Divines of Polonia in their late Synod, defended prayer to Saints with this moderation, as namely, that they should be invocated not as granters, but as Intercessors. And somewhat agreably hereunto say sundry Prot. (44) Wittenberg. in the Harmony. p. 172. If we will speak of the true and great Mediator, there is but one Mediator between God and man, jesus-christ: (but) If we will speak of the Mediator of praying, every godly man is made a mediator each for other: according as it is said, (45) Rom. 15.30. Help me with your prayers: (46) 1. Thess. 5.25 & 2. Thess. 3.1. & Col. 4.2. Brethrens pray for us And this kind of Intercession doth not (as the Prot. Viril confesseth) (47) Treatise concerning the principal grounds of Chr. Relig. p. 188. take any thing away from the Intercession of Christ. So evident it is both by Scriptures, Fathers, and Protestants, that every man hath his Angel guardian, that the Angels and Saints do hear our prayers, do pray for us, and that we may pray to them. SECT. V Objections from Scriptures against Invocation of Angels and Saints, answered. SOme object, that none must be invocated, but in whom we believe, according to that of S. Paul to the Romans, (1) 10.14. How then shall they invocate, in whom they have not believed? Answer. This is spoken of Gentiles, who not believing in Christ, nor having heard of him, could not invocate him: and in like sort it may be said, that those who do not believe that there are Saints, or do not hope in them as Patroness, cannot invocate them. Besides the words, Invocation and Faith, are not always attributed to God only, for jacob saith, (2) Gen. 48.16. Let my name be invocated upon these Children, and the names of my Fathers, Abraham, Isaac etc. Upon which words S. Austin commenteth thus, (3) lib. locutionis de Gen. prope fin. Whereupon it is to be observed not only that hearing, but also invocation sometimes are affirmed as things not proper to God, but to men. In like sort concerning Faith, S. Paul writeth, (4) Philem. v. 4. I give thanks to my God etc. hearing thy Charity and faith which thou hast in our Lord jesus, and towards all the Saints: upon which place S. Hierome demandeth (5) In Ep. ad ad Philem. how any one can have the same faith in Christ jesus, & towards his Saints? To which himself answereth, for the exposition of this place let us take example from (6) 14.31. Exodus, The people believed God and Moses his servant: one and the same belief is referred towards Moses, & towards God, that the people which believed in our Lord, should a like be said to believe in his servant: but this is not only towards Moses, but towards all his Saints, that whosoever hath believed in God, could not otherwise have had faith, unless he had believed towards his Saints, for it is not perfect Charity, & faith towards God, which is lessened towards his servants with hatred and Infidelity. Secondly, in proof that Saints do not know our prayers, it is objected, that (7) 3. Reg. 8.39. God only knoweth the hearts of all the Children of men; and in the book of job, (8) C. 14.21. Whether his Children be noble or ignoble, he shall not understand. And yet in a third place, (9) Ecclesiastes 9.5. For the living know that they shall die, but the dead know nothing at all. And that also of Esay, (10) C. 63.16. For thou art our Father, & Abraham hath known us, and Israel hath been ignorant of us. And lastly that of the Kings (11) 4. Reg. 22.20. I will gather thee to thy Fathers etc. that thy eyes may not see all the evil which I will bring upon this place. From these and such other like places is inferred, that it is vain to Invocate Saints, seeing they know not our prayers. Answ. All grant, that only God knoweth naturally, and by his own power, the thoughts of all men's hearts, but this hindereth not, but that Saints may know such thoughts as God manifesteth unto them, whether this be by clear and perfect vision of God himself, or by particular revelation from his Deity, or lastly by the ministry of other his servants, be they Saints or Angels. And as for the words of job, they only prove that naturally the dead do not know the deeds of the living; & the very selfsame thing proveth the place following of Ecclesiastes: but what maketh this against such as are enlightened supernaturally with the presence of God, having their understandings to that end elevated with the light of glory, or else that come to know of things passing here by supernatural means. That of Abraham, Saint (12) In Com. in Isaiae. 63.16. Hierome expoundeth of the knowledge of approbation, or acknowledgement of them for his, so that the meaning is, Abraham knew us not, that is, he took us not for his Children, but despiseth us, because he knoweth, that we have departed from thee our God. Abraham knoweth us not &c. saith S. Hierome giving the reason, because we have offended thee; neither do they acknowledge those for their Children, whom they understand not to be beloved of their God. In which very sense our B. Saviour speaketh unto the foolish Virgins (13) Mat. 25.12. , Amen I say unto you, I know you not. Which phrase of speech Christ also useth unto those reprobate, who stood knocking at the door when Christ was entered, (14) Luc. 13.25. I know you not whence you are. But if this knowledge whereof mention is here made, be understood properly, it proveth no more (as neither any of the places objected do) but that the Fathers who were in Lymbus Patrum, or Abraham's bosom, knew not as then naturally, or by any ordinary supernatural means, what their posterity living did, seeing as than they were not blessed with the clear sight of God, which I hope Prot. dare not affirm of the Saints departed, since our Redemption by Christ. In conclusion, for full satisfaction of these objections, let S. Austin answer for me, who having moved diverse objections pro & con, both how the dead should know and not know, did know and did not know, the affairs of their living friends, at last resolveth the point thus: (15) L. de cura pro mort. agenda. c. 14. & 15. Therefore we must confess, that the dead indeed do not know what is done here, but whilst any thing is here done, that afterward truly they hear of them, who go hence to them by dying: not all things verily▪ but such things as they are suffered to declare, who are suffered both to remember these things, as also such things as is meet for them to hear, to whom they relate these things. Moreover the dead may hear of the Angels who are present to things done here something, which he, to whom all things are subject, judgeth convement for every one of them to hear: for unless there were Angels, who might be present at the places both of the living and dead, our Lord jesus had never said, It happened also that the poor man died, and was carried by Angels into Abraham's bosom. Now therefore here, now there may they have been, who have taken hence thither those whom God would. Moreover the spirits of the dead may know somethings done here by the spirit of God reveyling, which it is necessary that they should know, and not necessary that they should be ignorant of not only things past or present, but also things to come: as not all men, but Prophets did know, whilst they lived here; neither did they know all things but such things as the Providence of God did judge meet to be revealed unto them. Hitherto S. Austin. The sum of all is but this, that Saintes departed know things done here three manner of ways, to wit, by Saints hence departing to them, by Angels declaring, and Gods holy spirit reveyling: and this may suffice for a full answer to all places brought in this second objection. The third Objection is taken out of that place of S. Paul to Timothy, (16) 1. Tim. 2.5. For there is one God, one also Mediator of God and men, jesus Christ, therefore we must not make any Saints our Mediators. To make this the stronger, the Prot. of Geneva in their Bible of Anno 1601. by Matthew Berion, do add the word, solus, one only Mediator. Answer The word, solus, is neither in the Greek, nor the vulgar latin, nor in those of Beza of 1589. 1590. nor others of Geneva of 1555. 1563. 1564. 1570. and so the place is maliciously corrupted. Secondly, this maketh as much against the prayers of the living for us, as of the dead: for when we desire our Neighbour to pray for us, therein we desire him to be our mediator, in the same manner as we desire the Saints. Thirdly, Christ is our Mediator, in that he gave (17) Ibid. ver. 6. himself a redemption for all, in that he satisfied the infinite justice of God for the sins of the world: which kind of Mediation is only proper to Christ; Saints only are our Mediators, in that they pray for us: and so as Christ is said to be our (18) Epist. Io. 2.1. Advocate with the Father; and yet in a secondary sense, we make just men living, also our Advocates; so the same may be said of Mediator, and so Moses said of himself (19) Deut. 5.5. I was an Arbiter, and Mediator betwixt our Lord and you at that time; to which words S. Paul alluding, saith (20) Gal. 3.19. of the old law, that it was ordained by Angels in the hand of a Mediator, viz. Moses. S. Cyril (21) L. 11. Thesaur. c. 10. proveth that Moses according to the Scriptures, and jeremy, and the Apostles, and others be mediators. And if the name of Saviour and Redeemer be in the Scriptures (22) judic. 3.9.2. Esd. 9.27. Act. 7.35. 1. Tim. 4.16. given to men without derogation to him, who is in a more excellent and incomparable manner the only Saviour and Redeemer of the world, why may not there be many Mediators in an inferior degree, to the only and singular Mediator? S. Bernard saith, (23) Ser. Signum magnum. We have need of a mediator to Christ the Mediator, and there is none more for our profit then Mary. S. Basil in the same (24) In Conc. Nycen. 2. Act. 4. sense desireth the Mediation of our B. Lady, the Apostles, Prophets, and Martyrs, for procuring of God's mercy and remission of his Sins. Lastly, M. Perkins (25) Perkins in his Ref. Cath. p. 259. granteth that the Saints departed, pray generally for the whole Church: wherefore by the like argument, they make themselves Mediators, and so offer injury to Christ, which is most absurd to say, and blasphemous. A fourth Objection is urged by reason of those words of the Apostle, (26) Coloss. 2.18. Let no man seduce you willing in the humility and Religion of Angels, walking in the things which he hath not seen. Answ. This place condemneth the heresy of (17) See S. chrysostom in hunc locum. Epiphan. haer. 21. Simon Magus, who following the Platonists, taught, that certain Angels were to be adored as lesser Gods, by whom he thought the world to be made, and by whom the highest God who is invisible, was only to be pacified: which Error the said Heretic had from Plato, who taught that Spirits (which he calleth Daemons) were to be honoured as Mediators next to God. Against which (28) De Civit. l 8. 9 10. S. Austin disputeth, and condemneth (29) L. 10. Confess. c. 22. the same undue worship. S. Hierome (30) Ep. Io. ad Algafiam expoundeth this also of ill Spirits, or Devils, whom he proveth (our of S. Stevens sermon Act. 7.) that the jews did worship. Theodoret (31) In hunc locum. declareth, that the jews defended their superstition towards Angels, by that the law was given by them, deceitfully inducing the Collossians both to keep the law, and to honouring of the Angels, as the givers of the same. Whereby diverse of the faithful were so seduced, that they forsook Christ and his Church, and committed Idolatry to the said Angels; against which abominations the Council of Laodicea made a (32) Cap. 35. Decree. (33) L. 5. cont. Martion. Tertullian expoundeth this place of false reachers, that feigned themselues to have Revelation of Angels, that the law should be kept touching difference of clean and unclean meats. (34) Upon this place. Haymo saith further, that some Philosophers of the jews and some of the Gentiles taught, that there were 4. Angel's Precedents of the 4. Elements of man's body, and that in feigned hypocrisy (which the Apostle calleth here humility) they pretended to worship by Sacrifice the said Angels. So many ways is this Objection satisfied. Fiftly, some object (35) Roger's Def of the Art art. 22. p. 128. that of S. Matthew, (36) 11.28. where God biddeth us to come to him: as also that of S. Luke, (37) 11.9. to ask and it shallbe given us: and that of S. john, (38) 16.23. And if we ask the Father any thing in Christ his name, he will give it us, & so directeth us to pray, (39) 6.9. Our Father which art in heaven etc. Answ. These places as much forbidden the prayers of the living, as of the dead: and because prayer requireth disposition in the party praying, which yet he always hath not, therefore God Almighty (the former places notwithstanding) directeth us to seek help by the prayers of others, whereof see in job (40) 42.8. & Genesis (41) 20.17. , and sundry other places. Besides, when we pray to Saintes, we do thereby the better (they being better able and more worthy by reason of their perfection, to obtain any thing at God's hands then we) come unto God himself, and more effectually pray unto him. And as for the Pater noster, it doth no more prohibit praying to Saints, then to God the son, and God the holy Ghost. Add yet in further satisfaction of this so frequently objected; He that giveth to one of the King's Counsel or Chamber, his Petition directed to the king, entreating him earnestly, that he will exhibit the same to his Majesty, and further his suit, doth not thereby defer the King's honour to his Servant, nor desire his suit to be granted by the servant, but by the king. The Gentiles which came to Philip and asked him (42) Io. 12.21. saying, Sir, we are desirous to see jesus, did not ascribe Christ's honour to Philip, though they came unto him first, and with great humility called him, Dominum, Sir, and made their desire known unto him: neither did Christ reprove them, for not coming immediately unto him, as thereby injurious to him, but rather taught that this did more illustrate his glory, seeing the Gentiles had him in so great reverence, as that they durst not come into his presence, but by the Mediation and Commendation of his beloved Apostles. And so Philip telling Andrew, and Andrew and Philip telling jesus; jesus answered them saying, The hour is come, that the son of man shallbe glorified. The Centurion (43) Luc. 7.7.3. also not thinking himself worthy to come to Christ, sent unto him the Ancient of the jews, desiring him to come and heal his Servant. And yet the holy Ghost affirmeth by S. Matthew, (44) Mat. 8.5. That the Centurion came unto him etc. And jesus said to him, I will come etc. And the Centurion making answer, said, Lord I am not worthy etc. And yet it is plain, that this Dialogue passed between jesus and the Centurion's (45) Luc. 7.6. friends, and not with the Centurion himself. And this practice of the Centurion was so grateful to Christ, that he said, Amen, I say to you, neither in Israel have I found so great faith. Yea God directed jobs friends saying, (46) job. c. 42 7.8. My fury is wrath against thee, and against thy two friends etc. Take therefore unto you 7. Oxen, and 7. Rams, and go to my Servant job, and offer holocaust for yourselves, and my servant job shall pray for you; his face I will receive, that the folly be not imputed to you. So impertinent is this Objection so often inculcated. Sixtly it is objected, the Saints in heaven can merit or obtain nothing for themselves, much less for others. Answer. Though as then they cannot merit, yet through the merits of their life past, they may obtain what they ask, either for themselves or others. Caluin (47) L 16. de ratione vera reformationis Ecclesiae, and Melancthon in Apol. art. 21. Conf. August. objecteth that many are invocated, who whether they be Saints, or whether any such ever were, no certain history doth confirm, as Christopher, George, Catharine etc. I answer, though the histories of some Saints be Apocryphal and uncertain, yet thereof it doth not follow, that such Saints were not. Of the calling of the Apostles we read in the Gospel, but of the life and death of many of them, we find little or nothing; and many things which are related of them out of Abdias and others, are not approved as altogether certain. Besides though the histories of some three or four be doubtful, yet of the rest they are most certain: and what Saints of all Sects Prot. have registered into their Calendar, let Fox bear witness. Some urge with Vigilantius, that (48) Hier. count Vigil. c. 3. init. whilst we live, we may pray for one another, but after we are dead, the prayer of none is to be heard for another, especially seeing Martyrs (49) Apoc. 6.10. expecting the revenge of their blood, cannot obtain it. But S. Hierome answereth hereto in these words, If the Apostles and Martyrs whilst they were living, could pray for others, when yet they were careful for themselves; how much more after their Crowns, victories, and triumphs? Moses' alone obtained of God pardon for six hundred thousand armed men: and Stephen etc. beggeth pardon for his persecutors: and shall they be of less power, after they shall begin to be with Christ? Paul the Apostle affirmeth 276. souls to have been pardoned to him in the ship; and after being dissolved, shall begin to be with Christ, shall he then shut his mouth & shall he not be able to mutter for them, who all over the world have believed at his preaching? Shall Vigilantius a living dog, be better than he a dead lion? And the very like is taught by S. (50) Ser. ●9. de Sanctis. Austin. And as for that of the Martyrs, it is most false to say, that the Martyrs here were not heard, nor their Petition granted, for it was granted to be fulfilled in time appointed by God (whereunto they did and do always conform themselves) for it was said to them next after, That they should rest yet a little time, till etc. And Christ our Saviour speaking of this very case, saith, (51) Luc. 18.7. And will not God revenge his Elect that cry to him day and night & c? I say to you that he will quickly revenge them. But if God do not sometimes grant requests of the Saints, yet it doth not therefore follow, that they do not, or may not pray for us, for Christ himself prayed to his Father to remove the bitter Cup of death from him, and yet it was not granted. CHAP. XVII. The true State of the Question, concerning the use & reverence to be exhibited to Images of Christ, and his Saints. Whether it be lawful to make the Images of Christ and his Saints, to place them in Churches, and to exhibit any honour or reverence unto them: or that all this is Superstition and Idolatry, contrary to the Commandment of God. SECT. 1. Catholic Doctrine. WHAT the Church of Christ believeth and practiseth concerning Images, these General Counsels following will clearly discover. The Council of Trent decreeth that, (1) Concil. Trident. Sess. 25. Decret. de sacris Imag. The Images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of other Saints, are to be had and retained especially in Churches, and that duehonour and worship is to be imparted unto them: not for that any divinity is to be believed to be in them, or virtue, for which they are to be worshipped; or that any thing is to be begged of them, or that hope is to be put in them, as in times past the Pagans' did, who put their trust in Idols: but because the honour which is exhibited to them is referred to the first pattern which they resemble. So that by the images which we kiss and before whom we uncover our heads and kneel we adore Christ and his Saints, whose likeness they bear, we reverence that which is ratifyed by the Decrees of Counsels especially of the second of Nice, against the Impugners of Images In which second Nicene Council it is said (2) Act. 7. See Conc. Senon. Decret. 14. We define in all certainty and diligence that as the figure of the precious etc. Cross, so the venerable and holy images are to be set forth etc. in the holy Churches of God in Sacred Vessels, garments walls tables, houses and ways: aswell the Image of our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ, as of our unspotted Lady, the holy Mother of God, and of the honourable Angels, and all Saints and Holy Men; for the more often they are seen by Images the more those that behold these are more cheerfully elevated to the memory and desire of the Prototypon, and to give the kiss, and honourable worship unto them; but not to give true Latria etc. which belongeth only to the Divine nature. Agreably herto the Catholic Church (3) Bellar de Imag. c. 7. etc. Rhem. Test. in. 1. joan. 5.21. now teacheth, that Images of Christ and his Saints are not prohibited by the Scriptures to be made, or to be placed in Churches, or houses, or to be honoured: but it likewise teacheth that no Confidence is to be placed in them, or any thing to be asked of them, but only that they be honoured for those whom they represent unto us. Points Disputable. Some (4) Abulensis in. c. 4. Deutr. q 5. Durand. in 3. Dist. q. 2. Peresius de Tradit. part. 3 in Tract de Imagine. Schoolmen teach, that the Images of God are not to be made, and that they are rather permitted, then approved by the Church: But others (5) Caiet. in 3 part q. 25. art. 3. Cathaerin. l de cult. Imag. Sanderus de cult. Im●g. think it very probable, that the same is lawful. Some (6) Alex. 3. part. q. 30. art. 12. vlt. Durand. l. 3● Ceut. Dist. 9● q. 2. affirm, that an Image is not in any respect to be worshipped in itself, but only relatively for the Exemplar: (7) S. Th. 3. part. q 25 art. 3. S. bovau. and others in 3 Dist 9 Others avouch that the same honour is due to the Image, and the Exemplar: (8) Peresius l. de Tradit. Tract. de Imag. Saunder. l. 2. c. vlt. de Imag. Others yet are of opinion that the very Images are to be honoured in themselves, and properly, but with lesser honour than the Exemplar itself. None of these opinions are defined by the Church. Protestant Untruths. Caluin (9) Instit. l. 2. c. 11. §. 13. avoucheth that during the times of the first 500 years, there was not any pictures placed in Churches. But (10) L pro Imaginibus, qui habetur post 7. Synod. circa fin. Adrianus 1. proveth at large the contrary from the testimonies and practice of Silvester, Damasus, Celestinus, Sixtus, Leo and others, who all lived before the year 500 The (11) Cent. 4. c. 13. Col. 1447. Centuristes affirm that Christ's Picture was broken and cast down with a thunderbolt for a testimony that such superstition, wherewith any virtue is ascribed to Images, doth not please God: But all histories testify that not Christ's, but only julian the Apostates picture, was so cast down with a Thunderbolt. Caluin (12) Instit. l. 1 c. 11. §. 10. also teacheth that the jews and Gentiles did not call their Idols, Gods: but this is disproved by many express places of (13) Exod. 32. judic. 18.3. Reg. 12. Dan. 5. Sap. 13. Scripture. Protestant Doctrine. The English Prot. Church decreeth that (14) Article 22. The worshipping and adoring of Images is a fond thing▪ vainly invented and grounded upon no warrant of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God. Heer all honour unto them is denied. Other Prot. prohibit their placing in Churches. Luther saith, (15) In c. 7. Deut tom. 3. fol. 41. I do not much love Images & I would not have them placed in the Church. Zwinglius; (16) De vera & fall. Relig. c. de statuis. Peter Martyr in loc. tit. de cult. Imag. 22. Calu. Instit. l. 1. c. 11. §. 13. Images aught to be abolished in Churches. Others yet proceed further teaching that Images are not so much as to be made H●ffmā saith, (17) Apud Zwing. tom. 2. fol. 631. 630. That Goodman thinketh that Images many be kept and made, so that one do not adore them or worship them. But this Opinion fighteth with testimonies of Scripture, in which the Lord commandeth that we do not make them. So that according to Prot. Images must not be honoured, nor placed in Churches, nor so much as made. Protestants agreed with Ancient Heretics. Nicephorus writeth, (18) Hist. l. 16. c. 27. Xenaias' first (O audacious soul, and impudent mouth!) vomited forth that speech, That the Images of Christ, and those who have pleased him, are not to be worshipped. According to which the Prot. Euactius confesseth, that (19) Comment. in praecedent. Chron. l. 7. Anno Christi. 494. See Cedrenus in compend. hist. Xenaias' first raised war in the Church against Images. julian the Apostata (20) Sozom. l. 5. c. 20. Euseb. l. 7. c. 14. cast down the Image of Christ, which the woman (21) Mat. 9.20. mentioned in the Gospel had made. (22) Alcoran. c. 15.17. Prateolus verb. Mahomet. Mahomet also impugned Images and the Cross. And Probianus also (23) Hist. tripart. l. 2. c. 19 denied veneration of the Cross. We have seen next before that the same is taught by the Prot. Church. Protestant Errors. Nappier blusheth not to writ, (24) Upon the Revel. p. 89. 90. 214. 215. 219. and Proposition 31. p. 72. 73. etc. The sign, or Cross which appeared in vision to Constantine with these words in hoc signo vinces, in this sign thou shalt overcome, was the first public and visible mark of Antichrist. So that the badge, or mark of Antichrist, who is to be such a one as doth directly oppose himself against Christ, must be the sign or Cross which hath always been holden the badge of Christ, in regard of his dying upon the Cross. SECT. II. It is proved by Scriptures, that it is lawful to make the Images of Christ, and his Saints, to place them in Churches, and to exhibit honour, or reverence unto them. FOr the progress, and fuller understanding of this Controversy, we are first to observe, that the words Image & Idol, are taken in the Scriptures, and with Ecclesiastical writers in different senses: an Image is a true representation or likeness of a thing, as when we paint a man, a horse etc. An Idol, is a false similitude which representeth that which truly is not, as the statues of Venus, of Minerva, which represent women-Gods who neither are, nor can be Gods. The holy (1) Coloss 1.15 Heb. 1.3. Sap. 7 16. Scripture calleth the son of God, the Image of his Father: Solomon is said to make Images of Cherubims; (2) 3. Reg. 8.7.8. but never is the son of God called the Idol of God, or the Images of Cherubims called Idols; whereas an Idol is said to be a (3) Abac. 2.18. see S. Hier. in hunc loc. & in c. 13. Zachar. false Image, and S. Paul saith, (4) 1. Cor. 8.4. We know that an Idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one: Yea through the whole Scriptures, (5) 3. Reg. 7.16. Levit. 19.4. Num. 23. ●1. Ose. 6. the word Idol, as also in the Fathers, (6) Synodus 7. Act. 5.7. Orig. ho. 8 in Exod. Theodore quaest. 38. in Exod. it is taken for a false God, and Idolatry for the worshipping of false Gods, and so they are still taken in the worse part, & forbidden: Whereby is discovered the falsehood of Stephanus (7) In his Thesaurus. V 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. affirming the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be used by Ecclesiastical writers for any Image, representing that which we may worship, including therein the Images of Christ, and his Saints. In like manner the word Simulachrum, derived of simulo, to dissemble, or lie, is used for Idol, for where the Latin Interpreter hath simulachrum, (8) Ps. 113.12. Act. 15.29. 1. Io 5.21. S. Aug in Ps. 135. Hier. in c 7. Ose. always in Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But of these who confounded Image and Idol, I would demand when the Scriptures say, (9) Gen. 1.26.27. God said, Let us make man to our Image. And God created man to his Image: to the Image of God he created him. (10) Gen. 5.3. Adam lived 130. years, & begat to his own Image and likeness, and called his name Seth. (11) 1. Cor. 11.7. Man aught not to cover his head, because he is the Image and glory of God, & the like; I demand whether in these places the words Image & Idol do signify one & the same thing or no? if they affirm, than they must acknowledge of necessity, not only Adam when he begat his Son Seth, to have made to himself an Idol, but also that man is the Idol of God, & that God when he created man framed to himself an Idol, and so nothing remaineth, but that they likewise proclaim God to be an Idolater: if they deny, than their retractation of their former assertion, is laudable, and we shall hereafter in this expect their silence. Secondly, all agreed, that to m●ke or k●ep an Image, is not of itself unlawful, the Arts of painting and carving being allowable, and the same practised and permitted amongst Prot. themselves. The first thing therefore in question is, whether it be lawful to make the Image of God himself, or of the B. Trinity? To which I answer, that though the same be not so certain a matter of faith, as the other of the making of the Images of Christ and his Saints is, yet the lawfulness thereof may sundry ways be proved. First, God hath been pleased to appear, & to have been seen in corporal shape or figure, as appeareth in sundry places of Scripture, as first, (12) Gen. 3.8. where it pleased him to be heard walking and seen of Adam, and Eve in Paradise after their fall, and to hold a long Conference and Expostulation with them touching their sin, and the occasion thereof, thereby to draw them to repentance, and to save them, all which was not done without some form, or shape by God assumed. Secondly, jacob flying from the face of his brother Esau, had a vision wherein he saw (13) Gen. 28.12.13. A ladder standing upon Earth, and the top thereof touching heaven, & the Angels of God ascending & descending by it, and God leaning upon the ladder, speaking unto him saying, I am the God of Abraham thy Father, and the God of Isaac, the land whereon thou sleepest, will I give to thee, and thy seed; the which sensible sight and hearing of God by jacob, could not be had without some shape assumed by God, whereby he might be seen and heard. And elsewhere (14) Gen. 32.24. it is recorded that a man wrestled with him until morning, which man was God, as appeareth by these words, (15) Ib. 28. If thou hast been strong against God etc. and himself confesseth the same afterwards (16) Ib. 30. saying, I have seen God face to face, and am yet alive. Whence it is evident, that God vouchsafed to appear in shape of man, when he wrestled with jacob. Thirdly, (17) Gen. 18.1.2.3, God appeared unto Abraham in the valley of Mambre, as he sat in the door of his Tent, in the very heat of the day: & when he had lifted up his eyes, there appeared to him three men standing near unto him etc. Here it evidently appeareth by the context of the whole Chapter, that it was God that appeared to Abraham in shape of man, as by his promising of a child to Sara, & by the Communication passing between God and Abraham, touching the destroying of Sodom. Fourthly, you shall read in divers other places (18) Gen. 3.8. & 28.13. Exod 33.23. Isaiae 6.1.3. Reg. 22.19. Amos. 9.1. & 7 7. Dan. 7 9 of holy Scripture, where God hath appeared and been seen by men, walking, leaning, standing, sitting, with description of head, hair, and garments, mentioning also his seat, throne, and footstool, which could not be done without the assuming of some bodily shape. And God the holy Ghost assumed the shape of a Dove (19) ●at. 3.16. when he descended from heaven, and lighted upon Christ at the time of his Baptism in jordan. Angels also being incorporeal, have appeared often in men's (20) Gen. 18.2.19 1. Isa. 6.6. Dan. 9.21. Math. vlt. 2. Luc. vlt. 4. Io. 20.12. shapes. Now as God and Angels have appeared in these corporal shapes, so may they in like manner be painted; there being no injury to draw them in those forms and shapes, wherein they were pleased to appear to men. The second question is, whether it be lawful to place Images in Churches, and that alone without any history pertaining thereto. To this I answer, God himself commanded Angels to be placed in the highest places of the Temple, for so you shall read, where he speaketh thus unto Moses, (21) Exod. 25.18.19.20.21.22. Two Cherubims also thou shalt make of beaten gold, on both sides of the Oracle, let one Cherub be on the one side, and the other on the other; let them cover both sides of the Propitiatory, spreading their wings, and covering the Oracle, and let them look one towards the other, their faces turned unto the Propitiatory, wherewith the Ark is to be covered, wherein thou shalt put the Testimony which I will give thee: thence will I command, and will speak to thee over the Propitiatory, and from the midst of the two Cherubims which shallbe upon the Ark of the Testimony, all things which I Command the Children of Israel by thee. Again concerning the renewing of these Cherubims, at the building of the Temple by Solomon, you shall read thus of him, (22) 3. Reg. 6.24.25.26.27.28.29. And he made in the Oracle two Cherubs of Olive trees, of ten Cubits in height, one wing of a Cherub of five Cubits, and the other wing of a Cherub five Cubits, that is, having ten Cubits from the end of one wing to the end of the other wing: of ten cubits also was the second Cherub, in like measure, and the work was one in both Cherubs, that is to say, one Cherub had the height of ten cubits, and in like manner the second Cherub: and he put the Cherubs in the midst of the Inner Temple, and the Cherubs extended their wings, and the one wing touched the wall and the wing of the second Cherub touched the other wall: and the other wings in the middle part of the Temple touched each other. He covered also the Cherubs with gold; and all the walls of the Temple round about he graved with divers engravings and carving: and he made in them Cherubs and Palmtrees, and diverse pictures as it were standing out of the wall, and coming forth. Caluin cannot deny the foresaid placing of those pictures in the Temple, & yet he affirmeth them to be made, (23) Instit. l. 1. c. 2. §. 3. Who endeavour to defend the Images of God and Saintes, by the example of Cherubims. But if by the appointment of God, the two Cherubs were made, which were the Images of Angels, and by God also commanded to be placed within the Tabernacle, before the building of the Temple, and within the Temple after the building thereof, and if both Tabernacle and Temple were then unto the jews places consecrated to God's worship, as our Christian Churches are now; then followeth it necessarily, that it is as lawful now to make Images, and to place them in the Churches, as it was then lawful to make Cherubs and other pictures, and to place them in the Tabernacle and Temple, and that without all history thereto, as these were; nay which is more, this was done in the time of the old Testament, when the jews were most prove to Idolatry. Neither may we greatly fear any great inconvenience now a days to ensue, by placing Images in Churches, seeing there is none so ignorant, who believeth not in one only God, and knoweth perfectly that Images and Pictures, are but the handy works of men, & this the rather through the care and industry of their Pastors, who are strictly charged (24) Concil. Tried Sess 25. and commanded to inform the more ignorant, of the right and lawful use thereof, and of that honour which is proper to God alone, not to be communicated to his Creatures: Yea instead of hurt, many commodities arise thereby, as to those who cannot read, and the more unlearned, (25) Greg. Nyssen. orat. in Theod. instruction and knowledge, to all a better (26) Greg. Mag. l. 7. Ep. 109. & l. 9 Ep. 9 and more frequent remembrance of Christ and his Saints, and of their singular virtues and actions, and thereby a more fervent desire in us, (27) Greg. l. 7 Ep. 53. to love and imitate the same; and lastly an exhibition (28) Synod 7. Act. 6. & Basil. Orat. in 40. Martyrs. of due honour to God and his Saints, it being undoubted, that to erect statues and Images to great personages, was ever done for their greater honour: and some (29) Euseb. Hist. l. 7. c. 14. think this the chiefest cause, why Christians desired the Images of Saints. The third, and greatest difficulty or question is, whether any worship or reverence may be exhibited to Images? I answer, though they may not be honoured with Invocation, or by placing any confidence in them, yet otherwise that they may be worshipped in regard of them whom they represent unto us, is proved first by the former places of Scripture concerning the Cherubims and the brazen Serpent (30) Num. 21.8.9. , which was the (31) Io. 3.14.15. figure of Christ: for the Images of Cherubims placed upon the Ark, were necessarily adored of them who adored the Ark. In so much that S. (32) Hier. in Ep. 17. ad Marcellum. Hierome saith, The jews in times past did worship the Holyes of Holies, because there were the Cherubims, and Propitiatory, and the Ark of the Testament, Manna, Aaron's rod, and the golden Altar. And the Brazen serpent by God's Commandment placed on high could not but be worshipped of them, who by looking thereon were immediately cured. In so much that (33) Aug. l. 3. de Trinit. c. 10. S. Austin speaking of certain Religious signs which deserve worship, giveth example in the Brazen serpent. And it is a certain Rule that, (34) Aug. l. 3. de doct. Christiana c. 9 profitable signs ordained by God, (such as the Cherubims and brazen Serpent were) are to be honoured, seeing their honour passeth to the first pattern or exemplar, the Angels and Christ. Caluin confesseth that, (35) In Num. 21.8. The brazen Serpent was a shadow, figure, and similitude of Christ. And that it was a sign of spiritual grace. And that, (36) In Psal. 105.19. the Ark was the Image of God. Now that the jews did exhibit great honour to these, the (37) Ios. 7.6. 2. Reg. 6.12 etc. Num. 21.8. Scriptures are manifest. And Caluin confesseth that, (38) In Num. 21.8. The brazen serpent was laid up as a precious treasure, and diligently preserved many ages in the Sanctuary of God: Whereby it appeareth that they were greatly honoured. Secondly, the same may be proved by such places as teach that Creatures may be honoured for the relation they have to God, as (39) Mat. 5. ●●. Swear not at all; neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God; neither by the earth: ●here note that an Oath being an Act of Religion, whereby first God, and then that whereby we swear is honoured, God forbiddeth Oaths by heaven or Earth without due circumstance, lest those creatures as they have relation to him, should thereby be dishonoured: so also it is said, (40) Ps. 98.5. Adore the footstool of his feet, where by, footstool, is understood the Ark of God, according ●o that of King Daui● (41) 1. Paral. 28.1 & Psal. 131 7.8.2. Reg. 6.2. I prepared a house where the Ark of our Lord should rest, and the footstool of our God: which also might be further proved by sundry other places of Scripture. Now if this Ark being but a Creature, was so highly had i● (42) Ios. 3.3.4.5 6. 1. Reg. 6.19. 2. Reg. 6. Hebr. 6.4.5. reverence for the relation it had to God, why not Images who have a nearer and more perfect relation? Thirdly, the same is taught by such places as testify that Creatures are said to be sacred, or holy, for the relation they have to holy things; so to Moses it was said, (43) Exod. 3.5. Put thy shoes of thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground; which whether it be called holy for the presence of God, or of some Angel, is all one. The day of the (44) Exod. 12.14. Passover was commanded to be kept an holy feast, for the signification it had, and for the dedication thereof to God. The garments of the Priests were called (45) Exod. 28.4. holy vestments, for that they were ordained for the service of God. The (46) 2. Tim. 3.15. Scriptures are called holy Scriptures, in that they are signs of holy things. Concerning the reverence due to the sacred name of jesiu, though S. Paul saith thereof, (47) Philip. 2.9. For the which thing God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a Name which is above all Names, that in the Name of jesus every knee bow, of the celestialls, terrestrials, and infernals: and though the Ancient (48) Conc. Lugdun. 2. cap. Decret. de immunit. Eccl. in Sexto Orig. ho. 1. in joshua. Fathers do from this place exhibit much reverence to the said Name, yet Caluin trembleth not to say, to use his own words, that, (49) In Philip. 1.9. The Sophisters of Sorbon are more than ridiculous, who gather from this present place, that the knee is to be bowed, as often as the name of jesus is pronounced; as though it were a conjuring word, which had all it force included in the sound. But by this more the ridiculous impudence & blaspemy, Caluin ranketh himself among th● fals● Prophets, whereof God complaineth, saying, (50) jerem. 23.27. who will make my people to forget my Name, through their dreams, which every one telleth to his neighbour: as their Fathers forgot my name for Baal. And it showeth plainly that Caluin uttered these words by the suggestion of the Devil, for as S. Paul observeth, (51) 1. Cor. 1● 3. No man speaking in the spirit of God, saith Anathema to jesus, and, no man can say our Lord jesus, but in the holy Ghost: whereas those who are guided by the holy Ghost do bow and reverence at the name of jesus, not for the sound or syllables of the word, as Caluin foolishly pretendeth, but for the relation which it hath to Christ our Saviour. And I verily think, that when due reverence is given by hat and knee at the hearing of our King's name, when it is read in Proclamations, or otherwise, not one Caluinist in England durst censure the King's name, for a word magical, in regard of the honour done unto it. Now it is evident, that in what respect a thing is said to be sacred, holy, or to have any Excellency in it, in the same it may be worshipped and reverenced: therefore Images having as perfect relation to holy things, as the earth, days, garments, or words, may truly be said to be sacred or holy, and so also may be worshipped. Fourthly, the Images of Kings may be worshipped with Civil honour, therefore the Images of Christ and his Saints with Religious honour, the things represented being sacred, as the other are civil. And whereas the (52) Cent. 8. c. 9 Centuristes' reply, that the King's Image is therefore worshipped, by reason of the King's absence, who cannot at the same time be in all, or sundry parts of the kingdom: this is most idle and false; Idle, because the question is not, why, or for what cause the king's image is worshipped, but whether it be to be worshipped: false, for as it were greater indignity to injure the king's picture in his own presence, then in his absence, so to honour it in his presence, were most grateful. Further, an Image is capable of injury (53) Euseb. hist. l. 9 c. 10. Chrysost. hom. 2. & 3. ad populum Antiochenum. Theodor. hist. l. 5. c. 10. See Calu. inst. l. 4. c 17. §. 33. Pet. Mart. in 1. Cor. 11. and reproach, therefore also it is capable of honour and worship. And Idols or Images of false Gods are therefore despised & detested, because they are the Images of false Gods; therefore by the contrary, Images of Christ and his Saints, signifying true and holy things, may therefore be honoured. But to proceed further concerning the use of sacred Images: if the use of them were unlawful, either it must be, because the use thereof were of its own nature dishonourable to God, or else for that it is forbidden by some Commandment. Touching the first part, that it is not dishonourable to God, is proved thus: Howsoever God alone is to be adored with divine honour, yet withal a Religious worship is due to such things, as have relation to him, or to his Saints, accordingly as M. jewel confesseth, saying, (54) Reply against Harding. p. 379. We only adore Christ as very God, but we worship also and reverence the Sacrament, we worship the word of God, we worship all other like things, in such religious wise to Christ belonging. And Caluin confesseth of the Eucharist, as it is a figure of Christ's body and blood, (55) Instit. l. 4 c. 17. §. 33. Edit. Gal. dignam esse quae omni reverentia exaltetur, worthy to be extolled with all reverence. In this sense Saint john Baptist thought himself (56) Luc. 3.16. unworthy to unloose the lachet of Christ's shoes, a thing otherwise by him not regarded, but as having relation to Christ. Also it was commanded, that the Ark or Mercy-seat should be adored, (57) Ps. 98.5. Adorate scabellum pedum eius, for so both Fathers & Prot. read, worship you the footstool of his feet. And this honour done and given to Creatures being commanded by God to be given to creatures, neither is nor can be dishonourable to God, for it resteth not in the foresaid things themselves, but passeth over from them, as both (58) In his Reply. p. 409. jewel and (59) Hist. Sacram. l. 5. c 8. p 477. Hospinian express, saying, The Sacraments be adored, but the whole honour resteth not in them, but is passed over from them to the things signified; and hereunto Saint (60) De Doctr. Christ l. 3. c. 9 Austin agreably saith, qui veneratur utile signum etc. he that worshippeth a profitable sign ordained by God, the force and signification whereof he well understandeth, doth not reverence that which he seethe, but that rather unto which such signs have relation. This point is so evident and free from all danger of Idolatry, that Danaeus debating the same with Bellarmine, confesseth in plain terms concerning the worshipping of Images by him defended, (61) Primae partis altera parte. p. 1383. It consisteth upon so many observations and restrictions that the honour which they exhibit to their Images, is (as he thinketh) indeed none, as being only cultus reductiws, non proprius, that is, a worship reductive or belonging to the first pattern, not proper or abiding in the Image, as given to it for itself. This is yet made more plain by Example of that civil reverence which we do exhibit before the Prince's Image, or of Estate: whereof S. Athanasius saith, (62) Ser. 4. cont. Arrianos. and see the like in S. Ambr. ser. 10. in ps. 118. He that worshippeth the king's Image, doth therein worship the king himself. And S. Basil (63) Basil. de Spiritu sancto ad Amphilochium. c. 18. thinketh of the Honour done to the King, and his Image, that it is one, & not many, or divers, & that therefore the honour (64) Basil. Ibid. ut supra. done to the Image, is referred to the first Exemplar. Upon this ground it is to be imagined that Antichrist (who will strive to be (65) 2. Thess. 2.4. exalted above all that is called God) will yet in further satisfaction of his proud humour, 'cause his Image (66) Apoc. 13.5. to be adored; which thing he would never do, if the honour done to his Image were a dishonour to himself. By all which it is evident, that the use of sacred Images, and the Religious worship done to them, by the Catholic Church, is not of its own nature dishonourable to God. Concerning the second point, namely, whether any law or precept be made against the worshipping of Images: If any were, it were that of Exodus, (67) 20.4.5. Thou shalt not make to thyself any Idol, or similitude: but this Commandment urged so much by Prot. against the use of sacred Images, is altogether impertinent; first, for that by Idol, and similitude here mentioned in the Precept, is meant the false resemblance of that thing for God, which indeed was not God, & which the jews being prove to Idolatry, did grossly worship as their God, according to the error of the Gentiles. And this is proved by S. Paul, saying, (68) 1. Cor. 8.4. We know that an Idol is nothing in the world: and so likewise did the Fathers (69) Orig. bo. 8. in Exod. Theodor. q. 38. in Exod. Hieronymus in c. 2. Abacuc. & in c. 13 Zach●r. understand the word Idol. The Prophet Abacuc also calleth it (70) C. 2.18. a false Image; or as the Prot. (71) Engl. Bib. of 1578. translate it, a teacher of lies, that is, a representation of that which is not: wherefore this Commandment maketh nothing against the use and worship of sacred Images. And D. Whitguift confesseth, that, (72) In his Def. against. Cartwright. p. 542. versus fin. We cannot find in all the Scriptures, where God hath made any law or ordinance, against his own Commandment. And therefore had God almighty by his Commandment forbidden the making of such Images as did signify a Truth, he would not then, as afterwards he did, (73) Exod. 25 18. & Num. 21.8. have commanded them to be made and erected. And let our Prot. understand whatsoever they will, by Idol and similitude here, yet is it manifest, that thereby is only forbidden the worshipping of them for God, as appeareth by all words and circumstances of this place, as where it is said there next before, (74) Exod. 20.3. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me: and after, You (75) Exod. 20.23. shall not make with me Gods of silver and Gods of gold: and yet more plainly, (76) Levit. 26.1. You shall make none Idols, or graved Images, etc. to bow down thereto, for I am the Lord, and my (77) Isa. 42.8. glory I will not give to another, neither my praise to graved Images. All which argue, that thereby is forbidden that kind of honour which is only due to God, and which of its own nature was forbidden and dishonourable before the publishing of this Commandment. But suppose that the jews had been forbidden generally to make and worship Images in any sort, yet had this Commandment been but temporal, and peculiar unto them, in regard of their danger and strong inclination to Idolatry: and so accordingly Martin Luther, and Brentius affirm, as Beza witnesseth of them, (78) Vide Resp Bezae ad acta Colloq. Montisb. parte altera Praef. p. 12 post med. That the second Commandment of the first Table concerning Images, pertained only to the jews, as being part of the Ceremonial Law. Upon all these Premises the Conclusion is. 1. That since by the Protestants confession, the Image of Christ may be made: 2. since likewise for the direction of our understanding, the Image of Christ is the same to our eye, that the sound or name of jesus is to our ear: 3. since also, a Religious kind of reverence is to be exhibited at the name of jesus, and as M. jewel and Hospinian have affirmed, to Sacraments, and to all other like things in such religious wise to Christ belonging: since as M. jewel (79) In his Reply. p. 409. and Hospinian (80) In Hist. Sacram. l. 5. c. 8. p. 477. further say as before, and the other premises argue, the foresaid honour resteth not in them, but is safely without all danger of Idolatry, or dishonour passed over from them to the things signified; that therefore the Image of Christ and of his Saints, as they may be lawfully made, so also upon the foresaid ground they may be safely worshipped. The conclusion of all which is no other, but that Christ and his Saints may be worshipped in their pictures, no less than Christ is in his name and Sacraments, and no less than an Earthly King is in his Image, or Cloth of Estate. As for the foresaid Commandment, it is clear by the premises, that thereby is only forbidden, not such foresaid worship, as not being of its own nature dishonourable, should then first become unlawful by force of that Commandment, but such worship as was then before of it own nature unlawful, in regard whereof that Commandment was published: this, as appeareth by the premises, was then only Idolatry, which became not evil because it was then prohibited, but then was prohibited, because it was before that, evil. Lastly it is to be observed how impiously Prot. corrupt the sacred Scriptures in hatred to holy Images: And herein of very many to touch but some few; Whereas S. Paul saith, (81) Eph. 5.5. No covetous person, (which is the service of Idols) hath inheritance etc. Fulke translateth, nor covetous person, which is a worshipper of Images. etc. And for (82) Col. 3.5. Avarice, which is the service of Idols, he saith, Covetousness, which is worshipping of Images. And yet in our common phrase of speaking, we say, such a rich man maketh his money his God, even as S. Paul said of others, (83) Philip. 3.19. whose God is the belly. And whereas S. john saith (84) 1. Io. 5.21. Keep yourselves from Idols, though Fulke translateth in the text, Idols, yet he putteth in the Margin, or Images: and the Church walls still say, Keep yourselves from Images. But not content with this, sometimes they add the word, Image, to the text, when it is neither in the Latin or the Greek, as may be seen in Fulke Act. 19.35. and in the Engl. Bib. of Anno 1562. in 2. Paral. 36.8. I omit sundry such like, only for brevity. SECT. III. That the Ancient Fathers expound the Scriptures for the lawful use of Images, and Religious Reverence done unto them, agreably with Catholics. SAint Athanasius in justification of this Doctrine writeth thus (1) Ad Antiochum Principem. c. 38. God forbidden, and let it be fare from us, that we Chistians adore Images as Gods, as the Greeks' do. We declare only our affection, and the care of our love towards the figure of the person expressed, by his Image: therefore oftentimes we burn as unprofitable the wood which erstwhyle was an Image, if the figure be worn out. Therefore as jacob when he was to die, adored the top of josephs' rod, not honouring the rod itself, but him who held the rod: so we Christians do no otherwise adore Images, but even as moreover, when we kiss our Children and Fathers, we declare the desire of our mind. Even as the jew also did adore in times past the tables of the Law, and the two golden Cherubims, and certain other Images, not worshipping the nature of the stone or gold, but our Lord who commanded them to be made. With S. Athanasius agreeth Tertullian saying, (2) L. 2. Cont. Marcionem. c. 22. And therefore he forbidding the similitude of all things to be made, which are in heaven, and in Earth, and in the waters, he doth show the causes restraining, to wit, the substance or matter of Idolatry; for he addeth afterwards, you shall not adore them, nor serve them: but the figure of the brazen Serpent which our Lord commanded Moses afterwards, did not belong to the title of Idolatry, but to remedy and help those, (3) Def of the Engl. Tra●slat. c. 3 p. 119. who were infested by the serpents And I say nothing of the figure of the remedy (to wit the Cross) so both the golden Cherubims & Seraphims &c. The Fathers were so full for our Catholic use of Images, as that they allowed the public placing of them in Churches, though Fulke thinketh this to be (2) L. 2. Cont. Marcionem. c. 22. against the Commandment. For sundry examples and testimonies of the Ancient Fathers are in proof thereof alleged by the Prot. (4) ●gainst Sym●o●●z ng. part 1. p. 32. ●hem. Exam. part 4. p. 26. 29. 30 Cent. 4. Col 409. Parker, Chemni●ius, and the Centuristes. In so much, that in respect of such public allowance of Images, the Prot. Functius affirmeth, that, (5) Lib 7. Comment in praeced. Chronol. at anno 494. Anno 494. Xenaias' was the first in the Church that stirred up war against Images. And whereas Prot. pretend, that we Catholics do take away the second Commandment, S. Austin affirmeth this part of the Commandment, Thou shalt not make to thyself any graved thing, not to be a several distinct Precept of itself, but parcel of (and therefore explained by) this former, Thou shalt not have strange Gods. In this he writeth so largely and plainly, & his judgement is so confessed, that Musculus speaking of Catholics saith, (6) Loc. come. de Decalogo. p. 39 They divide the precepts of the first table into three, and of the second into seven, and so they leave out the Commandment concerning Images, and graved things, following Austin, who l. 2. quaest. super Exod. c. 71. appointeth three Precepts to the first table, and the other 7. to the second, Willet also confesseth, that (7) Comment. upon Exod. in c. 20. p. 515. Austin would have but 3. Precepts in the first table. And again, (8) Ibid. p. 314. The Romanistes opinion is, that there are but 3. Commandments in the first table, putting the 2. first into one etc. of this opinion is Austin, quaest 71. in Exod. And whereas S. Austin taught this our Catholic Principle, that (9) De Doct Christ. l. 3. c. 9 The honour given unto profitable signs appointed by God, passeth from them to the thing signified, Hospinian affirming that Sacraments may as signs be honoured, saith even as we say of Images (10) Hist. Sacram. part. 1. l. 5. c. 8. That honour stayeth not in them, but passeth from them to the things which are signified: in proof whereof he allegeth S. Austin, saying, Those things which Austin writ, de doct. Christ. lib. 3. c. 9 do agreed with these: Who adoreth (saith he) a profitable sign appointed by God, whose power and signification he understandeth, doth not honour that which is seen or passeth, but rather that whereunto all such things are to be referred. This place is so pregnant, that it is therefore alleged to the same purpose by Peter (11) Defence de Euchar. loc. 1. col. 382. Martyr. In further proof yet of Images, let us see what honour the fathers gave to the Cross. Perkins acknowledgeth that, (12) Vol. 2. p. 596. and Fulke aga. Hesk. p 657. Paulinus Ep. 12. saith, The Bishop of Jerusalem yearly at Easter set forth the Cross for the people to worship, himself being the chief of the worshippers. Now Paulinus according to Osiander, (13) Cent. 5. l. 3. c. 2. was familiar with Hierome, Austin, and Ambrose. Danaeus avoucheth that Cyril and sundry other learned Fathers (14) 1 ●art. all p●●t. ad Bella●●. cont●ou. Resp p 1415. and Parker ●g. Symbol. part. 2. c. 7 p. 61. were plainly superstitious and blinded with this enchantment of the Crosses adoration. Burges confesseth that, (15) In Covels Answ. to Burges. p. 130 136. There is nothing ascribed to the Cross in or out of Baptism, by the rankest Papists, but the Fathers are as deeply engaged in the same: so as if we w●ll use it as the Fathers did &c we take the Soul to be fenced with crossing of the Body, and the Cross to have virtue of consecrating the Sacrament, driving away Devils, witchcraft etc. In proof whereof he alledgeh sund●y Ancient Fathers, and the like is acknowledged by other (16) Cent 4. Col. 302. and 1493. Treatise of the sign of the Cross. p. 21. Protestants. Directly contrary to all Puritans, and the more usual practice of Protestant's, S Austin teacheth that, (17) In Euang. joan. Tract. 118. See also de Temp. ser. 182. c 3. ser. 19 de Sanctis. unless the sign of the Cross be applied, whether to the foreheads of the believers, or to the water wherewith they are regenerated, or to the oil wherewith they are anointed, or to the Sacrifice wherewith they are nourished, none of these are rightly administered. The Centuristes reciting this saying, affirm that, (18) Cent. 5. c. 6. Col. 657. He speaketh superstitiously. And D. Fulke acknowledgeth that, (19) Against Rhem. Test. in 1. Cor. 11.34. Indeed S. Austin in joan. Tract. 118. saith, that the sign of the Cross was a Ceremony used in all the Sacraments, which if it were not used, nothing of them is duly done: with whom agreed other Prot. reproving S. Austin for his Catholic doctrine of the sign of the Cross. And yet S. chrysostom (living in the same age with S. Austin) giveth like testimony for the Greek Church saying, (20) In Math ho. 55. All things which help to our salvation are perfected by the Cross for when we are regenerated, the Cross of our Lord is present, when we are nourished with the most sacred meat, when we take Orders every where and always that ensign of victory is at hand. So usually and generally was the sign of the Cross used, by the Fathers in the Administration of the holy Sacraments. And as concerning the signing of our foreheads with the sign of the Cross S. Austin saith, (21) Cont. Faust. Man. l. 11 c. 30. The people are marked in their foreheads with the sign of our Lord's Passion, in preservation of their safety. And he avoucheth, that, Christ (22) In Eu●ng. joan. Tract. 3. would not have a star to be his sign in the foreheads of the faithful but a Cross. Yea speaking of himself and his own practise, he glorieth of the Cross in these words, (23) In Ps. 141. & 46. I am so far from being ashamed of the Cross, that I do not keep the Cross of Christ in a hidden place, In joan. Tract. 36. but I carry it on my forehead. And speaking against a Pagan he saith, (24) In Ps. 141. Let him insult against Christ crucified, let me see the Cross of Christ in the foreheads of Kings. Surely all this is superstitious with Protestants. Now to the many miracles wrought by the sign of the Cross, and by us objected in this behalf, from the Fathers, D. Covell avoucheth that, (25) Answ. to Burges. p 138. No man can deny but that God manifested his power, to the amazement of the world in this contemptible sign, as being the instrument of many miracles. And H●spinian confesseth that, (26) De Templis. p. 301. Austin telleth many true miracles done by the sign of the Cross, and the Devil put to flight. De Ciu. Dei. l. 22. c. 8. And whereas (27) Aug. serm de Temp. ser. 130. Orig and the rest in Comment. in Mat. 24.30. S. Austin, Origen, Chrisostome, Hierome, Hilary, Theophilact, Euthimius and Bede do teach, that at the day of judgement Christ will come, with the sign of the Cross before him, the same is defended by the Prot. Trig. saying, (28) True Catholic. p. 295. Gualther of famous memory so expounds Matthew 24.30. And by the sign of the son of man, he understandeth the Cross, these be his words: Most of the Ancient Fathers expound the Cross to be this sign etc. Also Thomas Cowper Bishop of Lincoln said, My Brethrens, can you not endure that sign to be made here upon Earth, which before the coming of the judge shallbe conspicuous in heaven? Wherhfore though Prot. and Devils cannot endure the sign of the Cross, yet Christ, and his true servants will ever honour it. SECT. iv That Protestant writers do acknowledge and allow the use of Images in Churches: and that due honour may be exhibited unto them. TO begin first with Wicliffists, Wicliffe himself confesseth that, (1) L. 18. Ep. 4●. It is evident, that Images may be well ●nd ill made; well, to excite, facilitate, and inflame the minds of the faithful, that they may more devouth worship their God. Again (2) De Euchar. c. 9 Therefore it is granted that Relics, Images, and Sacraments, are with wisdom to be worshipped. To come to the Hussites, john Husse acknowledgeth that (3) Count Im●ginum ado●ationem. Although before the Image of Christ or any Saint, men may lawfully kneel down, pray, sacrifice place candles and do so but yet they aught not to do those things in the Name of the Image but in the name of him whose Image it is: even as the Image not for itself, but for the thing drawn, is to be graved, placed, painted before men. Perzib●an alloweth the● placing in Church's, saying, (4) Cap. ●4. I profess that Images of Christ and his Saints, all secular indecency, in undecent worship omitted may lawfully be had and profitably kept in the Churches of Christians. So superstitiously Popish are the Hussites. The Lutherans also are no less faulty, for Doctor Luther (5) n Beza in Resp ad Acta Colloq. Montisb. part. alt. Praef p. 12. and Brentius were of opinion, that the Commandment in Exodus against graved things, was but peculiar to the jews, and Ceremonial. But Luther further teacheth that, (6) Centra cae●estes Prophetas. The spirit of Images-breakers is not good, it breatheth slaughters and seditions &c It is proved from Moses, that the Images of the Crucifix, and Saints are to be permitted. Again, (7) De Communione sub utraque specie. It is lawful to keep images, because God himself in the Old Testament commanded a brazen serpent to be erected, and a Cherubin at the golden Ark etc. Beza and jacobus (8) In Epitome. p. 39 Andrea's thought the making of Images, and which is more, even the placing of them in the Church, to be a matter of indifferency. (9) Exam. part. 4. p. 14. & 33. Chemnitius is also of the same mind, alleging Luther's testimony for the same. Bucer also saith, (10) In Centur. Epist. Theol. 170. We do not condemn the Image of Christ and of his Saints. And Brachman iustifyeth Images by way of demand and comparison thus, (11) In Centur. Exercit. Theol. Centur. 1. p 53. post med. What was the cause that (12) Exod. 25. God himself commanded to make two golden Cherubims & c? That therefore if it were lawful to paint oxen and lions in that most sacred Temple, why may it not be lawful for us in our Churches to have the Images of Christ himself, holy Angels, and of the Apostles? The (13) Fulke in his Def. of the Eng Transl of the Bibl. c. 3. pag. 1. 9 Lutherans yet retain the use of Sacred Images in their Churches. And Beza speaking of the Lutherans, maketh them as yet fare more chargeable, saying unto them. (14) Ad acta Co●loq. Montisb. resp. part. alt. p. 23. Vos autem etc. do not you. D. Luth●r himself leading you knecle down to your Crosses and Images of the Crucifi●e? Do you not also in token of reverence, light thereto in the day time, waxed Candles etc. and this how little and how great soever it be, is it not, I pray you, external and religious adoration, which being done unto the Image (is not as he there telleth them to be excused) by our pretence of carrying your mind to the Exemplar (or thing signified) for (saith he a little there before) the wiser Papists will answer, that they also exhibit this worship not to the Image of the Crucifix, but in mind to Christ himself. Fulke confesseth, that, (15) Def. of the Engl. Transl c. 3. p. 119. Lutherans have still Images in their Churches, and they are therein descended by sundry other (16) Father by answ. to certain object. pa. 83. & 53. Touchburne Antid. p 91. Bucer in Cent. Ep. Theo. p. 270. Pet. Mart. & Melanct. in Palmerus de Imag. sect. 374. 476. 471. Protestants. The book of Reformation in the time of King Henry the eight, which was allowed amongst others, by M. (17) Act. Mon. p. 1472. B. ant med. Latimer and Cranmer, affirmeth, (18) Act. Mon. supra. The worshipping of Images: which article was (19) Act. Mon. supra. written, and added by the King's hand. M. Thomas Bilney affirmed, and believed in plain terms the adoration of Images. Add that (20) In Cent. Exercit. Theol. cent. 1. q 19 p. 45. Brachman confesseth, that the Papists do not adore the Images themselves, but their first patterns. And again, they teach, that they do not adore the Images, but the things signified thereby Concerning the worship due to the sacred name of jesus, which is the same to the ear, that the Image is to the eye, and being lawful, proveth the like for Images; the same is appointed and allowed by the Injunctions (21) Art 52. made in the time of Q. Elizabeth, & it is defended by D. (22) Defence aga. Cartwright. tra. 21. c. 7. p. 74●. Wright in his Summons for sl●epers. p. 30. Whitguife and Leonard Wright. D. Fulke granteth that, (23) Ag. Rhem. Test. fol. 340. Capping or kneeling at the name of jesus, is of itself an indifferent thing, and therefore may be used etc. & that, it may be well used in sign of reverence to his Majesty. Musculus also saith, (24) Loc. come. in Explanat. 3. Precept. p. 59 Thou mayst found those who at the naming of their King do uncover their heads, or show some other sign of Reverence etc. And amongst Christians very many do make mention of God the Father, and of his son jesus Christ etc. without any sign of honour and reverence. This is plain blockishness. Caluin confesseth that, (25) In Math. 1.23. The Divine Majesty of Christ is so to be steemed of us in this Name, that it may gain that reverence with us, which is due to the One and Eternal God. Concerning the use of the sign of the Cross, Lu●her saith, (26) In Catechismo. When thou risest in the morning, first thing of all, thou shalt sign thyself with the sign of the holy Cross, saying, In nomine Patris, & Filij, & Spiritus Sancti. Amen. Other Prot. give testimony of the Lutherans doctrine herein, saying, (27) Descriptio & refut, caerim. Missae. p. 118. We do not disallow the sign of the holy Cross, if sometimes without superstition it be freely applied and used in the divine Offices; yea if our meat and drink be freely signed: for when we go to bed, or rise from bed, we sign ourselves with the Cross, according to the Instruction of Luther, and other godly men. M. Parker mentioneth, (28) Against Symboliz. part. 1. c. 2. sec. 30. A Catechism of Lutherans, which hath these words, Let the sign of the Cross be made in the forehead and breast of him that is to be baptised. And next after he further saith, Luther crossed himself every morning, and every evening, and is never seen painted, but praying before a Crucifix. And the like of Luther's practice is affirmed by Manlius (29) Loc. come. p. 636. Luther's own scholar. But to look nearer home, the Communion book in time of K. Edward the 6. (penned by advice and approbation of Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, and other Prot. Divines of that time, and printed Anno 1549.) prescribeth the Priests signing (30) Fol. 11●. of the Sacrament with the sign of the Cross, and the Priests like consecrating the (31) 131. Fountain of Baptism, with the sign of the Cross. SECT. V Objections from Scripture, urged by Protestants against the lawful use of Images, answered. SOme object that of Isay, (1) 40. 1●. to whom will you liken God, or what similitude will you set up unto him? The like may be objected out of other (2) Isai. 46.5. Deutr. 14.15.16. Act. 17.29. places. Answ. These places only concern such Images, as are adored and made for Gods, as may plainly be gathered out of the same places. But for more full answer, observe that a thing may be painted three ways: first, to express the perfect similitude of the form & nature of the thing itself, and thus only Corporal things can be painted, and in this sort to endeavour to paint God, is to make a true Idol. Secondly, to represent to our sight some history, as God almighty walking in Paradise in the shape of a man, Adam and Eve naked hiding themselves amongst the trees, and the Angel in man's shape with a sword in his hand. And thus to paint, were not to represent the nature of God or the Angel, but only by painting to exhibit that to the eyes, which another by reading the Scripture would exhibit to the ears. Thirdly, a thing may be painted without a history, to express the nature of the thing, not by any immediate or proper similitude as it is in itself, but by Analogy, or metaphorical and mystical signification; and so we paint Angels as young men, beautiful, , having wings, thereby to express their strength, agility, & glory: and both these ways may God & Angels be painted. The (3) Roger's Def. of the Art 21. p. 126. second objection is taken out of diverse (4) Exod. 20.4.5. Deut. 4.15 ●6. Leuit ●6. 1. Ps. 96.7. Rom. 1.23. places of Scripture, which seem to forbidden the making o● any similitude, as, Thou shalt not make any graved thing, neither any similitude etc. Thou shalt not bow down to them, neither serve them. To this S. Bede (5) De Templo Salomonis. c 19 answereth, that hereby is as plainly prohibited the making of any King's Image, or bowing down thereto, (7) Deut. 4.24. Levit. 26.2. Ps. 96.7. Rom. 1.23.15. Exod. 10.13. num. 26.1. Esa. 41.8. or to his Chair of Estate, the words being general, as the making of the Images of Christ and of his Saints, or worshipping them. Secondly, that hereby is only forbidden the making & adoring of Idols or false Gods, is manifest, even by the place objected, & the circumstances thereof, for it is said immediately before, (6) Deut. 20.3. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me: and after, Thou shalt not bow down to them for I am the Lord thy God: and see the like explication elsewhere often set down in the Scriptures. Yea this place is so impertinently urged, that Caluin as ashamed thereof saith, Moses (8) In Exod. 20.4. Edic. Gal. only speaketh of Idols. And a little after, That which some foolishly have thought, here to be condemned all graving and Images, needeth no Confutation, seeing Moses had no other intent, but to exempt the glory of God from all fictions, which tend to corrupt it. And upon that of Exodus, (9) Exod. 25.18. Thou shalt make two golden Cherubims, he affirmeth, (10) In Exod. 25.18. that they were Images that had wings, which did represent Angels. Some reply unto this, that both the jews and Gentiles did adore their true God in their Images, (11) Calu. Inst l. 1. c. 11. §. 9 10. not thinking the Images to be Gods, and yet such their worship was forbidden. But the falsehood of this reply is sundry ways discovered: for first the jews called their Idols expressly their Gods; (12) Exod. 32.4.8. ●. Reg 12.28. jud. 18.24. jerem. 2.28. Deut. ●2. 17. and so also did the Gentiles. (13) Dan. 5.4. Sap. 13.10. Secondly, whereas Caluin (14) Inst. l. 1. c. 11. §. 9 avoucheth, that the jews were not so unadvised, to forget that it was God by whose hands they had been brought out of Egypt: to the contrary it is directly said of them. (15) Deut 31.15.17. Thou hast forsaken God which made thee, and hast forgotten the Lord thy Creator. And elsewhere, (16) Ps. 105.19.11. They made a Calf in Horeb, and worshipped the graved thing: they forgot God their Saviour which had done great things in Egypt: And in another place, (17) Hier. 2.5.6. They have walked after vanity, and they have not said, where is our Lord that made us come out of the land of Egypt. Neither as Caluin (18) Inst. l. 1. c. 11 §. 8. further pretendeth, did they make these Images that thereby they might know that God was the guide of their journey: for if they desired a Corporal sign, they had already a Cloud, and a Pillar of fire, which were mo●e fit to guide them then a Calf, which of necessity must be carried: besides no cause can be given why they rather made a Calf, than a Sheep, or other thing, but because they were accustomed to see the great God of the Egyptians, which was a black (19) Cicero l. 1. de natura deorum. Aug. l. 18. de Ciu. Dei. c. 5. Calf with white spots called Apis. And also in vain had been that choice which joshua (20) joshua 24 15. offered the Hebrews, to serve the Gods which their Fathers served, or the Gods of the Amorites, or the true God. And Elias (21) 3. Reg. 18.21. ●a●ing, If the Lord be God, fellow him, if Baal be he, then go af●er him therein clearly opposeth Baal to the true God. And lastly that of Deutronomy, (22) 32. 17. They offered unto Devils, not to God, to Gods whom they know not, new Gods that came newly up. So clear it is, that the jews forsook the true God, and committed Idolatry in serving strange Gods. Concerning the Heathens or Gentiles, it is also certain that they adored in their Images false Gods, for the Prophets labouring to teach, that the Idols of gold and silver were not God, proved the same because they could not speak, (23) Esa. 46.67. Ps. 113.13.14.15.134.16.17. Abac. 2.19. Bar. 6.7 11.13 14. see etc. which had been in vain, if none had believed the same. And though Caluin (24) Inst. l. 1. c. 11 §. 9 Danaeus Contro. 7 p. 394. Zuing Resp. ad Va●entin. Tom. 1. fol. 247. and others would persuade us, that the Heathens were not so blockish, as to think there was no other God but stones, stocks etc. yet it is most manifest, that many of them were so blockish, as that they thought them to have sense, and life, and to be Gods: whereunto they were moved by the doctrine of the Priests, by the general conceit thereof almost through the whole world, and chief by the cunning of the Devil, by whose art the Idols seemed to move (25) Aug. de doct. Christ l. 3. c. 7. & ep. 49. & in Ps 113. & de Civit. l 8. c. 23. Arnobius l. 1. contra gentes. speak, and prophecy. Neither maketh it against this, that they changed their Idols, or made new ones, or made many for one God: for with the like ignorance, that they thought them Gods, with the like they thought they might make and destroy them at their pleasure: and having some in heaven, and some in Earth, they thought it no absurdity, that an heavenly God as jupiter, Apollo &c. might have many lesser Gods of the same nature in Earth. Lastly, both jews (26) Exod. 32.6.8. 1. Cor. 10.20. and Gentiles offered Sacrifice unto their Idols, which is a worship only proper to the true God. Thirdly the fact of Ezechias (27) 4. Reg. 10.4. pulling down the brazen Serpent, and breaking it in pieces, is objected against Images, which yet was a figure of Christ. The Answer is, The jews offered incense to it as to God, for with them it was not lawful for any to incense, but the Priest, which seemeth to argue, that they sacrificed unto it as to God, and so committed (28) 3 Reg. 11.32.33.2. Paral. 26.16.13. Idolatry A fourth objection is, An Image hath neither life, sense, nor reason, therefore it is not capable of honour. I answer, This only proveth that in regard of itself, it deserveth no honour, but it proveth not the same in regard of the relation which it hath to the Exemplar. Fiftly, some Images of Christ, or our Lady, are more for example frequented and reverenced, than others of the same in other places, therefore this argueth, that we place some divinity and virtue in the said Images. I answer, the more frequenting or reverencing of some Images than others, is not by reason of any supposed virtue, but either because God worketh miracles by some, and not by others (which also is the cause why we rather pray to one Saint than another) or else by reason of the sanctity of the maker of some; for some are thought to have been made by our (29) Euagrius l. 4. c. 26. Metaphrac●es in vita Constantini Magni. Damascen l. 1. de Imaginibus. Saviour, others by an (30) Euodius l. 2. de miraculis. Angel, others by S. (31) Theodorus. l. 1. Collectaneorum. Niceph. hist. l. 14. c. 2. Metaphr. in vita S. Lucae. Luke, and other (32) See Euseb. hist l. 2. c. 14. Sozom l. 5. c. 20. Damascen l 1. de Imag. Athanas. de Passione Imaginis Domin. c. 4. holy men: or lastly because some do more perfectly represent the Exemplar than others. Many object, that in favour of Images, we take away the second Commandment. Answ. Though our in Catechisms, which are made for a brief memorial or abstract or our Christian faith, we do not set down all the words at large which are in the Bible, as neither do we in sundry other Points of Christian Doctrine; yet having them in our Bible's as largely as Prot. have, if any thing could be produced from thence, against Images, it were much more forcible against us, then if it were in our Catechisms never so often. But beside, this difficulty is further solued thus; (33) Clemens Alex. l. 6. storm. Aug. q. 78. in Exo. Ep. 119. c. 12. Some divide the Decalogue so, as the Precept against graved things, and the adoring of any other but one God, is all one Precept; and so all graved things are not prohibited, but only such are taken for a strange God: and those of this opinion, do make these two, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, &, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours goods, to be distinct Precepts. Others (34) Philo l. Decalogo. of't. med. joseph. l. 3. Antiq. c. 6. 8. Orig. ho. 8. in Exod. Ambros. & Hier. in c. 6. ad Ephes. make the Precept, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, and his goods, to be all one, and so these divide the first Precept into two, making, Thou shalt not make to thyself any graved thing etc. and, Thou shalt not adore them nor worship them to be two distinct Precepts, and these consequently think, that the making of Images to adore them for Gods, is only prohibited by the second. Wherefore after what manner soever we divide the Commandments, not the making or use of Images, but the making or adoring them for Gods, is here only prohibited. CHAP. XVIII. The true State of the Question, concerning the Sacraments of the New Law conferring grace. Whether the Sacraments of the New Law do truly confer grace to the worthy receiver, as Gods Instrumental causes: or that they are only signs, and remembrances of grace received by Faith. SECT. I Catholic Doctrine. THE Holy Sacraments being ever esteemed amongst the principal means whereby the merits of Christ are to be applied unto us, and his heavenly Grace to be obtained to the remission of Sin, and the gaining of eternal glory: what the Catholic Church in this believeth, is clearly set down by the Council of Trent in these words: (1) Concil. Trident. Sess. 7. Can. 4. If any man shall say, that the Sacraments of the new Law are not necessary unto Salvation, but superfluous, and that men may obtain of God only by faith the grace of justification without them, or the desire of them, although all of them be not necessary to e●ery particular man etc. (2) Can. 5. Or that the Sacraments were ordained for nourishing of faith alone etc. (3) Can. 6. Or that the Sacraments of the new Law do not contain the grace which they signify or do not confer grace itself, to such as put no impediment, as though they were only external signs of Grace received by faith, or of justice, and certain badges of Christian Profession, whereby amongst men the faithful are distinguished from Infidel. etc. (4) Can. 10. Or if any shall say, that all Christians have power in the word, and in administering of the Sacraments etc. (5) Can. 11. Or that in the Ministers, when they do make or give the Sacraments, Intention is not required, at lest of doing what the Church doth; let him be accursed. The Council of Florence speaking of the Sacraments of the new Law, define●h that (6) Conc. Florenc. in Decret. Eugenij P. 4. They differ much from the Sacraments of the Old Law: for they did not cause grace, but did figure the same to be given through the Passion of Christ; but these ours do both contain grace, and give the same to the worthy receivers. And the like is taught by the Council of (7) Cap. 11. Moguntia. And so all (8) Bellar. de Sacram. l. 2. c. 3. etc. Rhem. Test. in Act. 21.17. etc. in Rom. 4.11. Catholics still teach, that the Sacraments instituted by Christ, are true instrumental causes of his grace, not only signifying, but truly conferring the same to the worthy receiver. Points Disputable. Some (9) Paludan. & Capreol. in 4. Dist. 1. q. 1. think that the Sacraments produce grace by some quality superadded, inherent in them, which some teach to be corporeal, others spiritual. (10) Sotus in 4. Dist. 1. q. 3. Alanus de Sacram. c. 36. Others only by the obediential power of the things sensible, by which all things created may serve God instrumentally for any effect. Some (11) Ledesmus in 4. Dist 1. q. 3. art. 1. Canus in relecti●ne de Sacram. and others in 4. Dist. 1 teach that the Sacraments are only moral Causes of justification: (12) D. Tho. 3. par. q. 61. art. 4. Others more truly, that they are causes physical. Some (13) Magist. Sent. in 4. Dist. 1. that the Sacraments of the old law, Circumcision excepted, do not justify ex opere operantis, through the faith and devotion of the Receiver. But others (14) Bellar. de effectu Sacram. l. 2. c. 13. more probably teach the contrary. Some (15) Alex. part. 49. 7. Memb. 7. art. 4. ●ouauent. Scotus, Gabr. in 4. Dist. 1. that Circumcision did confer grace ex opere operato. Others (16) D. Tho. 3. part. q. 70. art. 4. Capreolus, Sotus, ●edesmus, in 4. Dist. 1. deny it, ascribing only that power to the Sacraments of the New Law: and this is much more probable. Some (17) Ocham. Maior. Richar. in 4. Dist. 1. that a Sacrament cannot properly be defined, seeing it is either, aggregatum quoddam per accidens, seeing it consisteth of things and words; or Ens rationis, if it be formally taken. (18) Scotus Dist. 1. q. 1. Sotus. Dist. 1. q. 1. art. 2. Others, that a Sacrament is Ens rationis, & unum per se, and therefore may be defined imperfectly. (19) Bellar. de Sacram. in genere. l. 1. c. 10. Others, that if a Sacrament be taken morally, it may properly be defined, but not if it be taken physically. Some (20) Dom. Soto. in 4. Dist. 1. q. 1. ar. 1. Caiet. in 3. part. q. 60. art. 6. teach, that in the Sacraments the thing sensible, is the matter, whether it be things words, or both, and the signification to be the form. Others, (21) D. Tho. 3. p. q. 60. art. 6. that the Sacrament consisteth of things as the matter, and the words as the form. Others, (22) Durand. in 4. Dist. 1 q. 3. Adrian. q. 2. de Bap. that not all the Sacraments, but only some do consist of things, and words. Others, (23) Alex. 4. part. sum; q. 8. Mem. 3. art. 1. 3. that all the Sacraments of the new Law, do consist of things and words. Some (24) Duran. in 4. Dist. 4. q. 1. think that the Character imprinted by som● Sacraments is not any real thing distinct from the Soul. (25) Scotus dist. 6 q 9 Others that it is a real relation: (26) Bellar. de effectu Sacram. l. 2. c. 19 others an absolute quality, which some make to be inherent in the understanding, others in the will, and others in the substance of the Soul. But these are all points that may be disputed by Divines, not being defined by the Church. Protestant Untruths. Luther falsely saith of Catholics, (27) Serm. de Baptismo. They are enforced to ascribe so much to the Sacraments of the New Law, that they decree them to profit even those who are in mortal sins, neither faith or grace to be requisite, but to suffice, not to have put a bar, that is, an actual purpose not to sinne again etc. They say they profit the wicked and unbelievers, so that they put not the bar, as though incredulity were not of all things the most obstinate, and deadly bar of grace. But all this is mere forgery. He also accuseth (28) Ibid. the Master of the Sentences & Schoolmen, for that they writ only of the matter and form of Sacraments etc. but leave untouched the spirit, life, and use, that is, the truth of God's promise and our faith: But he, and they l. 4. Dist. 4. & 9 treat at large of the faith of the receiver, and true use of the Sacraments. He (29) In assert. 1. Articuli. maketh Scotus the first author of that opinion, that the Sacraments do confer grace to him that putteth not a bar. But the same was formerly taught by (30) C. Maiores de Baptismo. Innocentius 3. & S. (31) Ep. 23. ad Bonif. Austin. And he chargeth (32) In assert. 1. Articuli. the Scotistes, not to require in the use of the Sacraments, faith, good purpose, or good motion of the hart. But the contrary appeareth in their own (33) Scotus in 4. Dist. 4. q. 2. & q. 5. & dist. 17. q. 1. writings. Heshusius chargeth the Fathers of the Council of Trent to teach that, (34) De erroribus Pontific. lo● 15. de Sacramentis. Without external Papistical Ceremonies, neither the truth, nor dignity, nor efficacy of the Sacraments to consist. But no such thing is to be seen in the (35) See Sess. 7. Can. 13. Council. Protestant Doctrine. Prot. (36) Willet Synop. p. 418. Musculus loc. Com. c. de fignis Sacram. p. 299. teach that the Sacraments of the new Testament are no better in efficacy than were the Sacraments of the old. And that, (37) Willet. Synop. p. 145. they be only Seals of Righteousness, and not works of Grace. In so much that Caluin saith, (38) Instit. l. 4. c. 14. §. 23. Whatsoever he hath given us in the Sacraments, the same the jews in times past received in theirs. What virtue ours have, that also they perceived in theirs. Protestants agreed with Ancient Heretics. D. Whitaker confesseth that, (39) Cont. Duraeum l. 10. p. 883. Sar●er. loc. come ●o 1. de Bap fol. 232. The Manichees were accustomed to deny, sins to be forgiven and grace conferred in Baptism. For which also they are condemned by S. (40) ●a●. 46. Austin Petilian the Donatist taught that, The Baptism of john and Christ. were all one, for which he is impugned by Saint (41) L. 2. count lit. Petil. c. 32. 34. 37. Austin. The Messalians (42) Damascen. de Haeresibus. also were condemned for denying to the Sacraments the power of Sanctification, which they ascribed to prayer. The (43) Guido de Arme●ijs. Error 16. Armenians taught, That the Sacraments of the new Law do not confer grace, and the selfsame you have lately heard to be taught by Protestants. Protestant Errors. The very word Sacrament is so hateful to Prot. that Zwinglius saith. (44) L. de vera & fall. Relig. c. de Sacram. I greatly wish that word Sacrament had never been received by the Germane. And the like dislike thereof show sundry other (45) Luther. l. de Captivit. Babyl. c. de matrim. Carolostad. l. de Imaginibus & Sacram. Caluin. Instit. l. 4. c. 14. §. 13. Protestants. In so much that Melancthon in his Common Places entitleth the Chapter wherein he treateth of Sacraments, De signis, Of signs. We (saith he) call signs, that which others call Sacraments. Caluin (46) Instit. l. 4. c 14. §. 4. Beza in summa Doct de re Sacramentaria. is of opinion that the words which with the Element maketh a Sacrament, are not any words of Consecration, but the Minister's Sermon preached aloud. I will not say (saith (47) L. de Missa privata. & unct. Sacerd. Luther) what the Papists say, that none of the Angels, nor Mary herself can consecrated: But I say to the contrary, that if the Devil himself should come, and I afterwards know the Devil so to have crept into the Office of the Pastor of the Church, in the shape of man, to be called to preach, and publicly in the Church to have taught, baptised, celebrated Mass, and absolved from sins & to have performed that Office according to the Institution of Christ, than we should be enforced to confess, that the Sacraments were not therefore without efficacy, but that we received true Baptism, true Gospel, true absolution, true Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. He also teacheth in sundry places that, (48) L. de Captivit. Babyl. c. de ordine. In Articulis à Leone 10. dam. art. 13. l. ad Pragenses de instituendis Ministris Ecclesiae. All Christians are Priests: and produceth several Examples (49) L. de Abroganda Missa. out of Scripture, to prove that women may preach. A great friend to women will Luther ever be. And so likewise to the Devil, whom he acknowledgeth may be a Minister, with power to preach, baptise, say Mass, consecrated the Sacrament etc. Luther, (50) De Captivit. Babyl. c. de Bap. & art. 12. a ●eone. damn. Calu. in Antidote Conc. Trid. Sess. 7. Can. 12. Chemnit. Exam. part. 2. p. 141. 154. 1045. Caluin, and other Prot. teach, That intention in the Minister is not required in the administration of Sacraments, but that the same are effectual though they be not given in the name of God, or seriously, but only in jest, or scorn. Whitaker avoucheth that, (51) Cont. Dur. li. 8. sect. 18. Paul expressly teacheth, the Israelites to have had indeed the selfsame Sacraments, which Christ hath given to us. Wherefore according to Prot. the very jews enjoyed the selfsame Sacraments, which Christians do. SECT. II. It is proved by Scriptures that the Sacraments of the New Law do truly confer grace to the worthy receiver. THe efficacy which Catholics ascribe to the holy Sacraments may first be proved by the difference betwixt S. john Baptists & Christ's baptism. S. john saith, (1) Mar. 1.8. Mat. 3.11. I have baptised you with water, but he shall baptise you with the holy Ghost; here so great difference is put between the efficacy of john, and Christ's Baptism, as between water and the Spirit: But the Baptism of john was sufficient to stir up & nourish faith, no less than the Baptism of Christ, therein being external ablution and the word of promise, for he preached not only the Baptism of Penance unto (2) Luc 3.3. remission of sins, but even the (3) Act. 19.4. faith in Christ jesus. Caluin here (4) Calu. in Mat. c. 3. replieth, that the difference of these two Baptsmes consisted only in this, that john was the Minister of the external Ceremony, and Christ the Author of the internal Sanctification: but this is easily confuted, because had it been so, john neither could, nor aught to have said, I baptise etc. he will baptise etc. as before; but should have said, I baptise, he doth baptise: neither would Saint Paul have commanded those to be baptised with the Baptism of Christ, whom he had already heard, to have been (5) Act. 19.3. ● 8.16.17. baptised before, with the Baptism of john. Neither will it suffice to answer with (7) In Act. 29. Caluin, that they were not baptised again, but only visibly received the gift of the holy Ghost; but against this the text is over plain; Hearing these things, they were baptised in the name of our Lord jesus. And when Paul had imposed hands on them, the holy Ghost came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. Agreeable to this, when (7) Act. 8.12.15.16.17. S. Philip had baptised many in Samaria, S. Peter and S. john coming thither afterwards prayed for them that they might receive the holy Ghost, for he was not yet come upon any of them, but they were only baptised in the name of our Lord jesus. Than did they impose their hands upon them and they received the holy Ghost. So different things are Baptism, & the receiving of the holy Ghost by the imposition of hands. Secondly Christ saith, (8) Mar. 16.16. he that believeth and is baptised shallbe saved. Here salvation which is not wrought but by justification, and washing away of sin, is attributed alike to Baptism, and to faith. To reply, that Baptism saveth, by stirring up faith, is insufficient; for first faith goeth before, whereas it is absurd to place the effect before the cause, even as it were absurd to say, he that is cured, and taketh physic etc. and so, seeing to hear the word of God, is truly the cause of faith, therefore the same in the Scriptures is set before, as, (9) Io. 5.24. he which heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath life everlasting: See the like (10) Io. 6.45. elsewhere. Besides Christ here joineth not the Sacrament with preaching, as Protestants do, but with faith, which is the effect of preaching: wherefore as faith according to Protestants doth immediately justify, by applying the merits of Christ, not by stirring up any other cause, why may not the same be said of Baptism, seeing Christ alike attributeth Salvation to both? Thirdly our Saviour saith, (11) Io. 3.3.5. Unless a man be borne again of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Here Baptism is plainly made the cause of our new birth, which cannot be said, by stirring up faith, for than it had been false to have said, Unless a man be borne again of water etc. seeing that faith, which according to them only iustifyeth, is otherwise sufficiently without Baptism stirred up. Caluin here again (12) In Comment. huius loci. & l. 4. Instit. c. 16. §. 25. answereth, that it is not spoken of the Sacrament of Baptism, but only of internal renovation, and so the sense to be, Unless a man be borne again of water, that is, of the holy Ghost, who cleanseth like water. But this is Idle, for if it were lawful thus to pervert the Scriptures, we might easily take away not only Baptism, but all other Mysteries. Secondly, water here is placed before the holy Ghost, whereas first to place the Exposition, and after the thing to be expounded, is most absurd. Thirdly the Ancient Fathers do generally (13) Cypr. l. 3. ad Quirin. Ambr. l. de Spir. S. c. 11. Hieron. in c. 16. Ezech. Aug. Chrysost. & Cyril. in Comment. huius loci. Basil. Nazian. Nyssen. Ser. de Bap. expound this place of the Sacrament of Baptism. Fourthly, of Baptism it is said, (14) Act. 2.38 & Act. 22. ●7. Do penance, and be every one of you baptised in the name of jesus-christ for remission of your sins. (15) Tit. 3 5. He hath saved us by the laver of Regeneration, (16) Ephes. 5.26. & 1 Pet. 3.21. cleansing her (viz. the Church) with the laver of water in the word. In which places is taught, that by Baptism a man hath his sins remitted, is cleansed and saved. Fiftly, of the efficacy of other Sacraments it is said. (17) Act 8.18. When Simon had seen that by the imposition of the hands of the Apostles, the holy Ghost was given etc. and again, (18) 2. Tim. 1.6. I admonish thee that thou resuscitate the grace of God, which is in thee by the imposition of my hands: these places cannot but be understood of the Sacraments of Confirmation and Orders: And here the impositions of hands is manifestly made the cause of the giving of grace & the holy Ghost; neither can it be said, that this they do by stirring up faith, for those upon whom hands were imposed, were already believers. SECT. III. Reasons in proof that the Sacraments do confer Grace. SEeing the Scriptures do refer the giving of Grace and remission of sins to the (19) Luc. 5.21. Godhead, to (20) Luc. 5.2. Christ, & to (21) Io 3 5. Act. 22.16. Tit. 3.5. 1. Pet. 3.21. Sacraments, yea unto the (22) Io. 20.23. Ministers thereof, none of these therefore is to be excluded, but an explication is to be made, in what fort every one of these conferreth and worketh the same: and here an example may be given in a man's writing, that as in the action thereof, the person of the writer is the principal Agent, his hand is the Instrument conjoined to his person, and his pen the instrument separated from his person, every one of these working in its kind, without injury of th'one to th'other: so likewise there is a semblable subordination in the other, the Godhead being the principal Agent, Christ's Humanity & Passion being likewise the instrumental, conjoined to the Godhead, and Sacraments as being the separated instrument. Sundry Prot. writers acknowledge every one of these in their (23) Chem. Exam part. 2. p. 17. Haffenr. loc. Theol. l. 3. p. 277. Andrea's Halthamerus in concilias. locorum pugnantium fol. 218. 212. degree to concur and work: the Godhead without dishonour to Christ's Passion, his Passion without offence to his Godhead, and lastly Sacraments by grace & virtue from the Godhead and Christ's Passion, and without dishonour to either: and understanding thus Sacraments to serve only as working instruments, there is (as (24) In Exa. part. 2. p. 21. Chemnitius confesseth) reserved to God his own glory. And this efficacy of inward grace thus attributed to Sacraments, is no more dishonourable to God, then were the like effects of corporal health referred to the brazen (25) Num. 21.9. Serpent, to the (26) Io. 5.2.3.4. Pond upon Probatica, to S. (27) Act. 19.12. Paul's Napkins, to S. (28) Act. 15.16. Peter's shadow, and our Saviour's (29) Mar. 5.28.29. garment; or then was Sampsons' strength being referred to the (30) judic. 16.17. hairs of his head, which as they were (31) Ibid. ver. 19.20. cut off, and did (32) Ibid. 22. grow again, so did his strength Ibid. 19 decrease, and (34) Ibid. 22. increase accordingly. And whereas it is commonly affirmed in Catholic books & Schools, that the Sacraments confer Grace ex opere perato, of the work wrought, this phrase of speech is used for two reasons, as (35) De effectu Sacram. l. 2. c. 1. Bellarmine observeth: first thereby to signify that Sacraments are not only signs of Grace, but also instruments instituted to work and confer the same. Secondly to exclude all efficacy in this behalf from the party that worketh; whose work (in distinction from other) is called opus operantis, the work of him that workteh, intending heeerby, that the efficacy of Sacraments resteth not in the worthiness of him that worketh, that is, of him that ministereth or receiveth the Sacrament, but, ex opere operato, of the work wrought in the Sacramental action itself, as it is instituted by Christ to that end. As for faith, & repentance, (36) Bellarm. ubi supra. we hold them to be needful dispositions for our receiving of the Sacramental grace, and such as may not be wanting in such as are of discretion, yet it is not our faith and repentance that worketh the Sacramental action itself, as it is the Institution of Christ. The second reason, is drawn from the nature of signs, which are of two sorts, the one Theorical, which doth only represent the object, not working any thing immediately, or by its own power, as the sign of a Tavern, or the like: and another practical, which worketh immediately, & by its own power: so a Seal doth not only represent the Image, but doth also impress the same in the wax. Protestants make Sacraments only signs of the former kind, affirming them not otherwise to justify, but by stirring up faith. But the same is disproved evidently, in that they may be rightly administered (37) Aug. l. 4. Confess. c. 4. & l. de adult. coniugijs c. 26. & 28. Leo Ep. 91. ad Theodorum. Concil. Carthag. 4. Can. 76. Arauficanum. 1. Can 12. to Infants, to the deaf, and to the mad, to whom to apply preaching or other signs only to stir up ●ayth, were foolish and vain. Thirdly if the Sacraments be bu● bore figures to stir up faith, than they might easily have been ordained by men, and have had the same power; for what skilleth it, to bore signification, who ordained them, so that they represent the same object; by whomsoever the sign is placed at the Inn, it representeth alike. The Hebrew words written by God in the Tables, do signify alike with the same written in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin by men: And the Trumpets (38) Num. 10.2. commanded by God to be made, do but in the like manner encourage to battle, as the trumpets of the Heathens. Now it is granted by the Protestants that the Sacraments could not be ordained by man but only by God. Fourthly, Scraments depend of God, not only in their Institution, but also in their use; for it is God who by his Ministers doth baptise, consecrated, absolve etc. And this truth is generally (39) Chrysost. ho. 83. in Mat. & Aug. Tract. 5. in joan. holden, and granted even by Protestants: But this dependence were not needful, if they were only bore and not working signs; for that words and other signs may only signify and move the mind by representation, it is impertinent from whom they proceed, for whether the Mr. or servant speak the same words, they do always signify the same thing. Fifthly, Sacraments ministered in Greek or Latin, are of no less efficacy than administered in the vulgar, which the party baptised, for example, peradventure only understandeth; so Protestants admit Catholic Baptism, which always is ministered in Latin. But this were false, if they wrought only in manner of a Sermon, which profi●eth only those who understand it: Besides the Sacraments only profit those who receive them, though many other present do see and behold the administration thereof, and yet all present may be stirred up to faith, the promise of God being denounced, and the visible sign put before their eyes; further, whilst the Priest saith, I Baptise thee, according to Prot. he doth not say, I wash away thy sins, but I testify to thee, thy sins to be forgiven: Now this testification profiteth not him that is baptised, according to them, but because in the mean time he thinketh and believeth, that God, through Christ is merciful unto him. But all present, may think and believe the same, the promise being general: for not therefore is God propitious unto him that is baptised, according to Protestants, because he is baptised; but therefore the Testification of Baptism is true, because God is merciful unto him, so that by faith he apprehended this mercy of God. Lastly if our Sacraments be but bore signs, than they do not excel nor differ from the Sacraments of the old law, which in the Scriptures are but little esteemed, (40) 1. Cor. 7.19. Circumcision is nothing, saith S. Paul: who also calleth the Old Sacraments, (41) Galat. 4.9. Weak, and poor Elements. SECT. iv That the Ancient Fathers do expound the Scriptures agreably with Catholics in proof of the Sacraments conferring grace. THe former texts of Scripture produced in proof that the Sacraments instituted by Christ, do confer grace, are in like sort interpreted by the Ancient fathers: of Baptism, S. Clemens Romanus writeth thus, (1) Epist. 4. But you will say peradventure, what doth the Baptism of water confer to the worship of God? First truly because Gods will therein is fulfiled: secondly, because the frailty of the former nativity, which came to you by man is cut of to one regenerated of water, and borne of God, and so at last you may come to salvation, otherwise, it is impossible: for so the true Prophet hath witnessed unto us with the Sacrament, saying, Verily I say unto you, unless a man be borne of living water, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven: and therefore make haste to these waters, for in these waters there is a certain mercy of him, who in the beginning was carried upon the waters, and he acknowledgeth those who are baptised under the Appellation of a threefold Sacrament, and doth deliver them from punishment to come, offering up their Souls to God consecrated by Baptism, as a certain gift. Fly therefore to these waters, for they are they alone, which can quench the fury of the fire to come: to which he which lingreth to come, it is manifest, that the Idol of Infidelity doth yet remain in him etc. With S. Clement agreeth Origen, saying, (2) Tract. 7. in Math. Much company followed jesus until he came beyond jordan, whom he also healed in those coasts of judea beyond jordan, where Baptism was given unto men, and peradventure therefore it is said of the Company following our Lord to the Baptism of jordan: and he healed them there, for all are truly saved from all their spiritual infirmities in Baptism. (3) Ho. 14. in Lucam. Again, Therefore also Infants are baptised, because by the Sacrament of Baptism the filthes of Nativity (or Original sin) are put away or cleansed, for unless a man be borne again of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. The Council of Nice decreeth thus of Baptism, (4) L. 3. de Sanct. Bapt. Our Baptism is not to be considered with the eyes of the body, but with the eyes of the mind. Dost thou see water? consider the power of God hidden in the waters, for the Gospel doth teach us, that we are baptised in the holy Ghost, and in fire, for in the faith of the Baptizer, & in the faith of the Baptised, by a holy Invocation consider the waters full of sanctification of the Spirit, and of divine fire: for he saith, he shall Baptise you with the holy Ghost and with fire, therefore he who is baptised descendeth full of sins, and obnoxious to the servitude of Corruption, and he ascendeth freed from this servitude and sin, being made a Child of God, and heir of his Grace, and coheir with Chr●st having put on Christ, as it is written: Whosoever you are who are baptised in Christ, you have put on Christ. S. Hierome for the power of Baptism writeth thus, (5) Epist 83. add Ocean. c. 2. All strumpets, and the public sinks of naughty company, impiety against God, incest with Parents and extraordinary carnal sins, the nature of either sex being changed, are purged by the fountain of Christ etc. all crimes are pardoned in Baptism: neither is severity to be feared after the judge's pardon, the Apostle saying, (6) 1. Cor. 6.11. And these things truly were some of you, but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord jesus Christ, and the spirit of our God, all sins are pardoned well and faithfully. What efficacy Baptism hath, and what grace the water sanstifyed in Christ hath, I will teach a little after. S. Gregory affirmeth that, (7) L. 4. moral. c. 3. Whosoever is not loosed by the water of regeneration, he is held bound with the bonds of the first gu●lt. And what with us availeth the water of Baptism the same wrought only faith amongst the Fathers of the Old Testament, either for their little ones, or the virtue of Sacrifice for them of ripe age, or the mystery of Circumcision, for them who came of the Stock of Abraham: for that every one is conceived with the sin of his first Parent, the Prophet testifieth saying, (8) Ps. 50.7. Behold I am conceived in iniquities, and in sins hath my mother conceived me: & because he whom the water of Salvation doth not wash, doth not escape the punishments of original sin, truth plainly witnesseth by itself saying, Unless a man be regenerated of water, and the holy Ghost he shall not have eternal life. Concerning Confirmation M. Hooker will tell us that, (9) Eccl. pol. l. 5 sect 66. The Fathers every where do impute unto Confirmation the safety or grace of the holy Ghost, not which makes us first Christian men, but when we are made such, assisteth us in all virtue, armeth us against temptation and sin. And in this truth the Fathers are approved by D. Covell, (10) Modest. Examinat. p. 192. & by the Communion Book turned into Latin, and printed at London Anno 1574. In so much that the Protestants are herein reprehended by the (11) Nichols in his Plea of the Innocent p. 25. Ministers of Lincoln Diocese in their Abridgement. p. 76. Carthw. in whitg. Def. p 7●6. Puritans. Concerning the Eucharistes conferring grace, S. Cyprian saith: But (12) De coena Domini. since our Lord said: do this in remembrance of me: this is my flesh: this is my blood: as often as it is done (to wit this mystery) with these words, and in this faith, this supersubstantial bread, and Cup consecrated, and offered to God by solemn benediction, it availeth for the life and Salvation of the whole man, being together a medicine and a holocaust, to heal our Infirmities, and to purge our iniquities. S. Basil the great speaking of the profit that cometh by often receiving, saith: (13) Epist. ad Caesaream Patriciam. To Communicate every day, and to participate of the holy bread and blood of Christ, is both amiable & very profitable, our Lord himself manifestly saying: he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath (14) Io. 6.54. eternal life; for who doubteth but the often participation of life, is nothing else but to live many ways? we therefore Communicate four times every week, Sunday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday, and other days if there shall happen any Commemoration of any Saint. The like Efficacy of the Sacrament of Penance, is taught by sundry Fathers, S. Ephrem saith, (15) De Poenit. & Conuers. Thou art good O Lord and merciful, and although once by rapine we have fallen, by penance we will study to be healed; and if like men we are violently carried away with our perturbations, let us not to the very end cast down our Courages, but acknowledging him God who hath called us, and the vocation wherewith we are called, let us hear him speaking; Do (16) Mat. 3.2. Penance for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For neither hath he limited his Penance upon some sins, and not upon others, but for every wound of our sin, that great Physician of our Souls, hath given us this great remedy. S. Chrisostome useth these words of admiration, (17) Ser. d● Poenit. O Pennance which forgivest sin God showing mercy, and openest Paradise, which healest the contrite man, and exhilaratest the heavy hearted, callest life from death, restorest our state, renewest honour, givest confidence, and reformest our strength, and pourest out most boundant grace! O Penance, what new thing shall I rehearse of thee? all things bound thou losest, all things loosed thou makest free, thou mitigatest all adversity, thou healest all contrite things, thou clearest all confused things, all desperate things thou encouragest! O Penance more glittering than gold, more bright than the sun, which sin doth not overcome, nor infirmity vanquish, nor desperation blot out, or extinguish! Pennance refuseth Covetousness, abhorreth Luxury, driveth away fury, strengtheneth love, treadeth underfoot pride, containeth the tongue, composeth manners, hateth malice, excludeth envy. O Pennance Mother of mercy, and Mistress of virtues, great are thy works, whereby thou losest the guilty, & dost repair the delinquents, helpest such as be fallen, recreatest such as despair, by thee Christ hath designed the Kingdom of heaven appropriated for us, saying; Do penance, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand. Pacianus his opinion is that, (18) Ep. 1. ad Simp●on. Novat. God would never threaten the unrepentant, unless he meant to pardon the Penitent: thou wilt say, only God alone can do this, it is true, but what he also doth by his Priests, is his power: for what is that which he saith unto the Apostles, (19) Mat. 16.19. What you bind upon Earth shall be bound also in heaven etc. to what end is this said, if it were not lawful for men to bind and lose? Or was this only lawful for the Apostles, therefore for them only it is lawful to baptise, and to give the holy Ghost? S. Ambrose teacheth that, (20) Exhort. ad agend. Poenit. A man baptised, if afterwards he shall become a forsaker and violater of the Sacrament he sinneth and driveth God for him: but if he do Penance from his whole hart, where God seethe, he shallbe saved; as God saw the hart of David, when being grievously reprehended by the Prophet, after God's terrible Comminations, he cried out aloud saying, I have sinned & immediately he heard, God hath taken away thy sin: how much do three syllables prevail, for three syllables are, peccau●, but in these three syllables the flame of the Sacrifice of his hart ascended to heaven etc. S. Hierome avoucheth that, (21) Ad c. 14 Ose The Novatians call themselves pure, when as they are the impurest of all, denying Penance, whereby sins are cleansed. according to that which is written; (22) Ps. 50.9. Thou shalt wash me, and I shallbe whiter then snow: & as it is in Esay, (23) Esa. 1.16. Wash ye be clean. But this laver he calleth not Baptism but every Penance which wasketh away the filth of sins. These & sundry other places of the fathers considered, it was no small impudence for Melancthon to say, (24) In Apol. art. 13. Not any one letter can be produced from the ancient writers, which doth help the Schoolmen in this matter. But this is contrary to the acknowledgement of his own Brethrens: for Luther saith, (25) L. count. Cochlaeum. But if there be any of the Fathers who hath thought the Sacraments to justify by their own virtue, though it be Austin, as Cochlaeus contendeth, I nothing care, they are the sayings of men. Agreably to which writeth Caluin, (26) L. 4. inst. c. 14. sect vlt. Peradventure those immoderate Commendations of the Sacraments, which are read in the Ancient writers, as that of Austin &c hath deceyved these miserable Sophisters. And again, (27) Instit. l. 4. c. 15 sec. 7. Chemnit. Exam. part. 1. p. 38. Let it trouble no man that the Ancient Fathers strive to make a difference between the one and the other (to wit, the Sacraments of the old Law, and New) their authority aught not to be such as to shake the Infallibility of Scriptures &c. neither is that quirk of Austin to be approved, that by the Baptism of john, sins are forgiven in hope, but by the Batisme of Christ, sins are forgiven in deed. And whereas S. Austin speaketh thus clearly, (28) In Ps. 73. There are some Sacraments giving Salvation, others promising the Saviour. The Sacraments of the New Testament give Salvation, the Sacraments of the Old Testament promise' the Saviour. This saying is so pregnant against P●ot. as that Musculus blusheth not to say, (29) Loc. come p. 299. See Calu. inst. l 4. c. 14. sect. vlt. It was spoken inconsiderately by Austin. Swinglius saith, (30) De Bap. fol. 701. It was a great error of the old Doctors, in that they supposed the external water of Baptism to be of any value, towards the purging of sin. So confessed are the Fathers. SECT. V That the learnedst Protestants do, agreably with Catholics, teach that the Sacraments of the New Law do confer grace to the worthy Receiver. THis Doctrine of the Efficacy of Sacraments conferring grace is so clearly convinced from sacred Scriptures & holy Fathers, that many Prot. subscribe to Catholics against their own brethren. Husse believeth, that, (1) In Ps. 117. The Sacraments of the old law did not justify etc. but the Sacraments of the New Law do justify. Haffenrefferus teacheth that, Loc. Theol. l. 3. p. 315. Baptism is not only a sign signifying regeneration, but it is the Instrument whereby God conferreth and worketh in us regeneration. jacobus (3) In Confut. Disp. joan. jacobi Grinaei. p. 187. Andraeas evidently (4) Ibid. supra. fine p. 187. 188. & 210. compareth Baptism to faith, and referreth to them both alike the force of justification, in so much as he reproveth Grinaeus for denying, that the force of justification, was to be attributed to Sacraments. Beza is also charged with error, (5) jacobus Andraeas in Epitome. Colloq. Montisb, p. 58. prope i●it. for that he affirmed it, mere Idolatry to assign any intrinsical force to Sacraments: and in like manner he is further reprehended for understanding Metaphorically (6) Ibid. p. 42. the former Scriptures alleged concerning Baptism. Adamus Francisci reprehendeth the Swinglians and Caluinistes, saying of them, (7) In Margarita Theol. loc. 24. de Bapt. pa. 221. They dare impudently writ that Baptism properly speaking is not the laver of Regeneration, but figuratively by a Sacramental Metonymia. Chemnitius teacheth expressly that, (8) Examen. Conc. Trid. part. 2. p. 52. Baptism is a mean or Instrument, by which is made a Communication of Christ's benefits, and having produced in proof thereof the sundry texts before alleged, he saith of them, (9) Exam. part. 2. p. 20. These be most manifest testimonies, which do expressly attribute efficacy to Sacraments, and that, they are not to be perverted (10) Ib. prope fin. by tropes from the natural sense, which the signification of the words doth afford. And he further explaineth this truth, saying, (11) Exam. part. 2. p. 17. Those things that are necessary to Salvation, are to be distinguished, as Christ meriting the Father Lord (or giver,) the instruments, or Sacraments etc. by which the holy Ghost doth offer and apply those benefits of the New Testament etc. Every one of these in their manner and degree, are ordained for our salvation etc. It doth not follow, The Sacraments are necessary to salvation, therefore not Christ alone by his merit hath gained it for us. The like Explanation is made by Haffenrefferus, teaching that (12) Loc. Theol. l. 3. p. 277. We are saved by Christ's merit, we are saved by the Sacraments, we are saved by faith, a peculiar respect being reserved for every one. Which is directly our Catholic faith. In like manner Benedict Morgensterne not only affirmeth that, (13) In Tra. de Ecclesia p 74. paulo ante med. Baptism is not only the Seal of Grace and justification, but also doth regenerate. But he reproveth (14) Ib. Initio. as well Caluin for his contrary doctrine, as also Vrsinus, for affirming the aforesaid texts of Scripture to be improper (15) Ib. p. 73. or figurative. Luther expressly teacheth that, (16) In Sermonibus Conuivalibus, titulo de Sacramento Altaris. The Sacraments of the New Law are not only bore signs, such as were in the Old Testament, but they work remission of sins, justice and salvation in them who use them with true faith. Again, (17) Ep. Count Regem Angliae. The Swermery Sacramentaries are to be detested, who esteem the Sacraments for external signs, wherewith Christians are marked, as sheep with read roddle. But to omit certain (18) See Philip. Marbachius in Disp. Theol. de sacr. Bap. Sacram. sect. 76. 77. 87. 96. see Lobechius Disp. Theol. 1. p. 22. & Disp. 15 p. 331. Schlus. in Theol. Caluin. l. 1. f. 58. Amandus' Polanus in Partit. Theol. l. 1 pag. selb. 239. Calu. Instit. c. 12. de coena Domini. others, and to come unto some of our own writers at home, one of them doubteth not to reprove his Puritan Brethrens for extenuating the force of Baptism, (19) The book entitled Quarimonia Ecclesiae. p. 79. Our New Reformers make no great reckoning of Baptism, and in that point from their Brethrens the Anabaptistes are wont to differ, though more fearfully, and more diffidently. D. Bilson also teacheth that, (20) In his true difference between Christian subjects. part. 4. p. 539. Christ hath annexed Grace to his Sacraments, and power to his creatures after an unspeakable manner, and he disliketh (21) Ibid. p. 591. them who affirm and defend, that the Sacraments do only signify, and not exhibit grace: affirming of Children that, (22) Ib. p. 368. post med they are new borne of water and the holy Ghost. M. Hooker also is so full and plain (23) In his Eccl. Pol. l. 5. sec. 57 p. 127. 128. & p. 132. in this question, that he is therefore reproved by a late (24) See the Chr. letter to the Reverend man M. Rich. Hook. p. 27. writer. I omit D. Whitgui●t (25) Defence. p. 527. and M. (26) Ibid. p. 532. Cartwright. M. D. Whitaker doubteth not to say, (27) Cont. Camp. rat. 8. That Baptism is the conduit of Grace, it deriveth Christ's merits unto us: neither doth it only signify salvation but doth also perform and bring the same: Yea he alloweth herein (28) Cont. Duraeum l. 8. p. 664. Alani sententiam, the opinion of D. Allen, affirming (29) Ib, with him that, God doth work grace in the soul of m●n by his Sacraments, as by an Instrumental cause and no less truly than a man is said to writ by his pen. Which Example for comparison of writing with the pen, is in M. Parkins judgement so pregnant for Catholics, and so directly against the Protestants, that (30) In his reformed Cath. p. 292. 293. he to that end mentioneth and rejecteth the same. D. Covell writeth thus catholicly, (31) Defence of M. Hook. art. 14. p. 96. That saving grace which Christ originally is, or hath for the general good of his own Church, by Sacraments he severally deriveth unto every member thereof etc. Now, Agent causes we know are of two sorts, the Principal, which worketh by virtue of his form, as fire maketh hoa●, and thus nothing can 'cause grace but God himself: the Instrumental which worketh, not as the other etc. but only by that motion which it hath from the principal and first Agent; thus do Sacraments work. And somewhat after he therefore saith, (32) P 98. For God doth justify by the Sacraments. And yet further, (33) P. 99 Sacraments passively may by the work done afford Grace, for in that justification and means of righteousness, whereof man is made partaker by the Sacraments, many things do concur: first on God's behalf, a will, that we should use those sensible Elements: on Christ's behalf, his Passion, from which the Sacraments have their virtue etc. In respect of the Sacrament itself, the external action which ariseth out of the fit application of the matter and form● of Sacraments: Now, that which in all this actually and Instrumentally bringeth Grace is the external action, which is commonly called the Sacrament. Not Catholic writeth more plainly for the Sacraments conferring Grace, than D. Covell. Lobechius a Lutheran Doctor and Professor of Divinity, is so confident in this truth, as that he explaineth the matter, and answereth the Zwinglians Objections, (34) Disp. Theol. etc. p. 331. 332. The objections made by Zwinglians (saith he) are easily answered: If the Sacraments (say they) do confer grace, and apply the promise of grace, & save, than they shallbe made equal with the holy Ghost, and with the merit of Christ etc. I answer: The efficient cause of Salvation is only God, the material cause is only Christ etc. The Instrumental causes by which God the Father doth communicate his grace to the faithful are the Sacraments etc. therefore there is a double agent cause etc. the principal and instrumental. SECT. VI Objections from Scripture, in proof that the Sacraments do not confer Grace, answered. LVther (1) In Babylon. c. de Bap. & in assert. art. 1. objecteth these words of Christ, (2) Mar. 16.16. He that believeth and is baptised, shallbe saved, but he that believeth not shallbe condemned: From whence he argueth first thus, he that believeth and is baptised is saved, he that believeth not, is damned, though he be baptised: therefore not Baptism, but only faith saveth. Again, Christ said, He that believeth not, shallbe condemned, but he said not, he that is not baptised shallbe condemned; therefore Baptism is not necessary to justification. Answ. The first Consequence is false, for from that Antecedent, is only truly inferred, that therefore, not only Baptism saveth; for by the like reason I might conclude, that S. Paul affirming. (3) 1. Cor. 23.1. faith without Charity not to profit, therefore faith nothing profiteth. To the second, Christ said not, He that is not baptised shallbe condemned, not that this is not most true, when it is the party's fault that he is not baptised, seeing the same Christ said, (4) Io. 3.5. Unless one be borne again of water and the holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven: but because it was not needful to say it, it being of itself understood by those other words, He that believeth not, shallbe condemned: for he that believeth not, consequently will not be baptised, and although he would, yet it would not profit him. Now in the affirmation it is requisite to add baptism to faith, because not every one who believeth is baptised. Arguments drawn thus from genus to species, are of force negatively, as, He is not a living creature, Ergo, not a man: but not affirmatively: It is a living creature, Ergo, a man. Some object all such (5) Habac. 2. Rom. 1. Heb. 10. Rom. 4. & 10. texts of Scriptures as affirm, that a man is justified by faith, therefore (say Prot.) he is not justified by the Sacraments. Answ. No text affirmeth that a man is justified only by faith, and therefore there may be place left also for the Sacraments to justify. For otherwise God and Christ's merits should also be excluded from the working of justification. Wherefore as justification is ascribed to faith, so also is it often ascribed to the Sacraments, as I have formerly (6) See next before sect. 2. proved. Zuinglius urgeth those words, (7) Luc. 5.21. Who can forgive sins but only God? The Pharisees (saith (8) L. de vera & falsa Relig. Zwinglius) understood that God only, not the Sacraments, could justify: according to that, (9) Isa. 43.25. I am he that blots out iniquities. Answ. It seems Zwinglius desireth rather to believe the Pharisees, than Christ our Saviour: for if the Pharisees said, who can forgive sins but only God? Christ also in answer thereto said, but that you may know that the son of man hath power in Earth to forgive sins, he said unto the Paralyticke, take up thy bed. And so also he said unto men. (10) Io. 20.23. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, The words of Esay are understood of him, who by his own proper authority doth forgive sins, who is only God. CHAP. XIX. The true state of the Question, concerning the number of the Sacraments. Whether there be seven Sacraments instituted by Christ our Saviour: to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony: or only two, Baptism, and the Lords Supper. SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. IF the word Sacrament be distasteful to some Protestants (as I have formerly (1) See before Chap. 18. sect. 1. showed) much more will they dislike so great a number of them, as the Catholic Church decreeth in these words: (2) Conc. Trident. Sess. 7. Can. 1. If any man shall say, that the Sacraments of the new Law were not all of them instituted by our Lord jesus Christ, or that they are more, or fewer than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or that any of these seven are not truly and properly Sacraments, let him be accursed. In the Council of Florence it is defined, that (3) Decret. Eugenij P. 4. etc. Concil. Moguntin. 〈◊〉. 11. There are seven Sacraments of the new Law, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony etc. By Baptism we are spiritually borne again; By Confirmation we are increased in Grace, and strengthened in faith: being borne again and strengthened, we are nourished by the divine food of the Eucharist: And if by sin we incur the sickness of the Soul, by Penance we are spiritually cured: and both spiritually and corporally (as is best for the Soul) by Extreme Unction: By Order, the Church is governed, and spiritually multiplied: by Matrimony, it is corporally increased. The opinion (4) Bellarm. de Sacram. l. 2. c. 24. Rhem. Test. in Gal. 4.3. of Catholics is, and ever hath been, that the forenamed 7. Sacraments, are all of them truly and properly Sacraments instituted by Christ. Points Disputable. All Catholics holding the Sacrament of Confirmation; Some (5) S. Bonavent. Duran. & Adrian. in 4. Dist. 7. hold, that by Dispensation it may not be administered by a Priest: but others (6) S. Tho. 3. p. q. 72. ar. 11. more truly teach the contrary. Some, (7) Canus. that the matter thereof substantially consisteth in Oil & Balm, but disiunctively, as integral parts of the matter. (8) Sotus di. 7. q. Vnica. art. 2. Others, that both jointly are of the substance of the matter, and so of necessity of the Sacrament. Others (9) Caiet. in 3. p. art. 2. Navarre. in Manuali. c. 22 n. 8. Victor. in sum. de Sacram. q. 41. yet more probably, that in the Oil consisteth the matter of the substance thereof, and so is of necessity of the Sacrament. And that the Balm is only of necessity of Precept, whether Ecclesiastical, or from Christ. Some (10) Richar. Dist. 7. art. 5. q. 1. Palud. q. 4. silvest verbo, Confirmatio. n 3. think, that by Precept divine, or Ecclesiastical, this Sacrament is necessary to Salvation: Others (11) D Th. 3. p. q. 71. art. 1. & 8. better the contrary, if contempt be wanting. All acknowledge Orders to be a Sacrament: some (12) Canonistae ap. Navar. in Man. c. 22 n ●8. make nine degrees, adding the degree of Bishop, and first Tonsure. Others (13) Tilman. l. de Sacram c. 3. add yet Singers. Others (14) S. ●h q. 7. art. 2. Alex. 4. part. q. 79. mem. 8. only make seven, & (15) Altisiodor. l. 4. Sum. c de Ord. q 1. Waldens. Tom. 2. de Sacram. c. 116. Caiet. Tom. 1. opusc. Tract. 11. others 8. adding the degree of Bishop. Some, (16) Durand. in 4 Dist. 24. q. 2. See Victoria. q. 226. de Sacram. & Caiet. Tom. 1. Tra 11 of all these degrees think only Priesthood to be a Sacrament. (17) Sotus in 4. Dist. 4 q 1. art. 4. Nau. in Man. c. 22 n. 18. Others the 3. greater Orders, excluding the lesser. Others (18) S. Th. q. 37. art. 2. & l. 4. count gent. c. 65. S. Bonavent. in 4. Dist. 24. art. 2. q. 4. most probably, think the greater and lesser Orders to be a Sacrament. Some (19) Durand. in 4. Dist. 24. q. 2. Palud. 19 q. 7. Navarre. in Man. c. 22 n 18. most probably think, the degree of Bishop to be of itself a Sacrament. (20) S. Bonau. Albertus' M. Richard. in 4. Dist. ●4. Others think that it doth not differ from Priesthood, and other Orders. Some (21) Dom. Sotus. dist. ●4. q. 1. art. 4. think that imposition of hands, is only accidental in the Ordination of Priests and Deacons; and the giving of the Instruments, to wit, the Chalice, and the Patten to the Priest, and the Gospel to the Deacon to be only essential: But (22) Hosius in Confess. Polon. c. 50. Pet. Sotus lect. 5. De Sacram. Ordinis. others more probably, that imposition of hands is also matter essential to them. All believing Matrimony to be a Sacrament, some (23) Canus de locis. l. 8. c. 1. Gul. Parisiensis. l de Sacramentis, Tract. de Matrim. c. 9 q. 1. Schoolmen think, the matter thereof to be the mutual consent of the parties contracting, expressed by words of the time present: and the form to be the words of the Priest, wherewith he conjoineth them in Marriage. Others (24) Palud. in 4. Dist. 26. q. 4 Adrian. in 4. q. 1. Covarrwias' in Epitome l. 4. Decret. 2. part. c. 1. teach, that the parties contracting, are the matter, and their words expressing their consent, the form. Others (25) S. Tho. in 4. Dist. 26. q. 2. ar. 1. Dist. 1. Victoria q. 245. de Sac. Sotus Dist. 26 q 2. Art 3. that the words of the parties contracting are to themselves matter and form, so that the words of the party lastly expressing the consent, are the form, and the words of the first speaker, the matter. (26) Cancuista communiter super Caput, Tua nos. Extra. de sponsalibus. Navar. in Man. c. 22. n. 20. Others most probably, that the mutual consent is the matter, and the words or signs expressing the same, the form. Some (27) Canonista tum Glossa in cap. ex publico. Extra. de Conuers. coniug. Anton. 3 p. tit. 1. c. 21. §. 3. teach that the Pope may dispense in Matrimony contracted but not consummated: (28) Covarru. in Epit. l. 4. Decret. 2. par. c. 7. n. 13. Others deny it. Some (29) Alphons. à Castro l. 11. cont. haer. verbo, Nuptiae, haer. 3 Pet. à Soto. lect. 2. de Matrim. teach that Matrimony was a Sacrament in the Old Law, with the jews, and so not first instituted, but confirmed by Christ: But (30) S. Tho. in 4. Dist. 26. q. 2. art. 2. 3. S. Bona. in 4. Dist. 26. art. 2 q 2. Scotus Dist. 26. q. unica Conclus. 4 others much more truly teach, that it was first instituted by Christ, and doth excel in grace the marriages of the old Law. As touching Extreme Unction: some Th. Waldens. To. ●. de Sacram. c. 163. Alph. à Castro. l. de haer. verbo, Extrema Vnctio. think, that the Apostles did administer the Sacrament of Extreme Unction when they anointed the sick, cured them. Mar. 6. but others (32) jansen. in c. 6. Mar. Dom. à Soto. Dist. 23. q. 1. art. 1. more probably teach, that this was only a figure or shadow thereof. None of these differences are defined by the Church. Protestant Untruths. Caluin affirmeth, that the Inst. l. 4. c. 19 §. 12. Ancient (writers) when they speak properly, do no where mention more than two Sacraments: but this ●o be false is clear by S. Cyprian (34) L. 2. Ep. 1. & S. Austin (35) Aug. l. 2. cont. Ep. Petil. c. 100L. He also avoucheth, that (36) Inst. l. 4. c. 19 § 12. Austin plainly affirmeth that imposition of hands (or Confirmation) is nothing else but prayer. But S. Austin himself saith, (37) L. 2. cont. lit. Petil. c. 104. The Sacrament of Chrism, in the kind of visible signs, is holy, even as Baptism itself. Chemnitius teacheth, that, (38) Exam. ad Sess. 4. in fine Disput. de Traditionibus. Silvester invented the Confirmation of Children: But this is no where read of him. And there are Decrees (39) De Consecrat. Dist. 4. Can. in Catechismo. & Can. Non plures. & Dist. 5. Can. 1. 2. etc. of Pope's more Ancient then S. Silvester, where not the Sacrament itself, but some other Ceremonies concerning the administration thereof, are ordained. Yea Chemnitius (40) Exam. part. 2. p. 198. himself deriveth Unction of Chrism from Montanus, and addeth, that it was confuted by S. Hierome. But whereas many (41) Epiph. haer. 48. Eusebius Hist. l 4. c. 14. Clem. Alex. storm. 4. Philastrius in Catal. Hier. Ep. ad Marcellam. Aug. haer. 26. Theodoret. lib. 3. de Fab haer. Damasc. l. de 100 haer. Fathers do writ against the Errors of Montanus, not one of them mentioneth or numbereth this amongst his Errors: neither doth S. Hierome (42) Dial. con●. Lucifer. in the place objected confute any such matter. Caluin (43) Inst. l. 4. c. 19 §. 24. affirmeth, that Minor Orders are a late Invention; not where read of but in the Sorbonistes, and Canonistes. But before all Sorbonistes and Canonistes, they were mentioned by S. Isidore, (44) Isid. l. 7. Etym. c. 12. Conc Carth 4. a. c. 1. ad 10. ●●er in c. 2 ad Tit & Ep. ad Nepoti●n. Conc. Laod. c. 24. Cornel. apud Euseb. Hist. l. 6 c. 3●. Ignat. Ep. ad ●ntiochenses. by the 4. Carthage Council. by S. Hierome, by the Council of Laodicea, by S. Cornelius, and by S. Ignatius. Caluin (45) Instit l. 4. c. 19 § 34. teacheth, that Matrimony was not holden for a Sacrament before the time of S. Gregory: but this to be false is convinced by S. (46) L. de bono coniug. c. 18. & l. 1. de nupt. & concupisc. c. 10. Austin. He also (47) Iust. l. 4. c. 19 § 36. affirmeth that we call it impurity and pollution: and Chemnitius (48) Exam. part 2. pag. 1207. in proof thereof allegeth Siricius in his Epistle to Himerius: but Siricius only speaketh against Priest's marriages, which he calleth Sacrilege: and in the like sense, that it is said, (49) Apoc. 14. Those are they who with women are not defiled, for they are Virgins, may Marriage be called impurity. Caluin (50) Inst. l. 4. c. 19 §. 10. urgeth from Sigebert, that Extreme Unction was instituted by Innocentius the first, and (51) Exam. part. 2. p. 1135. Chemnitius by Faelix the fourth. But this Faelix living above an 100 years after Innocentius, Chemnitius is answered by Caluin; and as for Sigebert, he relateth only that which is to be seen in (52) Ep. 1. c. 8. Innocentius his Epistle, where he affirmeth it to be a Sacrament, and allegeth S. james in proof thereof: but there is no intimation of any Institution by Innocentius. Protestant Doctrine. The English Prot. Church hath Decreed, that, (53) Article 25. There are 2. Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the supper of the Lord. Those 5. commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme-Vnction, are not to be accounted for Sacraments of the Gospel being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments, with Baptism and the Lords Supper, for that they have not any visible sign, or Ceremony ordained of God. Other Prot. teach that the●e are 3. Sacraments, others that there are 4. others 7. all which I shall show (54) See hereafter sect. 4. hereafter in the Section of Protestants. Protestants agreed with Ancient Heretics. The Sacrament of Confirmation was rejected by the (55) Theodoret. l. 3. de haer. Fab. de Novato. Novatians, (56) Conc. Nicen. 1 Can. 31. Arab. Conc. Ar●lat. 2. Can. 17. Arrians, (57) Optatus l. 1. cont. Parmen. Donatists, and (58) Guido Error. 21. Armen. Armenians Holy Chrism was spit upon, and trodden underfoot by the (59) Optat. l. 2. cont. Parm. Donatists, and despised by the (60) Theod l. 3. de haer. Fab. Novatians. The Sacrament of Penance was denied by the (61) Cyprian l. 4. c 2. Ambros. l. 4. de Poen. c. 2. Novatians. The Sacrament of Extreme Unction was rejected by the (62) Guido de haer. Arm. Armenians, (63) Guido de Waldensibus. Waldensians, and (64) Antoninus' 4. part. sum. tit. 11. c. 7. Albigenses. The Sacrament of holy Orders was denied by (65) Robert. Montensis in append. ad Sigebert, Tandemus, and by (66) Prateolus Verb. Mahomet. Mahomet. And Ae●ius was condemned by S. (67) Haer. 75. Epiphanius, and S. (68) Haer. 53. Austin for making Priests to be equal in authority by God's law with Bishops. And the Sacrament of Matrimony was impugned by the (69) Alphonsus Zamurensis. c. de Matrimonio. Armenians. All which heresies were condemned by the Ancient Fathers, and written of in those times, and yet are all renewed by the Sectaries of these days. Protestant Errors. Caluin (70) Instit. l. 4. c. 19 §. 11. professeth not to esteem Oil, whether in Baptism or Confirmation, so much as a little dung. And (71) Exam. part. 2. p. 314. Chemnitius deemeth it not impious for a traveller, having his boots hardened with heat, to anoint or grease them with this Chrism. Luther is in such dislike of Extreme unction, that he opposeth himself against S. james saying, (72) Lib. de Captivit. BaBylon. c. de Extrema Vnctione. If it were james the Apostle, I would say it were not lawful for Apostles by their own authority to institute a Sacrament etc. for this belongeth to Christ alone; as though S. james after the receiving of the holy Ghost, should err in a matter of such weight, or would assume to himself what is proper to Christ alone: but here you may see Luther's zeal and humility. Caluin, (73) Instit. l. 4. c. 19 §. vlt. Bucer in c. 19 Math. Brent. in Confess. Wittemb. c. de coniugio. Chemnit. Exam. part. 2. p. 1249. Melan●th. loc. Theol. Tit. de coniugio. Luther in c. 7. 1. ad Corinth. & l. de causis matrimontalibus. Bucer, Brentius, Chemnitius, and other Prot. teach that it is lawful in case of Adultery to have divorce, and the innocent party to marry another. Luther is a man of such indifferency, that, (74) In Genes. c. 16. He will neither being in Polygamy, nor condemn it: So that if one man have 4. or 5. wives at once, Luther will not reprove him for it. SECT. II. It is proved by Scriptures, that there are seven Sacraments instituted by Christ our Saviour. ALl parts agreed, that 3. things are necessary and sufficient to the Essence of a Sacrament. First, that it be an external and sensible sign: secondly, that it have a promise of grace annexed unto it: and thirdly, a Commandment, or at lest an institution of God, whereby it is commanded or ordained to be administered. Now, that none of these 3. things is wanting to any of the foresaid 7. Sacraments (for defect whereof they should be rejected for Sacraments, as they are by Protestant's) is proved first of Baptism, where the external sign is, (1) Ephes. 5.26. the laver of water; the Commandment, (2) Io. 3.5. unless a man be borne again of water etc. & elsewhere, (3) Mat. 28.19. Go therefore teach you all nations, baptising them in the name etc. the promise of grace annexed is, (4) Mar. 16. he that believeth & is baptised, shallbe saved. In the Eucharist the external sign is, (5) Mat. 26.26. he took bread and blessed, and broke etc. the commandment, (6) 1. Cor. 11.25. This do ye; and (7) Io. 6.53. unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man etc. you shall not have life in you: the promise of grace, (8) Io. 6.52.58. he that eateth this bread shall live for ever. In Confirmation, the Externall sign is the Imposition of hands, (9) Act. 8.18. And when Simon Magus saw that by the imposition of hands of the Apostles etc. And again (10) Act. 8.17. then they viz. Peter and john) put their hands upon them etc. the effect or promise' of Grace is, the holy Ghost was given; the Commandment from these Scriptures is deduced by necessary consequence; for what man can institute a Ceremony, upon the application whereof the Grace of the holy Ghost shall follow? And shall we think, that the Apostles would so confidently and so ordinarily have imposed hands, ●o communicate thereby the Grace of the holy Ghost, unless God had commanded it unto them? But the Apostles did confidently & ordinarily use imposition of hands upon the baptised, to the end that thereby the holy Ghost might come upon them, therefore it must needs follow, that herein either the Apostles did amiss (which were absurd to say) or else, that they had Commandment from Christ to do what they did, since they knew right well, that no man (11) Chem. Exam. part. 2. p. 13. could institute a Ceremony to which the Grace of the holy Ghost should infallibly follow. Now, that this Ceremony of Imposition of hands was ordinary and necessary, is proved by many places of holy Scriptures, as where it is said of S. Peter and S. john thus, (12) Act. 8.15.16.17.18.19. They prayed for them, that they might receive the holy Ghost, for as yet he was not come upon any of them, but they were only baptised in the name of our Lord jesus: then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that by Imposition of hands of the Apostles, the holy Ghost was given, he offered them money saying: Give unto me also this power, that upon whomsoever I lay hands he may receive the holy Ghost. Again, (13) Act. 19.6. when Paul had laid his hands upon them the holy Ghost came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. And in another place, (14) Heb. 6.2. Not laying again the foundation of Penance from dead works, & of faith towards God, of the Doctrine of Baptisms, and of Imposition of hands, and of the Resurrection of the dead, and of Eternal judgement. These places convince, that by the imposition of hands, the Holy Ghost, and his Grace were given by the Apostles. That Penance is a Sacrament of the New Law truly and properly, it is proved out of these words, (15) Io. 20.22.23. As my Father hath sent me, I also do sand you, when he had said this, he breathed upon them and he said to them, Receive ye the holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them, and whose you shall return, they are retained. Here we have an Externall rite or sign of the Acts of Contrition and Confession, manifested by the Penitent, & the judicial absolution of the Priest, uttered in those words, Whose sins you shall forgive. Secondly there is a Promise of Grace annexed vn●o them in these words, they are forgiven them. Thirdly we have a Commandment in these words, as my Father hath sent me, I do also sand you. And unto this Sacrament the Apostle alludeth saying, (16) 2. Cor. 5.18. God hath given unto us the ministry of reconciliation etc. That Extreme Unction is also a Sacrament true and proper, is likewise proved from these words of S. james, (17) jac. 5.14. Is any man sick amongst you? let him bring in the Priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, annoyling him with oil in the name of our Lord; and the Prayer of faith shall save the sick, & our Lord shall lift him up, and if he be in sins, they shallbe remitted him. Here is first the sign or external rite, Is any man sick amongst you? let him bring in the Priests of the Church, & let them pray over him, annoyling him with oil in the name of our Lord. Secondly here is a promise of grace. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and our Lord shall lift him up, and if he be in sins, they shallbe remitted him. Thirdly the Commandment is evidently gathered out of those general words, Is any man sick? let him etc. neither durst the Apostle so absolutely have promised so great an effect, as remission of sins thereby, if he had not received the same of our Saviour. Whitaker not able to deny, but that S. james commanded the sick to be annoyled, yet he numbereth this Argument amongst Sophisms: (18) Ad rat. 3 Camp. p. 43. james commandeth to anoint the sick, therefore the sick are to be anointed by us. As though Christians were not bound to obey the Apostles, and their writings. Molinaeus answereth that those words, (19) Scuto. part. 2. p. 51. If he be in sins, they shallbe forgiven him, do signify the same, That health shallbe restored him, the sins being forgiven, for which God had afflicted him. And he addeth, that (20) Ib. p. 52. Christ, Mat. 9 doth teach us, That to say to the sick man, Thy sins are forgiven thee, and to say arise and walk, are things equivalent. So that a Minister may say, Arise and walk, when he declareth remission of sins to the people. But what more absurd then to confounded remission of sins, with restoring to corporal health, as though these were but all one? That Order is a Sacrament, it is proved first, because here is the external rite, to wit, imposition of hands, (21) 1. Tim. 4.14. with imposition of the hands of Prieshood, or as it is elsewhere, (22) 2. Tim. 1.6. by the imposition of my hands. Secondly here is a promise of Grace, (23) 1. Tim. 4.14. Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which is given thee by Prophecy, with imposition of hands: and elsewhere, (24) 2. Tim. 1.6. I admonish thee that thou resuscitate the Grace of God, which is in thee by the imposition of my hands. And thirdly here is the Institution or Commandment, (25) Ephes' 4.11.12. And he gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and other some Evangelists, and other some Pastors and Doctors etc. But these three in the judgement of our Adversaries are sufficient to make a true and proper Sacrament of the New Law. Besides how could the Apostle know, grace to be given to Timothy by the imposition of hands, if he had not learned of God, by that sign Grace to be given? That Matrimony is also a Sacrament, is proved from those words spoken of Matrimony, (26) Eph 5.32. This is a great Sacrament: and although Protestants wrangle upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Original, yet it importeth as much as Sacramentum doth: & here the external sign is the visible Contract betwixt the man and woman; for of that the Apostle speaketh in the place cited, according to S Hierome (27) In hunc locum. & S. chrysostom. Secondly we have the Institution, where it is said, (28) Mat. 19.3. That therefore which God hath joined together, let no man separate. Thirdly the promise of grace is gathered by necessary inference, for that Matrimony amongst Christians, which is Conjunction of man and woman, doth signify the Conjunction betwixt Christ and his Church, which is by grace and Charity, not only in regard of conformity of nature, but also in spiritual love: but that cannot be signified unless besides the civil Contract, there were also a spiritual union of the minds of the husband and wife. Therefore since Almighty God hath for that end instituted matrimony amongst the faithful, no doubt he therein conferreth his grace, without which the said spiritual union cannot be had. And it might be confirmed out of other places of Scripture, (29) 1. Tim. 2.15. 1. Cor. 7.14.1. Thess. 4.4. as where it is said, by generation of Children the shallbe saved, if they remain in faith and love, and sanctification with sobriety. We find then in the Scriptures, that all things required to a true Sacrament, are also found in these seven. SECT. III. That the Ancient Fathers agreably with Catholics believed, and taught that there were seven Sacraments of the New Law. COncerning the number of the Sacraments, it is to be observed, that the Fathers not foreknowing our present Controversy thereof, did but speak of them, as also of other points of Faith casually, and as occasion was ministered, and so accordingly S. Austin sometimes mentioneth but one, sometimes two, and sometimes (1) In ps 103. con. 1. & de Bap. cont. Don. l. 5. c. 20. & Ep. 119. c. 7. more, therefore it is sufficient if the Fathers in this sort do make mention of all our Sacraments. And yet in our behalf the Testimony of Luther is very strong, who writing of this point, objecteth thus, (2) Tom. 2. Wittemb. de Captivit. Babyl. f. 84. But thou wilt say, what do you answer to Dionysius, who numbereth up six Sacraments etc. I answer (saith Luther) that h● alone of the old (writers) is to be had for seven Sacraments, although omitting Matrimony he only reciteth six. And the like is confessed of him by D. Humphrey, (3) jesuit. part. 2. p 519. who affirmeth that S. Dionysius in this respect displeased Luther. A great offence. (4) Exam. part. 2. p. 7. Chemnitius (5) Upon the folio 187. confesseth out of S. Cyprian, that he numbereth five Sacraments. And only evadeth that the Sermon de ablutione pedum, is not S. Cyprians, but forged under his name: but certainly it was the writing of an Ancient Author, who lived in the time of S. Cyprian; the book de operibus Cardinalibus Christi, whereof this Sermon is a parcel, being dedicated to Cornelius B. of Rome, in S. Cyprians time, and to whom S. Cyprian himself wrote, lib. 1. ep. 1. & 3. In so much as Erasmus in his Annotations annexed to Cyprians works, affirmeth it to be (5) Upon the folio 187. The work of some learned man of that age; and Fulke acknowledgeth that, (6) Against Rhem. Test. in 1 Cor. 11.20. sect. 6. The Author was not in time much inferior to Cyprian. In like sort where Tertullian casually mentioneth diverse of our Sacraments, namely, Baptism, Extreme-Vnction, Confirmation, Orders, and the Eucharist, saying most wittily (7) L. de resur. Caruis. c. 8 The flesh is washed, that the Soul may be cleansed, the flesh is anoyled that the Soul may be consecrated, the flesh is signed, that the Soul may be armed, the flesh is covered with imposition of hands, that the Soul may be enlightened with the Spirit, the flesh eateth the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be fattened to God. This saying is so displeasing to Prot. that Mr. Parker in great choler demandeth, (8) Ag. Symbol. part. 1. sect. 11. p 77. & part. 2. sect. 10. p. 13●. Who can brook it? S. Austin also teaching, (9) In Euang. joan. Tract. 118. Unless the sign of the Cross be applied, whether to the forehead of the believers (by Confirmation) or to the water wherewith they are regenerated (by Baptism) or to the Oil wherewith they are anointed (by Extreme-Vnction) or to the Sacrifice wherewith they are nourished (by the holy Eucharist) none of these are rightly administered. The Centurists (10) Cent. 5. c. 6. Col. 657. Fulke ag. Rhem. Test in 1. Cor. 11.34. and D. Fulke reciting this his saying, do reprove him for the same. And yet the like saying to this of S. Austin, is used by (11) In Math. ho. 55. S. chrysostom. But more in particular concerning Chrism or Confirmation, sundry (12) Ministers of Lincoln Diocese in their Abridgement p. 42. And see Perk. ag. Symbol. p. 1. p. 133. Protestants reprove Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, with Error of using the Cross in Confirming those that were baptised. M. Perkins saith, (13) Vol. 2. p. 653. This Unction pertained to Baptism in the West till above 300. years after Christ, for than was there another Confirmatory Unction devised by Melchiades, or as some say before him by Vrban the first, who lived about Anno 223. S. Cyprian teaching, that, (14) L. 1. ep. 1●. It is necessary that he who is baptised, receiving Chrism, should also be anointed, the (15) Cen. 3. col. 115. Centuristes reprove him for the same, affirming further, that in the Ancient times, Unction and imposition of hands followed Baptism, of which Tertulian etc. which custom Cyprian erroneously maketh necessary. (16) Exam. part. 2. p. 58. Chemnitius also reprehendeth S. Cyhrian for saying of Baptism and Confirmation, than they may be clearly sanctified, and become the sons of God, if they be borne of both Sacraments. Mr. (17) Against symbol. p. 133. Parker reproveth S. (18) Ep. ad jubaianum. Cyprian for terming the Oil, Signaculum Dominicum, our Lords Seal. And (19) Exam. part 2. p. 58. 64. 65. Chemnitius chargeth not only S. Cyprian, but also the Laodicean Council, Melchiades, Cornelius, and Tertulian for the Sacrament of Confirmation: for which also Danaeus reciteth and rejecteth sundry of the Ancient Fathers, in these words, (20) Resp. ad tom. 2. Bell, p. 451. 452. Ambrose favoureth over much his Siricius, and the Roman Bishops, who brought forth that Confirmation. Therefore what &c. Ambrose wrote, it is to be attributed to his Error, or favour towards the Pope of Rome, not to the truth: Hieromes' sentence against the Luciferians corrupteth the place of the 8. Chapter of the Acts: Austin was overwhelmed with the Error or shipwreck of his age. So general was this Doctrine in S. Austin's age. And others do report, that M. (21) Confer. at Hampt. Court p. 10. 10. Downhams Def. l. 4. p. 23. Whitguift showed at large the Antiquity of Confirmation, as being used in the Church eversince the Apostles times. And sundry Puritans charge (22) Abridgement. p. 41. Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, with Error of using the Cross, in confirming those that were baptised. Concerning holy Orders, to omit that already it is confessed here, that S. Cyprian, Tertullian, and S. Denis, did teach them to be truly a Sacrament, numbering them amongst the rest: the very Minores Ordines, inferior Orders of Deacons, Subdeacons', Readers, Exorcists, Acolytes, are so plainly taught in the Primitive Church, that D. Field maketh (23) Of the Church. l. 5. p. 121. Osiand. Cent. 1. p 131. no question, but these Minor Orders were very ancient; alleging in proof thereof, the testimonies of Cyprian, Cornelius and Ignatius; and for the same the (24) Cent. 4. Col. 873. 874. Centuristes allege the Fathers of the fourth Age. But (25) Tom. 6. Wittemb. f. 53. Luther confesseth, that S. Denis (S. Paul's Scholar) affirmeth that there are in the Church, Bishops, Deacons, Subdeacons', Lectours, Exorcists etc. That Matrimony is a Sacrament, S. Austin teacheth, that, (26) De nupt. & concup. l. 1. c. 10. A certain Sacrament of Marriage is commended to the faithful that are married, whereupon the Apostle saith, Husbands love your wives, as Christ loved the Church. This Doctrine is so clear in S. Austin and others Fathers, that Fulke granteth, that, (27) In Rhem. Test. in Eph. 5.32. sect. 5. Austin and some other of the Ancient Fathers take it, that matrimony is a great Mystery of the Conjunction of Christ, and his Church. In regard of which inseparable Conjunction, Melancthon acknowledgeth; that, (28) In Ep. ad Rom. c. 14. p. 367. The Milevitane Council, at which Austin was present &c. decreed concerning divorce, that the innocent party should not many again. Whereof also say the Centuristes, (29) Cent. 5. c. 4. Col. 519. etc. 10. Col. 1233. The opinion of Austin is, that it is not lawful for the Innocent party to marry again: for which also he is reprehended by (30) Exam, part. 2. p. 263. Chemnitius. Lastly, as touching Ex●reme Unction, S. Austin speaking of the sick, saith, (31) Tom. 9 de Rectitudine Cath. Conuersationis post medium. Let him ask of the Church holy Oil, wherewith his body may be anointed, according to the Apostle, james 5. And again, (32) Ser. de temp. 215. & de visit. Insir. l. 2. c. 4 Orig. ho. 2. in Levit. Prosper. de Praedict. l. 2. c. 29. Let him anoint his body, that it may be fulfilled in him, which is written, Is any man sick? let him bring in the Priests, & let them pray over him anointing him with Oil. S. Innocentius speaking of the same words of S. james saith, (33) Ep. ad Eugubin. Without doubt it is to be understood of the faithful being sick, who may be anointed with the holy Oil of Chrism. Affirming further that, Not only Priests in their sickles, but also lay persons in theirs, may have the benefit and use thereof. This is so clear in Innocentius, that Bale saith (34) Pageant of Popes. fol. 26. Of the annoyling of the sick, Innocentius hath made a Sacrament. Agreably to which writeth Szegedine, that (35) Speculum. Pontif. p. 33. Innocentius the first, and Felix the fourth have made a Sacrament of the annoyling of the si●ke. But to clear these good Popes of all Innovation, the Epistle of S. james is for this very cause rejected by Luther in these words, (46) But I say, if in any place it be foolishly written, in this especially etc. But if it were the Epistle of james the Apostle, I would say, that it were not lawful for an Apostle by his own authority to institute a Sacrament etc. for this belongeth to Christ alone. (36) Tom. 2. Wittem. de Captiu. Babyl. fol. 86. As though an Apostle would assume to himself the institution of a Sacrament, or any other authority that were not lawful. S. Chrisostome saith of the effect of this Sacrament, (37) L. 3. de Sacerd. they (speaking of Priests) do not only remit sins in Baptism, but afterwards also according to the saying of S. james, If any man be sick, let him bring in the Priests etc. And such is the confessed ancient use of Extreme Unction in the Church, that Whitaker answering to the Ancient Fathers objected testimonies in behalf thereof, saith, (38) Cont. Duraeum. l. 3. p. 650. I acknowledge the superstitious custom of this Unction to have continued longer in the Church then was meet. So confessedly were all the seven Sacraments taught, and believed by the Ancient Fathers. SECT. IU Protestant writers do teach, and confess the number of seven Sacraments agreably with Catholics. (4) Ib. p. 170. 171. COncerning Confirmation the English Communion Book turned into Latin, & printed (1) Anno Domini 1574. at London by ●homas Vautrollerius cum Privilegio saith, Confirmatio illis adhibetur etc. Confirmation is exhibited unto them that are baptised, that by Imposition of hands & prayer they may receive strength and defence against the invasion of sin, the world, and the Devil. This is so clear, that the Puritans with much dislike say, (2) Abridgement. p. 76. The Communion book giveth to Confirmation the definition of a Sacrament. In like manner doth Mr. Hooker acknowledge and affirm, not only the visible sign of (3) Eccl. Pol. l. 5. sect. 66. p. 169. laying on of hands hitherto always continued in Confirmation but also the gift or grace of the holy Ghost, which armeth us agayinst Temptation and sin. And aswell (5) Ib. pa. 170. See Whiteg. defence of the answer to the Admonition. Tract. 14 p. 582. 583. & 726. 727. he as other Prot. writers do affirm and prove the same from Scriptures. D. Covell saith, (6) Ag. the Plea of Innoc. p. 192. In Baptism we are regenerated to life, but in Confirmation we are strengthened to battle. As touching Orders, Melancthon defendeth it to be a Sacrament properly, saying, (7) Loc. come. Edit. 1536. Maximè autem placet etc. I like very well to have Orders (as they call it) numbered among the Sacraments. And in other his Common places (8) Edit. 1552. 1558. of later Edition, he not only calleth it a Sacrament, but affirmeth further, that it is commanded by the Gospel, and hath a promise annexed. In like manner doth (9) L. de vera & falsa relig. Zwinglius account it for a Sacrament, as also doth M. Hooker, in acknowledging therein not only the visible sign of (10) Eccl. Pol. l. 5. sect. 77. p. 230. hand imposing, but also the (11) Ibidem. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and gift (12) Ibidem prope init. of the spirit. Bilson also ack●owledgeth in like sort, the grace (13) Perp. Govern. p. 109. of the holy Ghost given by hands imposing: and allegeth M. Caluin (14) Ib post med. confessing that it is a kind of Sacrament, and saying thereof, (15) Caluin. cited Ibid. vide Calu. Instit. l. 4. c. 9 sect. 28 31. 32. etc. 14. §. 20. Libenter eo loco habeo: I willingly accept it for a Sacrament for there is a Ceremony of hand imposing a sure sign of spiritual Grace; and that I put it not the third in number of Sacraments, was (saith he) because it is not ordinary, nor common to all the faithful, but a special rite for a certain function. And hence it is, that in his treatise against (16) In Antidoto Concil. Trid. Sess. 7. Can. 1. the Tridentine Council, he rejected from the number of the 7. Sacraments, only the other four. (17) Chronol. c. 8. Clapham alleating Austin, Caluin, Bucer, Melancthon, and others, affirmeth it to be a Sacrament. As concerning Extreme Unction, the Divines in their Conference at Lipsia, whereat were present (as M. Sleydan (18) Histor. l 10. witnesseth) Melancthon, and other learned men of Lipsia and Wittemberge, acknowledge Extreme Unction to be a Sacrament: In so much as Illyricus doth therefore reprove them, saying, (19) L. de veris & falsis Adiaphoris. They have not obscurely restored as Sacraments, Confirmation Order, and Extreme Unction. Caluin speaking of Extreme Unction saith, (20) Comment. in lac. 5. 14. & in Antidote. Conc. Trid. ad Can. 1. de Sacram. in genere. I do truly confess, that it was used for a Sacrament, by the Disciples of Christ, neither do I assent unto them, who think it was a medicine. Again, (21) De vera Eccles. reform p. 330. As we Confess that Unction was a Sacrament, which the Apostles ministered for the curing of the sick, so we deny that it belongeth to us: Here Caluin confesseth it to be a Sacrament, and that the Apostles in their time did minister it, and yet it must not belong to us Christians, which is most ridiculous. As concerning the Sacrament of Absolution and Penance, Luther in a Tract. of his published a little before his death saith, (22) gassert. count. Lovan. Assert 35. We willingly acknowledge Penance with the power of the absolving keys to be a Sacrament, for it hath a Promise, and faith of Remission of sins from Christ. Also the Apology of the Confession of Augusta saith, (23) Vide Apol. Confess. August. Art 13. de numero & usu Sacram. f. 161. It is easy to judge which be properly Sacraments, therefore Baptism, the supper of our Lord, and Absolution are truly Sacraments, for these rites have the Commandment of God, and promise' of Grace: and of the same judgement, expressed also in the very same words, is their learned Divine (24) Margarita Theol. de Sacram. p. 116 117. john Spangeberge. Melancthon also saith, (25) Loc. come. Edit. 1536. de Sacram. numaro. The Sacrament of Penance is profitably numbered amongst the Sacraments. And again, (26) Ib. de Poenit. It is easy to judge which be Sacraments (namely saith he) Baptism, the supper of our Lord, and Absolution. And the same account is made aswell by Andrea's (27) In Conc. loc. Script. pugn. n. 191. f. 211. & n. 195. f 119. Athamerus, as also by (28) Loc. come. Tom. 1. de potest. Ecclesiae f. 305. Erasmus Sarrerius. As concerning Matrimony, Zwinglius seemeth (29) L. de vera & fals. relig. c. de Matrimonio. to acknowledge it for a Sacrament: Yet he is not willing that the name Sacrament be ascribed unto it, because he thinketh the word Marriage, or Wedlock, is much more excellent, than the word Sacrament. So this carnal Heretic. Melancthon acknowledgeth, that, Matrimony (30) In locis ultimo editis Anno 58. is a sign of a sacred thing, & hath a Commandment from God, and Promise' of Grace annexed unto it: only one thing (saith he) is wanting unto it, that it was before Christ. But this in his opinion can be no impediment, who teacheth that the Baptism of S. john Baptist was most truly a Sacrament, and the same with ours, and yet it was before Christ: wherefore as he thinketh Baptism to be a Sacrament, because it was received & confirmed by Christ, by the same reason he may think of Marriage. And to conclude, it is manifest that john hus (31) Vide Conc. Constant. Sess. 15. Act. 8. & Act. Mon p. 216. Huss. ad c. 5. Ep. jac. & the Waldenses (32) L. Lutheri ad Waldenses. did acknowledge with us, all the 7. Sacraments. And Benedict Morgensterne (33) Tract. de Ecclesia p. 150. 123. reproveth the Waldenses, for that, saith he. Cum Papistis septem Sacramenta numerant, with the Papists they number 7. Sacraments. Wiccliffe (34) Wicclif. in postilla super. 15. cap. Marci. & super. 1. Cor. 1. also believed 7. Sacraments. And so also, as Illyricus (35) In adhort. ad Constan. in agnita Christi relig. etc. witnesseth, did the Divines assembled at the Conference of Lipsia, as also at the Conference of Ratisbone (36) 1541. , whereat were present Melancthon and Bucer, and also, as M. Beza (37) In vita Caluini. affirmeth, john Caluin; there those Divines acknowledged 7. Sacraments. In so much that Bucer himself said thereof, (38) In Acts Colloq. Ratisb. Protestants none gravatim admiserunt septem Sacramenta, the Protestants willingly admitted 7. Sacraments. And Luther himself confesseth that, De Potestate Papae. Of all Ecclesiastical (men) it is the same Baptism, the same Church, the same Confirmation, the same word of God, the same Priesthood, the same of Penance, Unction, Marriage, and all Sacraments. Rokizana confidently writeth thus, (40) De Sacramentis in genere. I constantly say, that there are seven Sacraments of the New Law, Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, Matrimony. Perzibrane maketh this Confession of his faith in this point, (41) Cap. 8. I Confess, that the 7. Sacraments of the holy Church delivered by God the Author, and instituted by the Authority of his Apostles, are by all to be faithfully and inviolably believed, kept, and reverenced; which are, sacred Baptism, Confirmation, Order etc. But to conclude, you see the whole number of our Sacraments to be taught and believed by Hussites, Waldensians, Wiccliffistes, and Lutherans, and most of them also by the Caluinistes. Only I must wish the Christian Reader to advertise, that seeing Prot. (42) Luth. l. de notis Eccl. & Confess. August. & Apol. Art 7. do make a chief note of the true Church, to be the consent in the Doctrine of the Sacraments, yet themselves could never with Common consent agreed of the very number of them; some of them as you have heard, teaching 2. others 3. others 4. and diverse 7. From which disagreement in a matter of such weight, we may well hope that their Heresies cannot long continued, seeing every kingdom divided within itself, shallbe destroyed. In so much that Luther himself observeth, that, (43) In ps. 5. See also S. Hilar. l. 7. de Trinit. No heretics are overcome by force of craft, but by mutual dissension: neither doth Christ fight otherwise with them, then by sending amongst them the spirit of giddiness and dissension, as among the Sichimites, jud. 9 and as among the builders of the Tower of Babel, Gen. 11. and in the New Law amongst Arrians, Donatists, and Pelagians: to whom I may justly join Lutherans, Zwinglians, Caluinistes, Puritans, and all sorts of Protestants. SECT. V Containing certain Reasons, or Congruences establishing the number of seven Sacraments. FOr so much as by the Confession of M. Hooker, (44) Eccl. Pol. l. 5. sect. 57 p. 128. There have grown in the doctrine concerning Sacraments, many difficulties for want of distinct explication, what kind, or degree of grace doth belong unto each Sacrament, I will therefore explain the same under Example and resemblance of our Corporal life. In Baptism we are Io 33.5. borne again, and as (46) 1. Pet. 2.2. Infant's new borne, it being to us therefore the beginning, or laver of our spiritual (47) Tit. 3.5. regeneration: Original (48) True difference part. 4. p. 308. sin (as Bil●on accoucheth) being not remitted but in Baptism. Secondly, being hereby thus entered into the Infancy of our spiritual life, our B. Saviour did institute Confirmation, for our spiritual growth, strength (49) The Communion Book of Anno 1574. Hook. Eccl. Pol. l. 5. sect 66. and defence: which power, or strengthening, as our Saviour did (50) Luc 24.49. Act. 1 8. promise', so did he also perform the same; instituting to this end, the visible sign of Imposition (51) Act. 8.17.18. of hands, and the giving of the holy Ghost by the same, which gift though it was in the Apostles times accompanied with other miraculous gifts, as of languages etc. yet as M. Hooker (52) Eccl. Pol. l. 5 sect. 66. p. 170. confesseth, and answereth herto, the said miraculous gift, was not the principal effect of the then giving of the holy Ghost, but only an accident thereto, as being a miraculous external testimony, of the inward grace thereby conferred, necessary for the increase of faith in those times, as in like manner the unworthy receiving (53) 1. Cor. 11.39. of the Sacrament, the preaching (54) Mar. 16.17.18. of the word, were accompanied with like external testimony of miracles: and so also were offenders punished and excommunicated, accompanied with visible punishment, as appeareth by example of Ananias (55) Act. 5.5.10.11. and Saphira, the incestuous (56) 1. Cor. 5.4 5. Corinthian, and Elimas' (57) Act. 13.6.11. the Magician: in so much as S. Austin speaking of the Confirming of young Children, saith, (58) Aug. in Ep. joan. tract 6. Is there any of so perverse a hart, as to deny these Children, on whom we now impose hands, to have received the holy Ghost, because they speak not with tongues? affirming elsewhere, that the miraculous gift of tongues, accompanied the other gift of the holy Ghost, (59) Ibid. for the enlarging of the Churches first beginning. Thirdly, the Eucharist is our spiritual nourishment & food, whereby is preserved our spiritual life and strength, before received in Baptism: and so M. Hooker confesseth saying, (60) Eccl. Pol. l. 5. sect. 67 p. 173. The grace which we have by the holy Eucharist, doth not begin (as Baptism doth) but continued life: with whom agreeth Peter Martyr saying, (61) Loc. come. Engl. part. 4. p. 153. In Baptism Christ is given as a Regenerator, but in the Eucharist he is distributed unto us as meat & nourishment. Fourthly, being new borne, grown, and fed, as aforesaid, we are as Soldiers still subject to a spiritual (62) 1. Pet. 2.11. Heb. 10.32. Ephes. 6.11.2. conflict with sin, wherewith if we be wounded, we are not, as before, to be new borne again, as in Baptism, but to be cured: in remedy therefore hereof, God had ordained the Sacrament of Penance, giving our spiritual Physician's power to cure our hearts: the visible and external rite whereof, is the judicial Absolution, implied in these words, (63) Io. 20.23. Whose sins you shall forgive, and the invisible grace annexed thereto, which is remission of sins, in these other words, (64) Ibid. They are forgiven them. Fiftly, for our more secure departure out of this world, God hath instituted the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, to preserve us against all spiritual and sickly dispositions and relics of sin: the visible sign whereof is signified in these words, (65) jac. 5.14. Is any man sick? let him bring in the Priests etc. and let them pray over him, anoyling him with oil; and the invisible grace in these other words, (66) Ibid. And the Lord shall lift him up, and if he be in sins, they shallbe forgiven him. And whereas the Protestants (67) Fulk. ag. Rhem. Test. fol. 433. Willet Synop. p. 549. would understand this, not of any Sacrament, but only of the miraculous cure of those who were anointed (68) Mar. 6.13. with oil and healed; this collusion will not serve the turn, for this first miraculous curing by oil mentioned in S. Mark, was used only as a preparative to the other mentioned by S. james, which did differ from the said first in many respects. As first we find our B. Saviour in Cure of the diseased, used sometimes (69) Mar. 7.33.35. Clay, and spittle, and the Apostles, oil etc. but that he generally appointed any of them for a general medicine we find not. Again men are no where commanded to seek for their cure by miracle, but in this place of james is a commandment signified; also the gift of Miraculous cure was not common (70) 1. Cor. 12.9 10.27.28. to all Priests or Elders, but to some only; whereas here the Commandment is indefinite, referred indifferently to them all. Fourthly, S. james speaketh not of curing the party, but of easing, or lifting him up in soul. And if this place of S. james had concerned a miraculous cure, which the sick person had been commanded to seek for, and promised to obtain (as the thing here intended is commanded to be sought for, and promised to be given,) who then would in those times have died, when he might have obtained his cure by miracle, and been commanded so to do? And lastly to omit many other differences, this conferreth Remission of sins, which a miraculous cure did not. And hereunto may be added, that the Catholic Church throughout the world, observeth this practice of Extreme Unction, not as invented by men, but affirmed by Fathers and Protestants, and used in all ages without any first Institution thereof noted, other than that which was in the Apostles time. A truth so certain, that Caluin himself saith, (71) Comment. in jac. 5 17. & in Antid. Conc. Trid. ad Can. 1. de Sacram. in genere. I do truly confess that it was used for a Sacrament by the Disciples of Christ, neither do I assent unto them who think it was a medicine. Now concerning Order and Matrimony, as in our Corporal life and Common wealth, there are required as well parents, who by propagation may continued and increase the same, as also Magistrates, to order and govern it: So in our spiritual commonwealth, Matrimony is established answerable to the first, and the Sacrament of Orders for the other: and that as the visible contract between man and wife, is not only a civil and natural contract, but also an external Symbol of a sacred thing, namely of the Espousal of Christ with his Church, (in respect whereof he is called the bridegroom, and she the spouse) for example; And, (72) Ose. 2.19.20. I will despouse thee to me for ever; And, I will despouse thee unto me in justice and judgement, and in mercy, and in Commiserations, and I will despouse thee to me in faith. And elsewhere, (73) 2. Cor. 11.2. I have despoused you to one man, to present you a chaste Virgin to Christ. And yet in a third place, (74) Apoc. 29.7. Let us rejoice and exult, and give glory to him, because the Marriage of the Lamb is come, & his wife hath prepared herself. And lastly, (75) Apoc. 21.9. Come (saith one of the 7. Angel's) and I will show thee the Bride, the wife of the Lamb. By all which places it appeareth, that marriage conferreth grace, that the parties married (76) 1. Thes. 4.3.4. may know to possess their vessel in sanstification etc. and being accordingly (77) Ephes. 5.32. called a great Sacrament, or mystery: So also concerning the Sacrament of Orders, there is mentioned the invisible grace, which is given by, (78) 2. Tim. 6.1. 1. Tim. 4.14 & with the external rite of Imposition of hands. The second reason or congruence, to prove the foresaid number of 7. Sacraments, is drawn ●●om the number of our sins and wounds: for Baptism is against Original sin, Penance against actual, Extreme Unction against the remainders of sin, Confirmation against infirmity, Eucharist against malice, Matrimony against Concupiscence, Order against ignorance. The third Congruence ariseth from the number of virtues. Baptism answereth to faith, Confirmation to Hope, Eucharist to Charity, Pennance to justice, Unction to Fortitude, Order to Prudence, Matrimony to Temperance. The fourth may be taken from the honour of the seaventh Number used in Expiations by Sacrifice, as we may see in (79) Exod. 29. Levit. 4. & 8.13.14.15.16.23 num. 19 Deut. 15. 3. Paral. 29. job. vlt. 4. Reg. 5. S. Th. in 4. Dist. 2. q. 1. 3. part. q. 65. art. 1. & cont. Gent. l. 4. c. 58. several places of Scripture, where 7. beasts are offered, or 7. days, or 7. times sprinkled with blood etc. Now whereas Chemnitius in answer to these our Congruences affirmeth, that, (80) Exam. part. 2. p. 16. 17. 18. These are the Demonstrations, these the foundations, wherewith the number of 7. Sacraments was brought into the Church, and received by Scholastical writers: And that in the Old Law there were virtues and sins, and a spiritual and corporal life, and therefore by the like reason they should have 7. Sacraments. As also, that in the Scriptures there are several numbers renowned and sacred, as 3. 12. etc. And therefore, that hence we may aswell prove that there are 3. 12. or more Sacraments. But all this is but weak, for no Divine affirmeth, these to be demonstrations or foundations, but only supposing faith to be congruences. Schoolmen endeavour to show, that those things which we believe, are not repugnant, but conformable to reason. In like sort, The Old Sacraments were not ordained to perfect man in a spiritual life, nor for remedy of sin, Circumcision excepted, but only to represent Christian Mysteries, and certain other ends: Whereas our Sacraments are instituted in remedy of sin, and to justify and perfect man in spiritual life, and therefore these congruences may fitly be applied to our Sacraments, not to the Old. So also the Congruence from Numbers, is not taken from all numbers whatsoever, but from such as signify Expiation or Satisfaction for sin. Now, the number of 7. in Expiations, is so frequent in Scriptures, as that the whole Scripture may be thought to have proclaimed and fortould, that a time there should be, wherein 7. most excellent, and efficacious remedies of sin should be given by God, for the Expiation, & Purgation of sin. SECT. VI Containing certain Objections, had from Scriptures against the number of 7. Sacraments; with Answers thereto THe first Oiection is, The Scripture do no where name 7. Sacraments, therefore there are not seven. Answ. Neither do the Scriptures name or call Baptism & the Eucharist, Sacraments, which yet are not excluded from being Sacraments. Secondly, if want of naming them in Scripture, were sufficient to abrogate and disallow them, by the same reason might, Trinity, and Unity, be rejected, for that these names also are no where to be found in Scripture. If reply be made, that for Trinity, and Unity, and for Baptism, and the Eucharist, the substance of the things themselves are expressed in Scripture, therefore these are to be admitted; I grant the whole, and consequenly likewise infer upon the same ground, that as for the things required to make the other 5. Sacraments, that is, a Visible sign, and Invisible grace, and a Commandment, these are sufficiently found in Scriptures, as hath been already proved by Scriptures. In like sort though the Scriptures do not in express words say, there are 7. Sacraments, yet neither do they say how many books there are of Canonical Scriptures, and yet they say in general, there are divine Scriptures: the certain number whereof is only known by the Tradition of the Church, and General Counsels, not by the Scriptures themselves. And if they question must be de nomine, of Names, than who knoweth not, that the name Saccrament is ascribed often in the Scriptures to sundry things, which by the consent of all sides are not properly Sacraments. So the Intention of calling the Gentiles to the faith, is called (1) Eph. 1.9. The Sacrament of Gods will: the Incarnation of the son of God, is called (2) 1. Tim. 3.16. a great Sacrament of piety: & the sign written in the forehead of the woman representing Babylon, is called, (3) Apoc. 17.7. The Sacrament of the woman. So many ways is this Objection answered. The second Objection urged by (4) Exam. part. 2. Chemnitius, is, that out of Christ's side issued (5) Io. 19.34. only blood & water, whereby is signified, that there are but two Sacraments, the Eucharist and Baptism. I answer, though thereby were only (6) Chrysost. Cyril. & Theophilact. in hunc locum. Damasc. l. 4. de fide. c. 10. Aug. l. 2. de Symbolo. c. 6. & Tract. 9 in joan. signified these two, as being most principal, yet it doth not follow, that there are no more: So also S. Paul only reckoneth (7) Hebr. 6.2. Baptism, and the Imposition of hands, viz. Confirmation. Secondly, (8) Cyr. Catech. 5. Hier. Ep. 83. ad Oceanum. others understand by blood and water, Martyrdom and Baptism, and some, which seemeth also most literal, (9) Ambr. l. 10. in Luc. c. 105. Leo Ep. 4. Aug. & Beda in c. 19 joan. understand by blood, the price of our Redemption, and by water, Baptism. Chemnitius also objecteth that the Angel calleth Apoc. 17.5. the Beast which had 7. heads, a Sacrament, thereby signifying the number of 7. Sacraments, to belong to Antichrist. Answ. If the seven heads of the beast be the 7. Sacraments, than Baptism and the Eucharist which are two of them, are two heads of the Beast, which any Christian might blush to affirm. Secondly, S. john doth not call the 7. heads 7. Sacraments, but one Sacrament or Mystery: which agreeth better to Luther, who affirmed (11) De Capt. Babyl. sometimes, that there was but one Sacrament. Thirdly, S. john expoundeth those 7. heads, to be 7. Kings, saying, (12) Apoc. 27.9. The seven heads, are seven hills, upon which the woman sitteth, & they are 7. Kings. So weak & impertinent are these Objections from Scripture. CHAP. XX. The true state of the Question, concerning the necessity of Baptism. Whether the Sacrament of Baptism, or the desire thereof, be not absolutely necessary to Salvation, not only because it is commanded by Christ, but because it is a means necessary thereto: so that children dying without Baptism, cannot be saved. SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. AMONGST the greatest blessings which the Church enjoyeth through the merits of Christ, one of the first & chiefest is the holy Sacrament of Baptism: concerning which, the Catholic Church teacheth, that, (1) Concil. Trident. Sess. 6. Cap. 4. The justification of the wicked etc. after the preaching of the Gospel cannot be made without the laver of Regeneration, or the desire thereof. And it further decreeth, that, (2) Conc. Trid. Sess. 7. c. 1. If any shall say, that the Baptism of john, had the same force with the Baptism of Christ etc. (3) Can. 2. or that true and natural water is not of the Necessity of Baptism etc. or (4) Can. 5. that Baptism is free, that is, not necessary to Salvation, etc. (5) Can. 15. Or, that Children baptised, because they have not actual faith, are not to be accounted amongst the faithful, and therefore to be rebaptised when they shall come to the years of discretion etc. let him be accursed. In the first Council of Nice it is decreed, that, (6) L. 3. Decret. de S. Baptismate. He that is baptised descendeth guilty of sins, and subject to the servitude of Corruption; and ascendeth freed from his servitude & sin, made the Son of God, and the heir of his grace, coheyre also of Christ, having put upon him Christ himself, as it is written, (7) Gal. 3.27. Whosoever you are that are baptised in Christ, you have put on Christ. In the Cowcell of Constantinople it is said in the Creed, (8) Conc. Constantinop. 2. universale in Symbolo. I believe one Baptism to remission of sins. In the second Milevitane Council it is defined, that, (9) Conc. ●. Milevit. cap. 2. Whosoever denyeth Children newly borne to be baptised, or say etc. that they contract nothing of Original sin from Adam, which may be cleansed with the laver of regeneration etc. Anathema. And the like is taught in sundry other (10) Conc. Constantinense Sess. 12. Florent. Decret. Eugenij Papae. Conc. Lateran. 4 Oecum. cap. 1. Counsels. And agreably (11) Bellar. de Bapt. l. 1. c. 4. etc. Rhem. Test. in joan. 3.5. all Catholics now believe, the necessity of Baptism to be so great, as that Children dying without it cannot be saved, nor others of years of Discretion without it, or the desire thereof. Points Disputable. Some (12) S. Tho. in q. 5. de malo are 1. 2. 3. and he, and others in 2. Sens. Dist. 33. writers teach, that infants dying without Baptism are damned with Eternal death, but yet so punished with the want of the fight of God, as that they suffer no pain internal, nor external. (13) Pet. Lomb. in 2. l. Sent. Dist. 33. Others think, they have pain internal through the want of eternal happiness. (14) Greg. Ariminens. in 2. Sent. Dist 33. q. 2. Driedo in 1. l de gra. & lib. arb. tract. 2. c. 2. Others more severe, think they are tormented with Poena damni, and Poena sensus, that is, with internal pain for want of Beatitude, and external with fire and other punishments. Some (15) Hugo de S. Victore l. 2. de Sacram. par. 6. c. 2. Magister. l. 4. Sent. Dist. 3. think, that the Invocation of one Divine person, especially of Christ to be sufficient for Baptism. But others (16) See many Schoolmen in 4. Dist. 5. teach, that in that case Baptism is to be reiterated, either absolutely, or conditionally. And this is more probable. But none of these are defined by the Church. Protestant Untruths. All the Godly (saith (17) In Antidoto Conc. Trid. Sess. 7 Can. 13. Caluin) complain, or at lest groan that in Baptism Chrism, w●xe, taste of salt, finally spittle to be more esteemed, than the laver of water, wherein the who●e perfection of Baptism consisteth: But this is so untrue, that all Catholics believe Baptism with water without these to suffice to justification, and that these are only holy Ceremonies, not any thing essential: and that water is essentially necessary. Melancthon affirmeth S. Austin to say, (18) In Apol. art. 2. Sin it remitted in Baptism, not that it is not, but that it is not imputed. Here he plainly confesseth sin to be, that is, to remain, although it be not imputed. And this opinion so pleased later writers that it is recited also in the Decrees. And the same is avouched also by Luther, (19) Assert. Art 2. But it pleaseth Heretics to be liars and corrupters, for S. Austin's own words truly set down are these, (20) L 1 de Nupt & concup. c. 25. If it be demanded, how this Concupiscence remaineth in the regenerate, in whom there is made remission of all sins? It is answered, the Concupiscence of the flesh to be forgiven in Baptism, not that it is not, but that it is not imputed to sin. And as for the Decrees, there is not any one (21) Gratianus Dist. 4. de Consecrat. Can. Per Baptismum. which affirmeth sin, but only Concupiscence to remain after Baptism. Hence also appeareth Rogers gross untruth, affirming that according to our Catholic Doctrine, (22) Def. of the Art art. 27. pa. 168. Baptism serveth to the putting away of Original sin only. But it seems M. Roger's little knoweth what is Catholic Doctrine. Protestant Doctrine. Luther teacheth, that (23) Captivit. Babyl. c. de Bap. Baptism justifieth none, nor profitteth any but faith upon the word of Promise, to which Baptism is added, this doth justify, and fulfil that which Baptism signifieth. Zwinglius affirmeth that, (24) Ad urbanum Rhegium. de Orig. Pec. By the laver of Baptism no sin at all is taken away. And (25) Swingl. l. de vera & fall. relig. Bucerus in c. 3. Math. Caluin in Antidote. Concil. Trid. ad Sess. 6. c. 5. & Inst. l. 4. c 16 §. 24. §. 25. he, and others think, that it is not necessary to the remission of Original sin, or eternal Salvation. Yea they think, the Children of the faithful without Baptism to be Saints, and members of the Church, and though they so die, yet to be saved. In so much, tha● Zwinglius thinketh Baptism to be only (26) De Baptis. tom. 2. fol. 96. a Ceremony, winch the Church may omit, and duly take away. And according to Whitaker, (27) Controu. 4. q. 7. c. 2. p. 716. It is lawful to abstain from Baptism, so that in this fact there be no Contempt and scandal. And he plainly avoucheth, that, (28) Controu. 1. q 6. c. 8. p. 376. & count. Dur. fol. 8. sect. 73. The salvation of Infants doth not depend of the Sacraments. They also teach, that there is no difference between the Baptism of john, and the Baptism of Christ. Whitaker saith, (29) Ad rat. 8. Camp. p. 40. It was the same Ceremony, the same doctrine, the same Grace. Beza (30) L. quaest. & resp. p. 344. Calu. in Luc. 3.3. I say, that indeed it is the same, and one Baptism ministered first by john, afterwards by the Commandment of Christ. Wherefore according to Prot. Baptism is not necessary to salvation, but may be omitted, or taken away, so that it be without Contempt or scandal. Protestants agreed with Ancient Heretics. The Pelagians were condemned by S. Austin, (31) Haer. 88 & count. julian. Pelag. l. 6. c. 7. for teaching that children might have life everlasting, although they were not baptised. This Error is so certain in them, that it is confessed, and reported by the Centuristes (32) Cent. 5. Col. 585. and (33) Loc. come fol. 88 Sarcerius. D. (34) Synop. p. 415. Fulk ag. Purgat. p. 35. Willet, Fulke, and many other Prot. denying remission of sins and Grace to be given by Baptism, are condemned in the Manichees, by the acknowledgement of D. Whitaker, saying of himself and some other Prot. (35) Cont. Dur. l. 10. p. 883. Sarcer. loc. come. To. 1. de bap. fol. 232. We believe and teach that sins are forgiven, and Grace conferred in Baptism, which the Manichees were accustomed to deny. S. Epiphanius (36) Haer. 28. condemneth Cerinthus, for teaching that a man may be saved without Baptism: which Error wa● also maintained b● (37) Prateolus verb. Mahomites. Mahomet. The denial of Exorcism and Exufflation used by Catholics in Baptism, and rejected by Prot. was condemned by S. Austin (38) De Nupt. & Concup. l. 2. c. 29. etc. 17. & cant. jul. Pe●ig. l. 6 c. 2. in julian the Pelagian. julian (saith he) reproacheth the most ancient Tradition of the Church, whereby children are Exorcized, and breathed upon. And M. Parker allegeth Nazianzen (39) Against Symbolyzing. Part. 1. sec 13. p. 152. & Part. 2. sect. 9 p. 132. reporting that, julian laughed at the sufflations of Baptism. And yet all Prot. are content to laugh with him, and therefore must be content to be censured with him. Protestants Errors. Beza teacheth that, (40) Ep. sua Theologica 2. Thomae Tilio. If water be wanting and the Baptism of any one cannot, or aught not with Edification to be differred, that then in any other liquor he may Baptise, as duly as in water. Luther (41) In Colloquiis Symposiacis c. 17. being asked whether water being wanting, it was lawful to baptise in milk or beer, answered first, that it was to be referred to God's judgement: but afterwards he added, that whatsoever might be called by the name of , that was fit for Baptism. Now, no man doubteth, but that there may be baths of wine, milk or beer. Polanus teacheth that, (42) In Syllog thes. part. 2. p. 556. The external & sensible matter of Baptism is water, or that wanting, other like liquor. And the same is taught by sundry other (43) Hunnius in disput. 45. p. 273. Vorstius in Antibel. p. 367. Protestants. Luther thinketh that, (44) De Capt. Babyl. Tom. 2. fol. 75. In what manner soever Baptism be given, so that it be not given in the name of man, but in the name of the Lord, it doth truly save: Yea I do not doubt, if any one shall receive it in the name of the Lord, although the wicked Minister do not give it in the name of the Lord, him to be truly Baptised in the name of the Lord. I am not Ignorant (saith (45) Tom. 2. ad struthionem. fol. 312. & de Bap. fol. 66. 67. Zwinglius) the Apostles not to have taken these words (In the name of the Father etc.) for such, as without which Baptism could not consist. And sundry other Prot. (46) Calu. de vera Eccles. reform. p 325. Vorstius in Antibel. p. 366. Pol●nus in Disp. private. disp. 30. do teach, that the form of Baptism, with Invocation of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, is not necessary or essential. Luther (47) L. de Captivit. Babyl c. de Bap. & l. cont. Cochlaeum & & l. ad Waldenses. taught, that Infant's Baptised had actual faith. Luther, (48) L. de Captivit. Babyl. c. de Bap. Calu. Instit. l. 4. c. 15. §. 3. 4. Caluin, and other Prot. defend that sins committed after Baptism, are forgiven by the memory and faith of the Baptism formerly received. Whereof Perkins saith, (49) Tom. 1. in serie causarum. c. 33. Col. 77. Zanchius in Confess c. 15. col. 517. In Baptism once ministered remission is given not only of sins passed but also of present and to be, through the whole life. They likewis●●●ach, that Children are borne Christians before they be Baptised; so Zwinglius, (50) Tom. 4. in. 1. Cor. 12. p. 477. Children of Christians are within the Church and the body of Christ, even before they be baptised. Caluin, (51) In Act. 8.37. I say the Children of the Godly are borne the sons of the Church, and from the womb are reputed amongst the members of Christ. (52) De reform. Eccles. p. 347. They belonged to the body of Christ before they were brought to light, and according to Perkins, (53) Tom. 2. in Gal. 2.15. Col. 83. The children of the faithful are borne holy. But Zwinglius teacheth the same concerning the Children of Infidels, (54) Tom. 2. de Bap. fol. 91. I leave to the judgement of the Omnipotent and just God, Children who are borne of Parents not believing although I can find no cause of Damnation in them: (55) De ratione fidei. fol. 540. We ras●●y condem●e Children borne of Christian parents, yea the Children also of Gentiles. And the same is taught by (56) See Vorstius in Antibel. p. 542. Hemingius in Enchyr. class. 3. p. 322. other Protestants. By this we see what poor esteem Prot. make of Baptism, neither thinking water to be necessary, nor the words In the name of the Father etc. and that Children, may be saved without it, being borne Christians, even the Children of Infidels. SECT. II. It is proved by Scriptures that Baptism is necessary to Salvation. CHrist our Saviour avoucheth, that (1) Io. 3.5. Unless a man be borne again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Which words as S. Austin (2) De pec. merchant & rem. l. 1. c. 30. demonstrateth, do not only signify a Precept, but even the means necessary for the entering into the Kingdom of God. This place taken literally, convinceth the necessity of Baptism: wherefore Prot. to evade the force thereof, are enforced to deny the said words to be so much as understood of Baptism: and so here by water, they understand only the holy Ghost, & the sense they make this, unless a man be borne again of water, that is, of the holy Ghost, who cleanseth like water etc. To which end they also allege these words, (3) Mat. 11. He shall baptise you in the holy Ghost and fire, where by fire, they understand the said holy Ghost, as he hath a similitude with fire. Thus Bullinger and Caluin expound this place, and therefore saith Caluin, (4) Inst. l. 4. c. 16. sect. 25. Falluntur etc. They are deceived, who think mention to be made of Baptism in this place, because they hear the name of water; with whom agreeth Bullinger, (5) In his Decades. p. 1408. init. Fulke, (6) Ag. Rh. Test. in lo. 3. sect. 2. f. 143. Peter Martyr, (7) Loc. come. Anglic. and D. Whitaker, (8) Cont. Duraeum. l. 8. p. 676. all of them affirming, under the name of water, nothing else but the holy Ghost to be signified. But this reply is most absurd, and false. First, in that the foresaid place of S. john is understood of Baptism by the Ancient Fathers, as will appear in the Section following. Secondly, by the like liberty of Exposition, we may utterly deny the Sacrament of Baptism at all, understanding always by the name of water, the holy Ghost, and in like sort it is most easy to pervert all the mysteries of out faith. Thirdly, the comparing it with that other Example of Baptising in the holy Ghost and fire is impertinent, for that the word, Fire, may be taken properly, and is, without further question, most rightly understood of the Externall fire, which visibly descended upon the Apostles, upon the (9) Act. 2, 1. day of Pentecost, in cloven (10) Act. 2.3. tongues, as it were of fire: and so our Saviour foretelling the same, calleth it expressly their Baptism, which is so plain a performance of S. john Baptistes' prediction of our Saviour his Baptising of his Apostles with fire, that the very English Bible (11) Edit. an. 1576. and the marginal Citations in Luc. 3.16. where is cited Act. 2.5. & Act. 15.16. See also in the same Bible the Marg. citat. in Act 15.16. where also is cited Mat. 3.11. & Luc. 3.16. in the Marginal citations, over against both the said places, doth make a mutual relation, reference, and citation of the one place unto the other. In so much as M. Hooker (12) In his Eccl. Pol. sect. 50. p. 131. and other Protestant writers affirm, that the Baptism of fire meant by john, was really performed by the foresaid visible descent of fire. Fourthly, though the word (fire) should not here signify material fire, as is aforesaid, but only the holy Ghost; yet it is impertinent to prove, that the word Water, in the other place should be so likewise understood: for whereas the exposition doth ordinarily follow the thing which is to be expounded, the word fire being placed next after the, holy Ghost, might thereby the rather be taken improperly as to explain the word, Holy Ghost, in signifying the purifying effects thereof: but in the other place the word, Water, is placed before the, holy Ghost, and therefore cannot be tak●n as a like Exposition thereof, nor without great absurdity be said to be an Explication, of the cleansing effects thereof. Fiftly, whereas Nicodemus did misunderstand our Saviour's first words of (a man to be borne again) and asked our Saviour, (13) Io. 3.4. how it could be? our Saviour thereupon answering (with the foresaid words now in question) thereby to explain to Nicodemus his own firster saying, and to satisfy his demand, must needs be thought to use the word Water, properly, for otherwise he had rather obscured, then explained his former saying, and not so much have satisfied, as increased Nicodemus his doubt. Sixtly, for as much as the Scripture elsewhere calleth Baptism, the (14) Tit. 3.5. laver of Regeneration, or being borne again, that therefore the other foresaid mention of our being regenerate, or borne again of water, being in terms so answerable thereto, is in like manner to be understood of Baptism. Seaventhly, this point is so evident, that aswell the Ancient Fathers (even by the Protestants own (15) Hook. Eccl. Pol. l. 5. sect. 59 p. 130. Confession) as also the (16) Luth. in his Ser. Englished. p. 145. Conf. of Sax in the Harm. pag. 405. of Bohem. pag. 339. Hoffman de poena l. 3. c. 4. p. 229. Now else Catech. p. 141. Bilson in his true differ. part. 4. p. 168. Aret. loc. 4. p 136, Da●aeus Isag Christ. l. 5. de Sacra. c. 39 Prot. learned writers, do take the word, Water, properly, and so do understand the said place of Baptism: in so much as M. Hooker (17) Hook. ubi sup sect. 59 p. 13●. mentioning the foresaid conference, or objection of the holy Ghost, and (18) Hook. ibid. Fire, answereth the same notwithstanding, that the foresaid saying of our being borne again of Water, is according to the general consent of Antiquity, to be understood of external Baptism, and termeth it a (19) Ibid. pag. 130. in fine. Critical conceit to expound is otherwise. Danaeus, to avoid the force (20) Tom. 2. Controu. de Bap c. 4. p. 323. of these words, expoundeth them thus, Unless a man be borne again of water, and the holy Ghost, the particle Et, and, is to be taken for the disiunctive, Aut, or, (saith he.) But this is merely his own fiction, and by the like liberty a man may affirm or deny any thing from the Scripture: Yea according to this Exposition, it were sufficient to be baptised with water without the holy Ghost, which is most impious to affirm. Others yet reply; that although the foresaid place be understood of Baptism, yet it proveth no further the necessity thereof, then doth this like saying, (21) Io. 6. 53. Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man etc. you shall not have life in you; which eating doth not include any such necessity. But the Comparison is unlike, for our Saviour saith not so generally, unless one eat the flesh, as he said before. (22) Io. 3.5. Unless one be borne again of water, for he saith but, unless you eat the flesh, directing so his speeches to those that were of discretion and capable of his Commandments, and so this place pertaineth not to Infants; whereas the other firster saying, being general, and without limitation, must needs comprehend them. Again the words objected, whether they be taken in the Protestant sense of eating Christ's flesh, to wit, the effects and merit of his Passion by faith, or in our sense of receiving really Christ's flesh in the Sacrament, containeth after either sense, a necessity in it, and therefore make against Prot. that v●ge them: for being taken in their sense, they imply a necessity, in that they think faith absolutely needful. And being taken in our sense, they do the like: for both Prot. and Catholics think, that such as be of Discretion, whom only these words concern, are under pain of sin, bound to receive the Sacrament, and cannot be excused from this necessity, but only when in straitss of time, when the Sacrament cannot be had, the parties own effectual desire, which is in wanting in Infants, is in God's mercy accepted, instead thereof: As also in the like case, the same supplieth the place of Baptism, and the performance of all other like Commandments. The Scriptures also ascribe remission of sins, and Salvation to Baptism, (23) Mar. 16. ●6. He that believeth, and is baptised, shallbe saved: (24) Act. 2.38. Do penance and be every one of you baptised in the name of jesus Christ for remission of your sins: (25) Act. 22.17. rise up and be baptised, and wash away thy sins invocating his name: (26) Tit. 3.5. be hath saved us by the laver of regeneration; and sundry (27) Ephes. 5.26. 1. Pet 3.21. other such like: which texts are so plain for the necessity of Baptism to remission of sins that Zwinglius instead of all other answer, most wickedly writeth thus: (28) Tom. 2. de pec. orig. fol. 122. How foolish would he seem, who for the words (of Scripture) should contend that we are washed from sins by the water of Baptism? But if it be foolishness to believe Articles of faith, because the Scriptures words are plain for them; I do not know wherein the wisdom of a Protestant will consist, who usually denieth all other proof, but only Scripture. But it willbe worth the laughing to hear Zwinglius expound the foresaid places, (29) Tom. 1. Ep. ad Lindoverum. fol. 204. Thou (saith he) seest here, 1. Pet. 3. Baptism saveth us. First, Baptism is to be taken for faith. And, (30) Tom 2. fol. 201. l. de Relig. cap de Bap. He knew that they were by Apo●lo baptised, that is, taught. Again, (31) L. de Bap. fol. 68 It is to be noted, the word, Baptising, in these words of Paul, Act. 16. to be taken for doctrine. And (32) In subsidio Ibid. fol. 254. Baptism, 1. Pet. 3. is taken for Christ when he saith, we are saved by Baptism. And, (33) To. 2. l. de Bap. fol. 73. They have learned often of us, by, Water, in this place (Io. 3.) aught to be understood the knowledge of Christ, and the comfort of faith: So that in none of these places must be understood by Baptism, the Sacrament, but either faith, teaching, doctrine, Christ, or what you will, so that it be not the Sacrament of Baptism. But the best refuge that Protestants have against clear texts, is to corrupt them. And so because these words of S. Paul, (34) Tit. 3.5. According to his mercy he hath saved us by the laver of Regeneration etc. do prove that Baptism doth concur to the working of our Salvation; the Genevians do take away these words, He hath saved us, and have placed them in the verse precedent, where they do not so clearly make against them. This is their surest way of answering, by chopping, changing, adding, taking away, as their need shall require. Lastly the necessity of Baptism is proved by overthrowing the Protestants contrary ground, who therefore think Baptism not to be necessary, because according to them, the Children of believing Parents are borne free, though not from Original sin itself, yet from the guilt thereof, it being not imputed unto them. But this to be false, it appeareth first, in that jacob and Esau were both the sons of holy Isaac, and yet God loved (35) Rom. 9.11.13. jacob and hated Esau, before they had done any good or evil. Secondly the places of S. Paul for Original sin are general, viz. (36) Rom. 5.12. in which all have sinned: (37) 1. Cor. 15.22. As in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shallbe made alive. Neither can it be said, that those places are to be understood of the vice of nature, not of the guilt, for than none should have had the same guilt of sin. Neither can it be said, the sons of the faithful to contract Original sin, but forthwith the sin to be forgiven them before they be borne: for if they be therefore sanctified, because they are the sons of the faithful, then in the same moment they begin to be holy, wherein they begin to be the sons of the faithful: but in the same moment wherein they begin to have being, they begin to be the sons of the faithful; therefore they never have Original sin, which is against the Prot. themselves, who admit the same, and yet do not observe that they contradict themselves. Lastly the said ground is against a general (38) Tertul. in Apolog. &c 17 Hieron. Ep. 7 ad Laetam. principle given ●y the Ancient Fathers, which is, that we are not borne, but made Christians, which were most false, if without Baptism we were Christians, by being only borne of Christian Parents. SECT. III. That the Ancient Fathers do expound the sacred Scriptures in proof of the necessity of Baptism. NOw that the foresaid clearest texts of Scripture are answerably expounded by the Fathers; we find, that Clemens Romanus maketh this demand, (1) Epist. 4. But you say peradventure; what doth the Baptism of water confer to the worship of God? first of all truly, it is accomplished, because it pleased God: secondly, because the frailty of our former Nativity, which is made yours by man is cut of to one regenerated of water, and borne of God, and so at last you may come to Salvation, otherwise it is impossible. For so the true Prophet hath testified unto us, with the Sacrament, saying; verily I say unto you, unless one be borne again of living water, he shall not inter into the Kingdom of heaven: And therefore hasten you to it, for there is in these waters a certain mercy of him, which mercy was carried upon the waters from the beginning: and he (viz. the holy Ghost) doth acknowledge them who are baptised under the Appellation or name of the threefold Sacrament (●e meaneth the mystery of the B. Trinity) and doth deliver them from torments to come offering the Souls consecrated by Baptism, as a certain gift unto God: fly therefore to these waters, for they are they alone, which can quench the rage of the fire to come, unto which waters whosoever lingreth to come, it is evident that the Idol of Infidelity doth yet remain in him and that he is forbidden of that Idol to hasten to the waters which confer Salvation. Here according to S. Clement's exposition of the Scriptures, Baptism giveth Salvation, delivereth from Hell, and that it is Infidelity not to hasten to that Sacrament. With S. Clement agreeth S. justinus Martyr, writing thus, (2) Orat. 2. ad Antonium. Afterwards the Catechumen are brought thither by us where water is, and are regenerated with that manner of Regeneration, wherewithal we ourselves are regenerated: for in the name of the Father of all things, and of our Saviour jesus Christ, and of the holy spirit, they are then washed in water, for Christ himself hath said: Unless you be regenerated of water and the spirit, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven etc. since that being Ignorant of our former birth by a certain necessity etc. and brought up in evil manners and naughty Custom, that we m●y not remain Children of necessity and Ignorance, but sons of Election and knowledge, and may obtain in water remission of our sins formerly committed etc. Thus from the words of Christ justinus proveth Baptism to obtain remission of sins. Consonant unto these foresaid Fathers S. Gregory teacheth most plainly that, (3) L. 4. Moral. c. 3. whosoever is not loosed by the water of regeneration, he is held bound with the bands of the first guilt, for what the water of Baptism is able to do with us, this did in former ages, either sole faith, for little ones, or the virtue of Sacrifice for great ones or the mystery of Circumcision for those who were of the Stock of Abraham, for that every one is conceived with the sin of his first Father, the Prophet witnesseth saying, (4) Ps. 50.7. Behold I am conceived in iniquity, and in sin hath my mother conceived me, and that he whom the water of Salvation doth not wash, doth not escape the punishment, truth witnesseth of himself, saying, unless a man be borne again of water and the holy Ghost, he shall not have life eternal. To conclude this place of S. john is understood of the Sacrament of Baptism by m●ny others of the learnedst (5) justin. Mart. Apol. 2. Tert. l. de Bap. Cyp. l. 3. ad Quir. c. 25. Amb. l. 3. de SS. c. 11. Hieron in c. 6. Ezech. Basil. Nazianzen. Nyssen. in Ser. de Bap. Orig. Chrysost. Aug. Cyr. Bed. Theophil. Enthymius & a●ij in hunc loc. Fathers. S. Austin demandeth, (6) Aug. de pec. mor. & rem. l. 1. c. 23. 24. what Christian may abide when it is said, that one may be saved, though he be not borne again in Christ, which Christ would have to be done by Baptism etc. Wherefore the Apostle saith etc. He hath saved us by the laver of Regeneration. S. Austin is so clear for (7) Cont. 2. Ep. Pelag. l. 3. c. 3. Baptism, washing away all sins, altogether, of deeds, words, thoughts, or original, as that the (8) Cent 5. c. 4. Col. 368. Chemn. Exa. part. 2. p. 38. Centurists and Chemnitius do allege sundry his sayings, and confess his judgement in our behalf. But Zwinglius confesseth of the Fathers in general thus: (9) Tom. 2. de Bap fol. 76. Here most of the Doctors understanding by the name of water, that material and external water of Baptism, have attributed unto it, much more than was fit, whereupon it afterwards came to pass, that they ascribed the cleansing of souls to the Element of water. Of which also saith Luther, (10) Tom. 2. Wittem. fol. 229. I excuse the Fathers who driven either by temptation or necessity, stoutly denied sin to remain after Baptism. And as concerning the necessity of Baptism, S. Austin avoucheth that, (11) De anima & eius origine l. 3. c. 9 & de verb. Ap. Ser. 14. If thou wilt be a Catholic, do not believe, do not say, do not teach, that Children dying before they be baptised, can come to forgiveness of Original sins, (12) Ep. 28. ad Hieron. And whosoever saith, that Children shallbe revived in Christ, who die without participation of this Sacrament, this man truly contradicteth the Apostolical preaching, (19) Ib p. 516. and condemneth the whole Church etc. And, though, (13) De pec. mor. & remiss. l. 1. c. 16. it may be truly said, that children dying without Baptism are to be, in damnatione omnium levissima, in the easiest state of damnation: yet he deceiveth, and is deceyved, who teacheth that they are not to be damned. These sayings are so unanswerable in S. Austin, that Mr. Cartwright confesseth, that (14) In Whiteg. def. p. 521. Austin was of mind, that children could not be saved without Baptism: for which he impudently chargeth him, (15) with absurdity. And for the same Doctrine is S. Austin reproved by other (16) Bulling. in his Decad. in Engl. Dec. 5. ser. 8. Muscul. loc. come. c. de Bap. Dilingae. de Symb. p. 45. Centurist. cent. 5. c. 4. col. 379. Protestants. Yea the Fathers were so resolute herein, that as Caluin testifieth (17) Inst. l. 4. c. 15 sect. 20. It was usual many ages since, even almost from the beginning of the Church, that in danger of death lay people might Baptise, if the minister was not present in due tyme. Cartwrigh also acknowledgeth that, (18) In Whiteg. Def. p. 522. Austin doth seem to allow of the Baptism of a lay man, in time of necessity. And Whitguift confesseth that, (19) Ib. p. 523. Austin doth say, that a lay man may baptise in time of necessity. And D. Bilson avoucheth tha●, (20) Confer at Hampton Court. p. 18. The denying of private persons in case of necessity to baptise, were to cross all Antiquity. Thus clearly teach the Fathers the necessity of Baptism, confirming the same from the sacred Scriptures. SECT. iv That Protestant writers do teach and defend the Catholic Doctrine of the necessity of Baptism. M Hookers belief is, that, (1) Eccl. pol. l, 5. p. 154. Original sin is purged by Baptism; and M. B●lson acknowledgeth, (2) In his true difference part. 4. p. 368. that, Original sin is not remitted but by Baptism. Now if Original sin be purged by Baptism, according to M. Hooker, if Original sin be not remitted but by Baptism in the judgement of M. Bilson, the Consequence according to them is inevitable, that Baptism must be necessary unto Salvation. And this they prove also by those former places of Scripture, which have been urged. Chemnitius teacheth that, (3) Exam. part. 2. p 53. & 17. God doth not save us without means, but by the laver of Regeneration. Tit. 3. And, (4) Ibid. p. 53. Baptism is a mean or Instrument by which is made the Communication of Christ's benefits, for by Baptism Ch●ist cleanseth and sanctifyeth. Eph. 5. Yea saith he, (5) Ibid p. 20, The testimonies of Scriptures are manifest, which as they cannot be denied, so they aught not to be shifted of. Tit. 3. Baptism is called the laver of Regeneration. Eph. 5. Cleansing her with the laver of water in the word. Io. 3. Unless one be borne again of water etc. Act. 22. Be baptised and wash away thy sins. 1. Pet. 3. speaking of water etc. he saith, Baptism being of the like form (to wit of the Ark of No) saveth us. And hence he concludeth, These being most manifest testimonies, which expressly ascribe Efficacy to Sacraments, and declare what that (efficacy) is, are not to be perverted by tropes (as other Prot. use to do) from their simple and native signification, which the proper signification of the words giveth, and so the Ancient (Fathers) have understood these testimonies simply, as they sound. So absolute is Chemnitius, proving our Catholic Doctrine, from so many testimonies of Scripture, and the answerable Interpretation thereof made by the Fathers. Vrbanus Regius affirmeth (6) Iu. 1. part. operum in Catechismo minori. f. 105. That the Scripture, and the authority of the Ancient Church constrain him to believe, that little children dying unbaptized are damned. Mr. Hoffman (commended by (7) See the prefaces of Melancthon and Bren. set before the beginning of Hofman's book. Melancthon & Brentius) saith expressly, (8) In Com. de poenit. l. 3 c. 4. de Bap. Infant f 229. Ideo certum est etc. It is therefore right and Godly that the sins of Infants be washed away by the Church's Ministry by Baptism; seeing that without this laver of Regeneration, they cannot be saved. D. Bilson also concludeth from S. Austin & the Scriptures (9) In his true diff. part. 4. p. 368. that if children be excluded from Baptism, they be likewise excluded from the Kingdom of God, & that without Baptism they cannot be saved, by reason Original sin is not remitted, but in Baptism. This Doctrine of the necessity of Baptism for the Salvation of children is further taught by (10) Loc. come. de Bap. f. 238. 239. 240. Erasmus Sarcerius, & by the Confession of (11) See the Harm. of Conf. p. 403. 404. Auspurge, where it is taught, that, Baptism is necessary to Salvation as a Ceremony ordained by Christ. Also that by Baptism the grace of God is offered. And that young Infants are to be baptised, and that they being by Baptism commended unto God, are received into God's favour, & are made the sons of God as Christ witnesseth, speaking of little children in the Church, Mat. 18. It is not the will of your heavenly father, that any of these little ones should perish. They condemn the Anabaptists, which allow not the Baptism of Infants, & hold that infants are saved, though they die without Baptism, and be not within the Church of God. The Prot. also of Saxony confess the same in these words (12) Harm. of Confess. p. 40●. That the holy Ghost is given in Baptism, Paul affirmeth in his Epistle to Titus, saying. By the washing of the new birth, and the renewing of the holy Ghost. And in john it is said, Except a man be borne again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven. Therefore we teach that Baptism is necessary etc. To these I might add sundry (13) See Chemn. par. 2. Exam. p. 52. and in his Treatise ag. Osorius. p 421. See also jac. Andraeas cited by Beza ad Act. Col. Monsp. resp. part. 2. p. 126. See also Conradus Sclusselb. in Catal. haer. l. 13 & ep. Ded. pag. 24. Protestant writers: in so much as Peter Martyr doth therefore reprehend certain of his Brethrens, because saith he, (14) In collect. annexis loc come. Anglic. and there see Pet. Mart. his Ep. to the Engl. Church. They despair that children can have Salvation without Baptism: And in regard of this necessity many (15) See Schusselb. in Theol. Calu l. 1. f. 68 jac Andraeas in Ep. Col. Montisb. p. 46. 58. Hook. Eccl pol. l. 5. sect 61. 62. Hoffman Comment. de poen. l. 2 c. 13. Lambert. in Act. mon. p. 541. Woodman Ib. p. 1590. Sarc. loc. come. tom. 1. de Bap. f. 229. 230. 234. See Whitg. in his Def, p 518. 522, 523. Zwing, ib, p. 518. Bucer. ib. p. 521. Prot. do allow & defend Baptism ministered by lay persons, men or women in case of necessity. Concerning the necessity of the matter and form in Baptism, M. Antonius de Dominis teacheth that, (16) L. 5. de Repub. c. 5. n. 4. In the very material Baptism, there are, by divine express institution, both things and words, because Christ commanded that they should baptise, In the name of the Father etc. Reinectius reproveth Beza, saying, (17) Tom 1. Armat. c. 18. p. 201. Beza vainly thinketh, water wanting, that it is lawful to take other liquor: but this he confuteth by many places of Scripture. Yea Beza himself avoucheth thus for the contrary, (18) L. quaest. & resp. vol. 3. Theol. p. 348. If any one should not baptise in the Trinity, or for water (especially knowing) should use I know not what other thing, altogether different, this were not truly the Baptism instituted by Christ. Pareus therefore affirmeth very well, that, (19) In Col. Theol. 9 Disp. 22. Not Christian truly doubteth, but that the Baptism of water aught to be administered according to Christ's Institution, only in the name of the Father etc. So confessed it is even by Prot. that Baptism is necessary to Salvation. SECT. V Objections from Scripture, against the Necessity of Baptism, answered. THe first objection is urged upon occasion of those words of Almighty God to Abraham, (1) Gen. 17.7. I am thy God and of thy seed: which words, say Prot. were spoken to Abraham and to his Posterity, which we by Christ our Saviour are. Answ. Literally this concerneth a Promise of peculiar Protection and worldly felicity: and though it may be understood in a mystical sense, of the spiritual promises of remission of sins, and of eternal life, and the same to belong to us: yet this is not by carnal generation of our Parents, but by our spiritual regeneration; for S. (2) Rom 4.12.13. & 9.7.8. Galat. 3.7.8.9.29. Paul plainly teacheth, those to be the sons of Abraham, not which are the sons of the flesh, but which are the Sons of faith: that is, who imitate the faith of Abraham, which children do not, but when they are baptised, for to them to be (3) Aug. l. 1. de pec. merit. & remiss. c. 27. baptised, is to believe. Besides, by Carnal generation we cannot be made the sons of Abraham, seeing our Parents descended not from Abraham: but because Christ was truly the son of Abraham, then also begin we to be the sons of Abraham, when we begin to be the sons or Brothers of Christ, which undoubtedly we are not but by Baptism, we being also therefore called Christians. Besides these words no more seclude the necessity of Baptism, then of Repentance, or good life, they making no difference herein, but extending to all alike. Again these words, notwithstanding the Commandment for Infants to be Circumcised, did strictly bind, after the Covenant made with Abraham. A second Objection is from those words, (4) 1. Cor. 7.14. The man, an Infidel is sanctified by the faithful woman, and the woman an Infidel is sanctified by the faithful husband, otherwise your children should be unclean, but now they are holy: therefore Children borne of faithful Parents, are holy without Baptism. Answ. In the like sense that the Children here are said to be sanctified and holy, is the Infidel husband or wife said to be sanctified, and yet none believeth that the Infidel husband by only living with the faithful wife, without conversion to God and Baptism can be saved: and therefore this place doth no more prove the Salvation of Children without Baptism, though borne of a believing mother, than it doth prove the salvation of the unbelieved husband without Baptism, who by this Text is no less sanctified than are the Children. And therefore howsoever this place may import the legal Sanctity of the Marriage, and that the Children are borne holy, that is to say in wedlock, yet to the salvation of Children without Baptism, this is a very forlorn Argument, answered and rejected long since by S. Augustine, who expoundeth this place thus, (5) L. 3. de pec. merit. & remiss. c. 12. It is to be held without doubting, whatsoever that sanctification was, it was not of power to make Christians, and to remit sins, unless they were made faithful by Ecclesiastical Institution and Sacraments: neither little ones, how just or holy soever their Parents were, of whom they were borne, can be absolved from the guilt of Original sin unless they shall be baptised in Christ etc. Whereupon it cometh to pass, that none can be regenerated in their parents not being borne, but if he shallbe borne, it is meet he be regenerated, because unless one be borne again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. And M. Bilson also conform to S. Augustine, repeating the foresaid text of 1. Cor. 7.14. thereupon writeth thus, (6) In his true difference betwixt Christian subjection etc. part. 4. p. 368. This is spoken not of the secret election of the faithful, which is neither common to all, nor known to any but of their Christian Profession. And a little after saith, If then Infants be partakers of the same vocation and holiness with their Parents, & without Baptism etc. neither we nor our Children can be holy: surely the Children of Saintes, if they be excluded from Baptism, are as unholy and unclean, as the Children of Infidels. The like answer is given by Marbachius, saying, (7) Disp. Theol. de Baptismatis Sacramento. sect. 111. 112. It doth nothing help them, that which they dispute from the place of Paul, that the Children of Christians do take sanctification from their Parents etc. For the word Sanctity in that place, doth not signify spiritual sanctity, whereof the Controversy is, but legal, or civil. The true sense of the place objected then is, that whereas Children are said to be holy, the meaning is, (8) Ambr. S. Thom. & Anselmus in hunc locum. that they are borne lawful, and not base, which some might well have doubted of, by reason of disparity of Religion in their Parents, or else because they were (9) Tertul. l. 2. ad uxor. Hieron. l. 1. in jovin. & in Ep. 153. ad Paulin. l. 2. Aug. l. 2. de pec. merchant & remiss c. 26. & l. 3. c. 12. et. l. 1. de serm. Dom. in monte c. 27. consecrated to God by the faithful parent, being baptised and brought up in the fear of God; which they had not been, if the Infidel had departed from the faithful, for then the Children would have followed the Infidel Parent. A third Objection is, If Baptism were so necessary to Salvation that none could be saved without it, than many Children should perish without their fault, which seemeth neither to stand with God's justice, or Mercy. I answer, the (10) Aug. l, 2. de bono perseverantiae. c. 11. Prospero l. 2. de vocat. Gentium c. 8. judgements of God are just, true, and righteous, yet secret, inscrutable, and a bottemles depth: when he permitteth man● Children to perish, even then are his judgements most just, for though it is without their fault, that they are not baptised, yet without their fault they do not perish seeing, being tainted, and found guilty of Original sin, they justly perish. Fourthly it is urged, that Baptism is to us, as Circumcision was to the jews; but it is not likely, that all such as died before the eight day uncircumcised, perished, therefore Baptism is not so necessary unto salvation, as that all perish without it. Answer. The whole Argument standeth upon uncertainties, for (11) Philo l. de Circumcisione. josephus. l. 1. Antiquit. c. 12. justin. Martyr Dialogo cum Tryphone judaeo. an't med. Iren. l. 4. c. 30. etc. 28. 29. 32. 34. Epiph haer. 8. Chrysost. ho. 27. in Gen. Tertul. l. cont. judaeos. c 1. Cypr. l. 1. cont. jud c. 8. & l. 3. Ep. 8. Ambros. Ep. 72. Hieron in c. 3. ad Gal. Aug. in ps. 73. many hold that Circumcision was not ordained, as a remedy against sin, neither do we know whether the Infants of the jews had any other remedy, or what it was. And lastly it it not a like reason of Christians & them, for now there is a certain Remedy determined by Christ, which is most common and easy, what then it was, we certainly know not, seeing the Scripture saith nothing. Lastly it is objected, and further excepted, that according to our Catholic Doctrine many are saved without Baptism, namely such as have the vow, wish, and desire of Baptism, which could not be, if Baptism were so absolutely necessary to salvation, as Catholics teach. Answer. This Exception of such so dying with a vow, or desire of Baptism, is grounded upon Scriptures, as where it is said, (12) Ezech. 18.21. If the impious shall do penance from all sins etc. living, he shall live, and not die. And the reason which Divines give for this is, Voluntas reputatur pro facto, The parties effectual desire of Baptism, when in straitss of time it cannot be had, supplieth the place of Baptism: as also the like desire supplieth the performance of all other like Commandments, though otherwise never so necessary. And this Exception is also warranted by the holy (13) Ambr. in Orat de obitu Valentini ini junioris. Aug. l. 4. de Bap. c. 12. Bern. Ep 77. Fathers. But the former Exception is impertinent, and cannot be applied to the Case of Infants, because all such Effectual desire in them to have Baptism, is wanting, and the foresaid holy Fathers do therefore justly upon warrant of Scripture, for want of Baptism, together with the desire thereof, which Infants cannot have, exclude them from heaven: Excepting always the Case of Martyrdom, by which Infants are saved, (14) See Mat. 2.16. Mat. 10.39. Mar. 8.35. Aug. de Ciu. Dei. l 13. c. 7. though not baptised: for so S. Cyprian affirmeth, (15) Praefat. lib. de Exhort. Martirij. Martyrdom to be a Baptism, and more excellent than Baptism of water. (16) In ps. 118. serm. 3. S. Ambrose distinguisheth three Baptisms, one of water, another of blood, and another of Purgatory in another life. And (17) Hier. in c. 4. ad Eph. Aug. l. 3. de Ciu. Dei. c. 7. Cyril. Catech. 3. Nazianz. Orat. in sanctae Lumina. many other Fathers do distinguish the Baptism of water, from the Baptism of Martyrdom. CHAP. XXI. The true state of the Question, concerning the B. Sacrament of Christ's Body, and Blood. Whether in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, under the forms of Bread and wine, there be truly, and really, and not only in sign, figure, or representation, contained the very Body and Blood of Christ our Saviour, which was borne of the B. Virgin Mary, and afterwards crucified. SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. WHEREAS Protestants pretend to believe two Sacraments, Baptism & the Lords Supper; in the precedent Chapter I have showed how little esteem they have of Baptism, as thinking it not necessary to remission of sins or salvation, and that it may be omitted, or taken away: I intent in this to show thei● like, and fare greater contempt of the most divine and heavenly Sacrament of the Eucharist, making it in substance to be nothing else but bread and wine, and only in figure, sign, and representation the Body and Blood of Christ. But in Condemnation of this Heresy, the Catholic Church (1) Concil. Trid. Sess. 13. c. 2. teacheth, and doth openly and simply profess, that in the sacred holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, after the Consecration of Bread and wine, Our Lord jesus-christ, true God and Man, is truly, really, and substantially under the form of these sensile things contained: for neither are these things repugnant amongst themselues, that our Saviour himself may always sit at the right hand of his Father in heaven, according to the natural manner of being, and that notwithstanding, his substance may be present with us, in many other places Sacramentally, in that manner of being, which although we can scarcely express with words, yet by our thoughts illuminated by faith, we may apprehended it possible to God, and constantly we aught to believe it: for so all our Elders, so many as were in the true Church of Christ, who have disputed of this holy Sacrament, have most openly professed, that our Redeemer hath instituted this most admirable Sacrament in his last Supper, when after the Benediction of Bread and Wine, he witnessed in evident and plain words, that he did give them his own very Body and Blood: which words rehearsed by the holy Evangelists, and afterwards repeated by S. Paul, seeing they bear that proper and most plain signification, according to which they were understood of the Fathers, it is verily a most heinous wickedness, that those words should be wrested by certain contentious and naughty men, to feigned and Imaginary tropes, whereby the truth of the flesh and Blood of Christ is denied, against the universal sense of the Church, which as a Pillar and foundation of truth, hath detested these false fictions, as Satanical, devised by wicked men, acknowledging ever with a grateful and mindful hart, this most excellent benefit of Christ. And therefore, (2) Can. 1. If any shall deny, that the Body and the Blood, together with the soul and Divinity of our Lord jesus Christ, and therefore whole Christ, to be really and substantially contained in the Sacrament of the most holy Euchariste, but shall say, that he is only in it, as in a sign, or figure, or virtually, Anathema. (3) Can. 2. And, If any shall affirm in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of bread and wine to remain together with the Body and Blood of our Lord jesus-christ: and shall deny that admirable and singular Conversion of the whole substance of Bread into the Body, and whole substance of wine into the Blood, the forms of Bread and wine only remaining, which conversion the Catholic Church doth most fitly call Transubstantiation, Anathema. (4) Can. 4. If any shall affirm, that Consecration being made, there is not the Body and Blood of our Lord jesus Christ in the admirable Sacrament of the Eucharist, but only in the use, whilst it is received, but not before or after: And that in the Hosts or particles consecrated, which are reserved, or remain after Communion, not to remain the true Body of our Lord, Anathema. And, (5) Can. 6. If any shall affirm, that in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ the only begotten son of God, is not to be adored with the worship of Latria (or divine) even external etc. Anathema (6) Can. 8. Or that Christ exhibited in the Eucharist, is only eaten spiritually, & not also Sacramentally and really, let him be accursed. (7) Can. 9 If any shall deny, that all and every Christian of either sex, when they shall come to the years of Discretion, to be bound yearly, at lest at Easter to communicate, according to the Precept of our holy Mother the Church, Anathema. (8) Can. 11. And if any shall say. Only faith to be preparation sufficient to receive the Sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, Anathema. And lest so great a Sacrament should be received unworthily, and so to death, and condemnation, the holy Synod doth ordain and declare, that Sacramental Confession is necessary to be first used by them if they have means of a Ghostly Father, whom the Conscience of Mortal sins doth burden, although they think themselves never so contrite. So clearly and particularly is our Catholic Doctrine declared, and Decreed by this sacred Synod. In the first and most famous Council of Nice, it is thus determined, (9) Conc. Nicen. 1. l. 3. Decret. de divina Mensa. Let us not be a little attended to the Bread & Cup proposed on the divine Table, but elevating our minds by faith, let us understand that Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world, to be placed upon that sacred Table, to be sacrificed by Priests unbloodily, and that we receiving his precious Body and Blood, to believe these to be the signs of our Resurrection. This Canon is acknowledged for true, by the Prot. writers, (10) Apud Iac. Andraeam. in Confut. Disp. Grinaei. de coena Domini. p. 88 Oecolamp. l. Epist. Oecol. & Zwingl. p. 663. 667. Bills. true differ. part. 4. pag. 553. Grinaeus, Oecolampadius, & D. Bilson. In the second Council of Nice, it is said (11) Act. 6. Tom. 3. eiusdem fine. of Christ our Saviour, that having taken Bread giving thanks, he broke, and gave to his Disciples, and said, Take ye, and eat ye. This is my body etc. And he said not, take ye, and ear ye the image of my Body etc. Our Lord, or his Apostles, or Fathers, have in no place called an Image (or figure) the unbloody Sacrifice, which is offered by the Priest, but the very Body itself, and the Blood itself &c. Before they are sanctified they are called types, but after Sanctification, they are called, are, and believed, properly the Body and Blood of Christ. In the Council of Laterane it is defined that, (12) Conc. Lateran. 4. Oecum. sub. Innoc. 3. Cap. 1. There is one universal Church of the faithful, out of which none at all is saved: In which Christ jesus is both the Priest, and the Sacrifice, whose Body and Blood in the Sacrament of the Altar, are truly contained under the forms of Bread and wine; the Bread by divine power transubstantiated into the Body, and the wine into the Blood, that for the perfecting the Mystery of Unity, we might receive of his, what he hath received of ours. No man can make this Sacrament, but a Priest, who is duly ordered according to the keys of the Church, which Christ jesus granted to the Apostles, and to their Successors. And the like is taught by the other General Counsels of (13) Sess. 13. Constance, and (14) Decret. Eugen. P P. Florence. Answerably to these holy Counsels, all (15) Bellar. de Euchar. l. 1. c. 2. etc. & l. 3. c. 18. etc. Rhem. Test. in Mat. 26.26. & in Luc. 22.19. Catholics now believe, that in this blessed Sacrament, the Body and Blood of Christ are not only figuratively, spiritually, or by faith, but truly and really, the Substance of Bread & wine being wholly changed or transubstantiated into that very Body and Blood of our Lord, which he took from the ever B. Virgin Mary, and which was afterwards offered upon the Cross. Points Disputable. All teaching, that the Accidents of Bread and Wine remain without subject: yet concerning the manner, (16) Scotus in 4. Dist. 22. q. 1. Some think, that nothing of new is added unto them, but that God only doth preserve them without subject. (17) Caietanus. Others, that God giveth them a certain substantial manner of being, by virtue whereof they subsist by themselves. Some (18) Paludan. 4. Dist 18. q. 3. Capreol. eadem Dist q. 1. Concil. ●. Pet. à Soto in Instit. Sacerd. lect. 2. de Euchar. think, that the form consisteth in all those words (enim excepted) which according to the rite of the Latin Church, are pronounced at Consecration. But (19) Alex. Halen. 4 p. q. 33. mem. 4. art. 3. Bonau. in 4, Dist. Art 1. q 2. Alanus de Euchar. c. 19 others more truly teach, that the words Novi, and Eterni, and the rest that follow, are not of the Essence of the form. Some (20) See Bellar. de Euchar l. 3. cap. 28. and D. Morton in his Mass of Christ. l. 3 c. 3. Sect 1. teach that, Transubstantiation is made by Production; Others by adduction; Others by Conservation: but none of these are determined by any Council. Protestant Untruths. Luther (21) L. de Captivit. Babyl. c. 1. quod est de Euchar. affirmeth, that S. Thomas was Author of that opinion which all Catholics teach, to wit, that in the Sacrament of the Altar, there is not the substance of Bread and Wine, but only accidents. But to omit more Ancient testimonies, this Doctrine was defined in the Council of (22) C. 1. Lateran, before S. Thomas was borne. Caluin (23) Instit. l. 4. c 17. §. 43. teacheth, that Pope Alexander was the first that used unleavened bread: but is clear that (24) Mat. 26. Mar. 14. Luc. 22. Christ used it before upon the first day of the Azimes. Luther (25) L. de Captivit. Babyl. c. 1. Pet. Mart. l. 1. cont. Gardin. object. 228. Calu. Instit. l. 4. c. 17. § 15. and others avouch, that Transubstantiation was first invented by the Council of Laterane. But to omit all other proofs; the Centuristes affirm, that S. chrysostom (26) Cent. 5. Col. 517. seemeth to teach Transubstantiation: and that, Eusebius Emissenus (27) Cent. 4. c. 10. Col. 985. 295. did speak unprofitably of Transubstantiation: & that S. Ambrose (28) Cent. 4. c. 4 col. 295. did not writ well of Transubstantiation. Vrsinus confesseth, that, (29) Commonefactio cuiusdam Theol. de S. Coena etc. p. 211. 218. In Cyprian are many sayings which seem to affirm Transubstantiation. And Adamus Francisci, will not deny, but that (30) Margarita Theol. pa. 256. Transubstantiation entered early into the Church. Peter Martyr and Chemnitius report, that the Grecians do reject Transubstantiation: but this is proved clearly false, by the (31) Censura Orientalium ad August. confess. c. 10. Censure of the Grecians, given upon the Confession of Augusta. Chemnitius accuseth Andradius to teach, that Transubstantiation is one of those points which cannot be proved from Scriptures: but he corrupteth him, his words are these: (32) Lib. de coena Dom. Although Transubstantiation could not be proved by manifest Scriptures, as you think etc. But Chemnitius to serve his own purpose, can easily change a Conditional speech into an absolute. Protestant Doctrine. The English Prot. Church decreeth, that, (33) Article 28. Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of Bread and wine in the supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy writ: but it is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, & hath given occasion to many Superstitions. The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the supper, is faith. The Sacrament of the Lords Supper, was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped. Zwinglius teacheth that, (34) Tom. 2. de coena fol. 289. Bread is only a figure whereby that Body is signified, whereof we aught to be mindful. (35) Ibid. fol. 291. The drink was indeed nothing else then wine. Cartwright, (36) Apud Martyr. in disp. Oxon. p 134. The Eucharist is only a sign. Perkins (37) Tom. de coena. Col. 858. Bread is called the body, when as it is only a sign, or seal of the Body. All know that Luther and his followers do believe the Real Presence, but their Error was, that with the Body and the Blood, there was also Bread and Wine in the Sacrament. Caluin condemneth in this both Luther and Zwinglius, and inventeth another way of his own, which I shall examine and confute, in the next Section at large. Protestants agreed with Ancient Heretics. The first Heretics (as S. Austin (38) In psal. 54. termeth them) that impugned the Real Presence, were the Capharnaites, saying, (39) Io. 6.52. How can this man give us his flesh to eat? But they were reproved by Christ himself in these words (40) Io. 6.53. Amen, Amen I say unto you, unless you eat the flesh etc. And whereas not only the Capharnaites, but some of Christ his Disciples doubted also hereof, as appeareth by these words, (42) Io. 6.60. Many therefore of his Disciples bearing it said, This saying is hard, and who can hear it? These also are reprehended by Christ (43) Io. 6.61.64. for murmuring and Incredulity. Now, that judas was one of these Disciples who did not believe the Real Presence, S. Chrisostome (45) Ho. 46. in joan. gathereth out of these words: (46) Io 6.64. But there be certain of you that believe not: for jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe, and who he was that would betray him: and S. Austin affirmeth, (47) Tract. 27. in ●oan. judas to have stayed then with Christ, not to understand and believe, but to deceive. Yea S. Austin (48) In Enar Ps. ●4. aduer. 22. & ps. 55. aduer. 7. affirmeth judas to have been the chiefest suborner and mantainer of this heresy, and that this was the first Heresy against Christ's doctrine: and he commendeth Peter for his humble obedience, infirmely believing Christ's words to be true, which he did not yet understand. So that as the jews used judas for their Captain & chief helper in the betraying and apprehending of Christ; so the Sacramentaries use the same judas, as their ringleader and Master for their taking Christ from the Sacrament, and Altar. And as judas was tempted by the Devil to betray Christ, for (49) Luc. 22.3. Satan entered into judas etc. so also by the Devil was he made a Sacramentary: for as I have showed before, that he was one of those Disciples that did not believe the Real Presence, for which he was reproved by Christ, so presently after this Christ saith of him (50) Io. 6.70. Have not I chosen you the 12. and of you one is a Devil? So that the first Impugner of the Real Presence, was the Devil, after him the Capharnaits & judas, from whom our modern Prot. are lineally descended: and so I may say of them, (51) Io. 8.44. You are of your Father the Devil, and the desires of your Father you will do. But this their Pedigree is so certain, that Luther (52) In Colloquio Wittenberg. avoucheth Martin Bucer to have been taught by a Malignant Spirit to deny the Body and Blood of Christ to be truly and really in the Eucharist. Zwinglius confesseth of himself, that he had, (53) L. de subsidio Eucharistiae. An admonisher black or white, he remembreth not; who taught him by Scriptures to make the Eucharist only a figure: but Schlusselburg determineth, that it (54) Theol. Caluin. l. 2. fol. 76. was the black spirit of darkness, from whom the Zwinglians took this their Sacramentary opinion. And diverse (55) Baronius Anno 1208. Nicolaus Serrarius in opusculo de M. Caluin. authors do record of Berengarius, that he being in the Chamber of Bishop Fulbertus, formerly his Master, who was at the point of death, the Bishop commanded, that he should be cast out of the chamber, because he saw the Devil upon his shoulder, beckoning with his hand to others to follow him, and thereby foresaw (56) Gulielmus Malmesburiensis l. 3. de Rebus gestis, Anglorum. that by the Instigation of the Devil, he would prove a great depraver of Catholic doctrine, S. Cyrill (57) L. 4. Pentab. apud Turrianum. l. 1. de Can. Apost. c. 11. of Alexandria gathereth from S. Paul, (38) that some of the Corinthians did not believe this mystery: for the Apostle against this their Error, with great vehemency of words repeateth the Institution of Christ: You meeting (saith he) together, I hear there are divisions amongst you, and in part I believe, for there must be Heresies etc. for seeing (saith S. Cyrill) some of them did not know the Tradition and force of the Mystery, (58) 1. Cor. 10. & 11. they made in the Churches, dainty banquets, and pleasing suppers. So that, they had not the Celebration of that mystery, for a thing so sacred as the Body and Blood of Christ, but almost for a vulgar, or peradventure mystical supper, in regard of some signification: which Error, with some other Abuses that the Apostle might confute, he repeateth the Institution even as he had received it from our Lord etc. And he inferreth, that they did receive unworthily, because they did not discern the Body of our Lord, as not being so in their opinion. S. Austin writing of this point, affirmeth, that (59) Ep. 118. c. 3. The Apostle saith, therefore they received unworthily, who did not discern this from other meat: (veneratione singulariter debita) with honour singularly due: for forthwith when he had said, He eateth and drinketh judgement to himself, he annexed, that he might say, not discerning the Body of our Lord: which sufficiently appeareth in all that place of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, if it be diligently marked. Here S. Austin insinuateth (as also S. Cyrill did observe) that to this belongeth that which the Apostle said in the precedent Chapter; The Bread which we break is it not the Communication of the Body of Christ? and the Cup of Benediction which we bless, is it not the Communication of the Blood of Christ? as though some there were amongst the Corinthians which did deny this, although there were others that did believe it. And though some understand this place not of heresy, or Error in Doctrine, but of Error in Manners, in that some of the Corinthians did banquet in the Church, and did not admit the poor to the holy Communion: yet in that it is said hereof that, There must be Heresies, which sundry Ancient (60) Cyprian l. de unit. Eccl. & l. 3. ad Quirinum. c. 93. August. de Civit. Dei. l. 16. c. 2. & l. 1. de Gen. cont. Manich c. 1. & in Ps. 67. Fathers do expound of heresies in Doctrine, I do not see but it must be understood both of heresies in doctrine, & abuses in Manners. The Sacramentaries than have for their Ancient Patroness, certain of the Corinthians, but they have also S. Paul reproving and condemning them. The Saturnians did not believe the Divine Word to have taken unto him man's body, but only a certain figure or Image thereof; whereupon they thought consequently, that in the Eucharist there was only a figure of a man's body; S. Ignatius saith of them, (61) Ep ad Smyrn ap. Theodoret. Dial. 3. And see Iren. l 5. cap. 2. They do not admit Eucharistes and Oblations, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins. These words are acknowledged and cited for the words of Saint Ignatius, by (62) Exam. part. 1. p. 94. Hamelman. de Tradit. Apost. Col. 746. Simon Method. aliquot. loc. part. 3. fol. 172. Chemnitius, Hamelmanus, Simon Pauli, and other Protestants. To omit many others, for the same Error was condemned Berengarius by the Council of Vercelles, under Leo the nynth. And after by the Council of Tours, under Victor the second: where being present, he promised by Oath never to defend that Heresy again. But afterwards falling into a relapse, a general Council was assembled at Rome, by Nicolas the second, in which he was again (63) Decret. de Consecrat. Dist. 2. Can. Ego Berengarius. condemned, and himself, in the presence of the Pope and the whole Council, burned his own Books, and renewed his Oath, and (64) See Thom. Waldens. tom. 2. de Sacram. c. 43. form of faith which he had formerly made. But for all this he relapsed again, and thereupon was called to a (65) Guliel. Malmesb. de gestis Angl. l. 3. Council assembled at Rome under Gregory the 7. where he was again condemned: and there, it is said, he seriously repent, & afterwards died well and piously. The Antropomorphites denied the Eucharists reservation, but they were condemned by S. (66) Ad Calosyrium. Cyrill, as is also confessed and disliked by Pet. (67) Cont. Gardin. col. 838. Fulk against Heskins p. 8●. Oecolamp. l. 3. Ep. ●89. Martyr and other Protestant's. From these condemned Heretics our Modern Sectaries have learned to deny the Real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar. Protestants Errors. Beza broacheth this strange Doctrine, (68) Epist. Theol. 2. Tho. Tilio circa med. Where bread or wine are either not used, or not great plenty thereof at sometimes, must no supper of the Lord be celebated? Yea it willbe duly celebrated, if that which either by common use, or, by reason of the time, supplieth the place of Bread and Wine, be used instead of Bread and wine. So that a Piecrust, and a bowl of Beer or milk, willbe matter sufficient for a Protestant Communion. And in further proof of this his Error, he produceth (69) Ep. 25. Tilenus' in syntag. c. 61. p. 719. Bucanus Instit. Theol. loc. 48. p. 661. Hunnius' Disp. 47. p. 282. at large the same Doctrine of Caluin, and other Protestants. Luther speaking of the Preparation to be made before receiving, saith, (70) In Concione de digna Praeparatione ad Sacram. Euch. The best disposition is none but that wherewith thou art worst disposed: and on the contrary, than thou art worst disposed, when thou art best disposed. And heerupon he persuadeth not to repent before Communion, but after. And (71) In Concione de Confession & Euchar. thinketh that man most fit for Communion, who is fallen into foulest crimes. I will ( (72) Tom. 3. in psal. 5 fol. 172. saith he) speak rashly and freely, There are not any nearer to God in this life, nor more grateful & loving sons, than these haters and blasphemers of God. Yea he judgeth that (73) De Captivit. Babyl. c. de Euchar. only those may receive worthily, who have sorrowful, afflicted, troubled, confounded, and erroneous Consciences. And in the same place he contradicteth himself, for he affirmeth that, only saith is the peace of Conscience, only Infidelity the trouble of Conscience. And yet he exhorteth Christians to come to receive with undoubted faith. But if they only receive worthily who have troubled Consciences, & only Infidelity is the trouble of the Conscience, than they only receive worthily who want faith, for those that have faith, have peace, not trouble of Conscience, and therefore according to him, it is unlawful to exhort Communicants to come with faith. He (74) In Tra. de Communione populi. further teacheth, that none aught to be admitted to Communion, but those who acknowledge they come, because they are troubled with the Conscience of mortal sin, whereby he excommunicateth the B. Virgin, and all the Apostles after their receiving of the holy Ghost, for doubtless they could not say, that they were troubled with the Conscience of mortal sin. Concerning Gods Omnipotency, a Protestant writeth thus, (75) Resp. ad calum. Nebulonis. p. 730. Caluin in sundry places sharply refuteth the fiction of God's absolute power, which the Sophisters do publish in their Schools. And yet others of his Brethten teach, that so potent is Faith, that (76) Sadeel. de Sacram. manduc. p. 300. Whitak. l. 2. Cont. Dur. sect. 8. it can make things future, absent, and most remote, to be present. Whereupon Andreas inferreth very well, that, (77) Apud Schluss. l. 4. Theol. Calu. art. 9 p. 344. they attribute more power to faith, then to Christ. Some Prot. think the real Presence to be impossible: for Beza writeth, that, God (78) In Colloq. Montisb. p. 27. cannot make that the Body of Christ at one, and the same time essentially be present in many places. Sadeel saith, (79) Resp. ad Art 14. abiurat. p. 433. 414. We have showed, that the Body of Christ cannot indeed be present in many places at the same time, and that the Omnipotency of God cannot do this. The like is taught by sundry Prot. (80) Tilenus' in syntag. p. 75. Beza l. quaest vol. 1. p. 658. Danaeus apud Andr. in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 170. concerning Christ his Body penetrating the doors, the stone of the Sepulchre etc. and his body not occupying place. Zwinglius professeth his damnable Infidelity concerning the B. Sacrament, in these words: (81) Apud Schlusselb. l. 4 Theol. Caluin art. q. p. 344. And see the like in Resp. ad Billicanum. Tom. 2. fol. 263. Although God with all his Blessed Angels should descend from heaven, and should swear, in the supper of the Lord the Body and Blood of Christ to be given to all that receive it; yet I neither could, nor would believe it, unless with my eyes and hands I should see and feel Christ present. So that according to this accursed Heretic, we must in this Sacred Mystery, rather believe our eyes, and hands (being but fallible senses) than the Oaths of God, and all his blessed Angels, being of Infallible verity: what argument then can be expected to be so powerful, as to withdraw an heretic from his obstinate blindness? SETC. II. Wherein is enquired what Protestants understand by receiving spiritually, or by faith. I Desire to premonish the Reader of the strange proceed, shameful contrarieties, & desperate shifts which Prot. use in their disputes with us, in this weightiest Controversy of the B. Sacrament. The Question of the Real Presence being but propounded, they presently tell us, that Christ never intended or willed it. And when to declare his will, we allege his word, they make then new question of his power, under pretence, that it is impossible. And when in reply thereto, we prove to them directly and confessedly that it is not impossible, then returning by a Circle to their former Evasion, they answer, that the Question is not of his power, but only of his wil And when we urge the words of Christ himself, their answers sometimes are, that the words are plain for Transubstantiation: but at other times they maintain, that they are full of figures and obscurities. The figure they will sometimes have in the pronoun, This; but this being by us cleared, than they remove it to the verb. Is: and when this also is convinced of falsehood, than they fly to the Substantive Body: and when this will not serve their turn, than they look out figures in the Cup, in the Blood, and in the Testament: but these being clearly discovered to be false or impertinent, they finally charge the Evangelist S. Luke with Solecism, inconngruity, and error in the Text. That these and sundry other such like Rounds the dance, and betake themselves to such base and unworthy shifts, I refer myself to this subsequent Discourse. Protestants understand by receiving spiritually or by Faith, that they do receive in their Communion, not only the Sacrament of Christ's Body, neither only the grace and spiritual effects of his Body, but besides all this, they affirm, that they do really and truly receive the very Body and Blood of Christ after a spiritual and wonderful manner. To this end M. Whitaker saith, (1) Whitak. count. Duraeum. l. 2. p. 169 circ. med whereas you do affirm that I do slip from the Body of Christ, to the force and benefit of his Body, it is very idle; as though I separated the force and benefit from the Body itself, or when I denied that we excluded the Communion of his Body, I did not openly affirm the Body itself to be received. The Confession of Belgia doth likewise teach, that, (2) See the Harm. of Confess p. 431. that which is eaten is the very natural Body of Christ etc. And, that this Supper is the Spiritual Table, in which we are partakers as well of Christ himself, as of the merits of his death and Passion. In like manner Amandus Polanus saith, (3) Syllog. Thesium de coena Domini. p. 304. et. l. 1. partit. Theol. p. 279. Not only Bread and wine, neither only the Deity, neither only the virtue and efficacy of Christ is present in the Supper; but the very Body and the very Blood of Christ, are in very deed present in the Sacred Supper. And the like presence as well of his Body, as of the efficacy thereof, is yet further plainly affirmed by sundry other Protestant (4) See Smith ser. 1. p. 103 & the French Confess in the Harm. p. 426. & Obseru. annexed thereto. sect. 14. writers; in so much as D. Whitaker declaring what is in question between them and us, saith expressly, (5) Whitak. count. Duraeum. p. 169. We make not question of the Presence of Christ's Body, but only we dispute of the manner of his Presence, which you affirm to be Carnal and Capharnaicall; and we heavenly, spiritual, and divine. And howsoever Zwinglius, Oecolampadius, Peter (6) In Ep. annexed to his come. places in Engl. Ep. 25. p. 107. Martyr, and some (7) Oecolamp. l. de verbis Domini. Hoc est corpus meum. Lavatherus Hist. Sacram. p. 4. Art Serm. 3. de coen●. others stand adverse to this Protestanticall Real Presence of Christ's Body, yet as M. Hooker confesseth, the former opinions of Zwinglius and Oecolampadius notwithstanding, (8) Hook. Eccl. Pol. l. 5. sect. 67. p. 174. All sides at length are grown to a general agreement, concerning the Real participation of Christ: whereupon he concludeth, that, (9) Ib. p. 177. the Eucharist is not a figure only, and that the efficacy of Christ's Body & Blood, is not all we receive in this Sacrament; affirming further, that these mysteries do make us partakers both of the Grace of that Body, and beside also do impart to us, even in true and real, though mystical manner, the very person of our Lord himself. This may seem much to come from Protestants. But yet they further confess, that although they say, they receive Christ's Body spiritually, yet they say, they use not the word (Spiritual) meaning thereby to seclude their former real receiving of Christ's natural Body: for the Divines of Geneva do explain the matter, (10) Vide Apol. mo●est. ad acta Conuentus 15. Theologorum Torgae nuper habit. p. 49. Spiritualis perceptionis nomine etc. by the name of spiritual receiving, we do not mean that, whereby is received the only spiritual Grace of Christ. And the French Confession answerable to this saith, (11) Sect. 14. We do utterly deny, that instead of the very Body & Blood of Christ, we do place only his merits, or his spiritual force and operation, affirming further that they, though spiritually and mystically, do yet notwithstanding truly participate Christ himself. And here Prot. give a twofold reason for the using of the word, spiritual: first, for that their spirit or faith, and not their bodily mouth receiveth Christ's Body in the Sacrament. Secondly, for that according to M. Fulke, (12) In his Defence of the Engl. Translat. ag. Gregory Mart. p. 455. The Creatures or elements, being blessed and consecrated, are by the working of God's spirit, changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, after a Divine and spiritual manner unto the worthy receivers, the cooperation of his Omnipotent power making it his Body and Blood unto us. Now for the manner of their Real spiritual Presence of Christ's Body, they explain it in diverse of their Confessions, as first in that of France thus, (13) In Harm. Confess. p. 426. We say it is done spiritually, not that we may counterfeit an Imagination etc. but rather because this mystery of our union with Christ is so high a thing, that it surmonteth all our senses, yea and the whole Order of nature; and because it being divine and heavenly, cannot be perceived, nor apprehended but by faith. Secondly, the Confession of Belgia saith, (14) In Harm. Confess. p 431. The manner itself being far above the reach of our Capacity, cannot be comprehended of any etc. Neither shall we err in saying that, that which is eaten is the very natural body of Christ etc. Furthermore this supper bringeth to pass, that we in it are partakers aswell of himself, as of the merits of his death and Passion. Thirdly, the Brethrens of Geneva express the manner, by way of demand saying; (15) In Apol. modest. ad acta conventus. p. 47. ante med. But how can it be brought to pass, that we living upon Earth, should participate the flesh of Christ now placed in Heaven, and though it be spiritually, yet it is truly and by faith etc. This I say surmounteth our Capacity, and is that Mystery which the Apostle pronounceth to be Great. Lastly john Caluin concludeth for all, saying. (16) Inst. l. 4. c. 17. sect. 7. Nothing remaineth but that I should burst out into admiration of that Mystery, to which neither mind in thinking, nor tongue in speaking can be equal. And the like is affirmed by diverse others. But this Doctrine and manner of the Prot. Real Presence thus explicated, is chargeable with manifest and manifold Contradictions: as first, that Christ's natural body should be truly and really present, and yet not bodily but spiritually: if they understand, spiritually, as excluding the Real substance and being of a thing corporal, this seemeth a manifest contradiction, for as the true substance of Christ's spirit cannot be corporally or bodily present to us, because it is no body but a spirit, so neither can Christ's body be present to us spiritually, (except we understand the word spiritually as the (17) 1. Cor. 15.44. Apostle doth, which would be impertinent to the matter in hand) because it is no spirit but a Body: and therefore whether the Protestants affirm Christ's Body to be truly present in, or with the Sacrament, or truly present to their faith, yet the true presence thereof, must needs be bodily, and not spiritually in the above mentioned sense, unless they will change his Body into a spirit. Secondly, what more contradictory, than Christ's body must be contained in heaven, only, and that until the day of judgement, and yet also the same Body is truly present to them upon Earth? here also they are forced to fly to their imagined Evasion, crying out, that this also is wonderful & above all course of nature. Caluin saith hereof, (18) Instit. l. 4. c. 17. sect, 10. Although it may seem incredible, that in so great a distance of places as of heaven and Earth, the flesh of Christ should penetrate to us, that it may be meat for us, we must yet remember, how much above all our senses, the secret power of the holy Ghost can show itself. And after: (19) Ib. Calu. sect. 31. If any man (saith he) ask me the manner hereof, I shall not be ashamed to confess, that it is a secret more high than can be comprehended by wit, or declared by words. With Caluin agreeth B●za, in like manner saying hereof, (20) De re Sacram. Nevertheless we confess the Mystery of God to be incomprehensible, whereby it cometh to pass, that, that which is in heaven and no where else, should be truly communicated to us who are now upon Earth and no where else. And the Divines of Geneva conclude, and say of this very point, (21) Apol. modest. ad acta conventus. p. 23. & 47. antemed. that it surmounteth all understanding even of the Angels themselves, and showeth sufficiently that we do by this our doctrine, attribute more to the Omnipotency of Christ, than they who think the true Communicating of Christ to be abolished unless the Real Presence and receiving of Christ's Body with the mouth, be established. But now the Instrument or means of this great wonder D. Whitaker teacheth to be our (22) L. 2. cont. Duraeum. p. 170. Faith, the same being the ground of things (23) Heb 11.2. hoped for, and an argument of things not seen: our faith therefore it is, and the holy Ghost, which as Caluin saith, doth (24) Calu. Instit. l. 4. c. 17. sect. 10. verè vuire quae locis disiuncta sunt, truly unite together things which are severed in places: and which as Bastingius teacheth, (25) In Catechismo Anglic. fol. 150. maketh things absent to be present. Whence also it cometh to pass, that Christ's Body, though not then in being, was yet, according to their Doctrine, truly present to the Fathers of the Old Testament, & that not in efficacy only, but in very deed, and as truly as he is now present to them in the Sacrament. In so much that in regard of the Fathers said Real eating of Christ's Body, before it was borne or in being (which manducation or eating is but an accident thereunto) they doubt not to defend, that, non ens, may have accidentia, nothing may have accidents: Yea D. Whitaker goeth so far in this kind of the Father's eating Christ's true and Real Body by faith, that he delivereth this Doctrine following for currant, (26) L. 1. count Dur. p. 170. But the Body of Christ was not yet borne or framed? that hindereth nothing whereby faith may not enjoy the Body of Christ not yet created etc. For if Christ were slain, from the beginning of the word, than was he present to the Ancient Fathers by his Body and Death. And in the fame place following, he addeth, (27) Ib p. 171. That all the Fathers did eat● the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink, to wit, Christ: but if they did eat and drink Christ, it followeth, that Christ was present unto them. And to the like effect speaketh Grinaeus a Caluinist, in answering a Lutheran Opponent in a public Disputation, his words are these, (28) See Acta Disp. de S. Coena in Academ. Heidelburg. habit. Anno 1584. fol. 73. Therefore there is a double craving of the thing in question; first, that in the Old Testament the Body of Christ was not at all present, and elsewhere, Grinaeus further answereth, saying, (29) Ib. p. 74. Now because you do confess, that the Fathers of the Old Testament, by a lively faith were made partakers of the efficacy of the Body of Christ, you must also necessarily confess this thing further, that the same Fathers also were made partakers of the Body of Christ. And yet again returning upon the Opponent, he saith, (30) Ib. ut scip. p. 74. Either you must deny that the Fathers of the old Testament were made partakers of the Efficacy of Christ's body, or you must grant that they no less than we, were made partakers of Christ's Body etc. Neither do I dis●●sse, or debate the point touching Christ's benefits alone, as if the Fathers were made partakers of sole grace of the goods & benefits of Christ, neither speak I of the efficacy. And yet again in another place, he concludeth saying, (31) Fol. 76. loc. sup. citato. I plainly say, that the substance or Essence of the Body and Blood of Christ, was truly, and in very deed received, but no otherwise then spiritually, of either Fathers, aswell of those who lived in the Old Testament, as of those who have been in the New, and yet are. And for last upshut of all, whereas the Lutheran Opponent against this Caluinisticall conceit of the Old Father's Real eating of Christ's Body, had rightly urged, Non entis nulla esse accidentia, that nothing could have no accidents; and therefore Christ's Body having no Existence, or being at all, could not be eaten at all, (because the eating of Christ's body, was an accident to his Body) Grinaeus replieth, (32) Vide ib. f. 73. & 77 & 78. Maiorem negamus esse universalem, in qua dicis non entis esse nulla accidentia: we deny the Mayor to be universal, wherein you say, that nothing can have no accidents. To such gross absurdities are Protestants driven by this Imaginary Conceit of receiving only spiritually and by faith. But the truth is, these Caluinistes, resolving to oppose the Catholic truth, and affecting to have some Novelty, different from Lutheranism and Zwinglianisme, invented this of receiving the true and real Body of Christ spiritually and by faith. A mystery so deep, as that they think, neither mind in thinking, nor tongue in speaking can be equal to express it. SECT. III. The Real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament, is proved by Testimonies of Scripture taken from the Old Testament. THe figures of the Old Testament were accounted (1) Col. 2.17. And see S. Hieron. in c. 1. ad Titum. shadows of things to come. And so, that the Paschall Lamb was a figure of the Eucharist is generally (2) Tert 1.4. in Martion. I●ichius in c. 23 Levit. Hieron. in c. 26. Mat. Chrysost. ho. de prodit. judae. Cyp. l. de unit. Ecclesiae. Aug. l. 2. cont. litter. Petil. c. 37. Leo ser. 7. de Pass Dom. Greg. hom. 22. in Euang. taught, and the same may be proved, in that our Saviour immediately after the eating of the Paschall Lamb, instituted the Eucharist, thereby to signify, that the old Rite was (3) Luc. 22.18.19. Mat. 26.26. fulfilled in this new Sacrament, and so to be taken away: and that the Paschall Lamb of the jews was a thing more excellent than the Eucharist, if therein be not contained the Body of Christ, is evident, for if they be considered according to their own natures, a lamb excelleth bread, and if they be considered as Sacraments or external signs, the difference betwixt them manifestly appeareth; for the flesh of Christ is more perfectly signified by the flesh of a Lamb, then by bread: and the death of Christ is better represented by the death of a Lamb, then by breaking of bread: and so also Christ's innocency, and other properties, are better figured by that chosen Lamb without spot, which in the Law was commanded to be offered up & eaten, then by bread, which hath none of these. S. Austin speaking of this figure saith, One thing is the Pasche, which the jews celebrated of a sheep, another that which we receive in the Body and Blood of Christ. The same may be also proved by the Blood of the Testament, used by Moses, as God had commanded him, (4) L. 2. cont. lit. Petil. c. 37. (5) Exod. 24.8. And he took the blood, and sprinkled it upon the People, and said, This is the blood of the Covenant, which our Lord hath made with you upon all these words. And yet further in the Epistle to the Hebrews. (6) Heb. 9.18. Whereupon neither was the first certes dedicated without blood: for all the Commandment of the Law being read of Moses to all the people: be taking the blood of Calves and Goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and Hyssop, sprinkled the very Book also itself, and all the People saying, This is the blood of the Testament, which God hath commanded unto you. The Tabernacle also, and all the vessels of the Ministry he in like manner sprinkled with blood, and all things almost according to the law are cleansed with blood, and without sheeding of blood there is not remission. Now that this figure was fulfiled in the Institution of the Eucharist, appeareth in that our Saviour saith, (7) Luc. 22.20. This is the Chalice, the new Testament in my blood, so that at his supper his Testament was made. Secondly, in that our Saviour as it were of purpose, used also the same words with Moses, saying, (8) Mat. 26.28. For this is my blood of the new Testament. And thirdly in that our Saviour, as Moses before proposed a Law; so did he, saying, (9) Io. 13.34. A new Commandment I give unto you, that you love one another: sprinkling as it were the blood into the breast of the Apostles. Now, that this Blood of the Old Testament is better than Wine, is easily proved by the like Argument, whereby we proved a Lamb, to be better than Bread. In like sort the same may be proved by the Manna which God rained down to the jews in the desert, for that it was a figure of the Eucharist is manifest, by those words of our Saviour, (10) Io. 6.49.50. Your fathers did eat Manna in the desert, and they died. If any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever. So also S. (11) 1. Cor. 10.1.2.3. Paul compared the read sea to Baptism, and Manna to the Eucharist. and the great similitude between them, plainly confirmeth the same; for Manna was given in the desert, whilst the Children of Israel having passed the read sea, went to the land of promise; so the (12) Aug. tract. 12. in joan. Eucharist is given in the desert of this life, whilst by Baptism we pass to our true country, which is life everlasting. Manna had this singular Prerogative, that though some seemed to gather much, others little, yet all found the same measure, (13) Exod. 16.18. and they measured by the measure of a Gomer: neither he that gathered more had above nor he that provided less, found under: so in the Eucharist, the same virtue and fruit, is in a little part of the signs, which is in a greater: and that Manna was a figure of the Eucharist, it is (14) Chrys. Cyr. Theophil. & Aug. in 8. joan. Ambr. l. 5. de Sacram. c. 1. & de ijs qui initiantur mysterijs c. 8. & 9 commonly taught by the Ancient Fathers. Now that Manna was more excellent than our Eucharist, if it contain not the Body of Christ, is plain, it being made by the hands of Angels, this of the baker; it coming from heaven, this from the Oven or furnace; i● tasting whatsoever the eater desired, according to that of the Book of wisdom, (15) Cap. 16.20.21. For the which things thou didst nourish thy people with the meat of Angels, and bread prepared thou gavest them from heaven without labour, having in it all delectation, & the sweetness of all taste. For thy substance did show thy sweetness which thou hast towards thy children, and serving every man's will, it was turned to that every man would: but this of the Eucharist tasteth only Bread. Manna also better represented Christ, then bore figurative bread, it coming from heaven, having all sweetness, and equal measure being received by all, though it seemed divers: And yet our Saviour much preferreth the Eucharist before Manna, saying, Your (16) Io. 6.49.50.51. Fathers did eat Manna in the desert, and they died; this is the Bread that descendeth from heaven, that if any man eat of it, he die not. I am the living bread that came down from heaven: If any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever: and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. This pre-eminence given by our Saviour in this place unto the Bread, and calling it his flesh, convinceth that the same is not bread, as only a figure of Christ's Body, but even the Body itself, and in that respect far more excellent than Manna. Against these Arguments taken from the figures of the Old Testament, Peter (17) In sua Defence. de Euchar. part. 3. p. 692. Martyr replieth, that though the signs and forms of the Sacraments of the Old and New Testament be different, yet the thing received by both is the same, to wit, Christ, (18) 1. Cor. 10.3.4. S. Paul affirming the Hebrews to have eaten the same meat with us. But first S. Paul doth not say, as this lying Martyr forgeth, that the Hebrews did eat the same meat with us, but only that themselves did eat the same meat. Neither doth he say, that bread or drink of the Hebrews or the thing received in those Sacraments, to have been Christ, which yet this Martyr affirmeth with greatest confidence, for his words are truly these: And they drunk of the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. where he doth not say, that Christ was the water which they did drink, but the Rock from whence that water flowed; & not that material Rock from whence the water did visibly flow, but that invisible Rock which did follow the Hebrews, to wit, Christ's providence and power, which was the efficient cause of that water, and all other their blessings. SECT. iv That the Scriptures of the New Testament, convince our foresaid Catholic real Presence of Christ's Body, & Blood in the Eucharist. THe first proof is taken from the Promise of our Saviour saying, (1) Io. 6.51. The bread which I will give is my flesh. And again, (2) Ib. vers. 53.54.55. Amen, Amen. I say unto you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of Man, and drink his Blood, you shall not have life in you: he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my Blood hath life everlasting etc. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my Blood is drink indeed. In answer to this plain Testimony for the real Presence, which is so clear, that nothing can be devised to be spoken more plainly, yet (3) Luth. l. de Capt. Babyl. c. 1. Zwingl. l. de ver. & fals. Relig. c. de Euch. Chemuit. Exam. part. 2. p. 657. Caluin. Instit. l. 4. c. 17. §. 33. Prot. reply, that these wo●des do not concern the Eucharist, and therefore by bread, they indeed understand Christ, but not as in the Sacrament, under the forms of Bread and wine, but as taking upon him our human nature, and we receiving him by faith. But besides that the (4) Chrys. Aug. Cyr. Theoph & alij in hunc locum. Orig. ho. 7. in Nu. Basil. l. 1. de Bap. c. 3. & in reg. mor. c. 21. Cyril. Hier. Catach. 4. Mystag. Epiph. haer. 55. Theod. hist. l 4. c. 11. Damasc. l. 4. de fide. c. 14. Cypr. Ser. de Orat. Dom & l. 1. cont. judaeos. c. 21. Hil. l. 8. de Trinit. Ambr. l 6. de Sacram. c. 1. & deijs qui initiantur mysterijs. c. 8. & l. 4. de fide c. 5. Hier. Ep. ad Hedib. q. 2. & in. 1. c. ad Eph. Aug. Ser. 2. de verb. Domini. Leo. ser. 6. de I●iu●. Greg. l. 7. Moral. c. 4. Ber. Ser. 2 in Vigil. Natiu. & ser. 1. de Pascha●e. contrary is taught by many Fathers, the truth hereof is proved first, in that our Saviour spoke of the time to come, when he said, the bread which I will give is my flesh, whereas that spiritual eating of Christ by faith, is common to all times, the Fathers of the Old Testament receiving Christ in that sort. Secondly the similitude betwixt these words of Promise, and those of the Institution, take eat, this is my body, which is given for you to remission of sins, where the promise was performed, confirmeth the same. Thirdly it is said, The jews therefore striven amongst themselves, saying, how can this man give us his flesh to eat, And many therefore of his Disciples hearing it, said, this saying is hard, and who can hear it? From these places the deduction is, and very evident, that the jews and those Disciples thought some new and strange thing to be promised by Christ, and yet our Saviour did not correct their conceit, but persisted still saying, as it followeth in express words, (5) Io. 6.53.54.55.56.57.58. jesus therefore said unto them, Amen, Amen I say unto you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of Man, and drink his Blood, you shall not have life in you; he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my Blood, hath life everlasting. And I will raise him up at the last day; for my flesh, is meat indeed, and my Blood is drink indeed: he that cateth my flesh and drinketh my Blood, abideth in me and I in him; At the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, and he that eateth shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven etc. And now these Texts being so plain, who would imagine that our loving Saviour would with such offence, scandal and hurt, yea Apostasy of his Disciples, whom he loved so dearly, cover with so many dark pretended Metaphors, a thing so easy, as to believe in Christ, whereas he might have declared the same almost in a word, by telling only that his meaning was no more, then that they should eat his Body and drink his Blood spiritually, and by faith, or eat only the figure of this Body. Besides our B. Saviour had that care that his auditors should understand him, that always when he speak any thing obscurely in Parables, he was wont to explicate the same afterwards to his Disciples: as (6) Io. 3.3.4.5. first where he had told Nicodemus, Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God: and Nicodemus understood him not, as appeareth by his demand, how can a man be borne when he is old? our B. Saviour explicated his former speech, saying, unless a man be borne again of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, Again, when Christ said, (7) Io. 10.2. But he that entereth by the door is the Pastor of the sheep, and his Disciples understood him not, for it followeth. (8) Ib. ver. 6. This Proverb jesus said unto them, but they knew not what he speak unto them: he explicateth himself saying (9) Ib. vers. 7 & 11. Amen, Amen I say unto you, that I am the door of the sheep. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep. The like explication of dark speeches, Proverbs, and Parables, explicated by our Saviour unto his Disciples you shall further read of in another (10) Io. 16.17.19.20. Mat. 13.36.37. Mar. 4.10.14.34. Luke. 8.9.10.12. places: so that out of these places, and the like I may draw and make this general Rule and Collection, that our B. Saviour, howsoever sometimes upon just occasions, he did not explicate every dark or parabolical speech unto the profane and common people, either because they were not capable, or cared not for it, or that it was impertinent unto them, or for that he would not cast pearls before swine, or give the Childrens bread to dogs: yet he never spoke to his best beloved Disciples, who had left all to follow him, and to whom by his own Confession it was given, as belonging unto them, to understand all mysteries belonging to the Kingdom of God; for as much as they were not only thereby to save their own souls, but many others, which they could not have done without a true conceit and right understanding of all that proceeded from our B. Saviour his sacred mouth: To these I say, his best beloved Disciples, he never spoke any thing parabolically, but at one time or other ordinarily he explicated the same, and so left them possessed and invested with the true and right sense of his meaning. And shall we think, that here he would not have done the like, but that the sense was easy, plain and literally to be understood, as the very words went & sounded? And yet we see here he doth not declare himself otherwise, but saith to them who did not departed, (11) Io. 6.67. What will you also departed, as if he should have said, I have not otherwise to tell you, he that will not believe, let him departed. Fourthly, spiritual receiving by faith, needeth not that frequent distinction of Flesh & Blood, Meat & drink, seeing that in receiving by faith all is one to eat and drink seeing that in receiving by faith all is one to eat & drink. Fiftly, our Saviour would never so seriously by Oath have avouched saying, Amen, Amen, that we must eat this flesh, if he had meant the same only figuratively, seeing Oaths must be made of things plain and certain, & not of things figuratively spoken. Sixtly, the jews and the Disciples offended not in misunderstanding our Saviour's words, but in no● believing them, saying accordingly (12) Io. 6.52. How can this man give us his flesh to eat? And (13) Ib. vers. 60. this saying is hard, who can hear it? Our Saviour also in the beginning of his speech in this matter, exhorteth them to believe, saying, (14) Ib. vers. 47. He that believeth in me hath life everlasting: and in the later end he noteth their not believing, and saith, (15) Ib. vers. 64. But there be certain of you which believe not: He said not, saith S. (16) In joan, Tract. 27. Augustine, There be some among you which understand not. Besides, if they had been mistaken in taking that literally, which our Saviour spoke figuratively, he would never so earnestly have persuaded them to believe his words without any Explication, seeing none can believe that which they do not in some sort understand; neither is it credible, that he who thirsteth after salvation of Souls, would suffer his own Disciples to departed from him, if he might have recalled them, by affirming only that his foresaid words were figurative. Lastly Peter (17) L. count. Gardinerum. ob. 34. Martyr confesseth, that the Capharnaites hearing our Saviour his words, did think, that Christ's flesh should be eaten corporally as the Papists think. Whereupon it followeth, that seeing the Capharnaites were reprehended for not believing as they understood, that therefore the Papists belief, is a right belief. But some reply, that our Saviour explicated himself, when he said (18) Io. 6.63. It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, are spirit and life. Answ. When our Saviour saith, The flesh profiteth nothing, he doth not understand the same of his own flesh (which doubtless profiteth our Redemption) but of the (19) Chrysost. Theophil. Enthymius in hunc locum. Orig. l. 3. in Epist. ad Rom. Cyp. ser. de coena Domini. carnal understanding of the Capharnaites, as S. chrysostom and other Fathers do expound it: which Explication to be true, appeareth first, in that the word flesh is usually taken in Scriptures, for carnal wisdom and understanding, as (20) Io. 8 15. You judge according to the flesh. Flesh (21) Mat. 16.17. and blood hath not revealed this unto thee. (22) Rom. 8.6 7. The wisdom of the flesh is death: The wisdom of the flesh is an Enemy to God. I (23) 1. Cor. 3.1. could not speak unto you as to spiritual, but as to carnal. (24) 1. Cor. 2.13.14. We speak not in learned words of humane wisdom, but in the Doctrine of the spirit etc. But the sensual man perceiveth not those things that are of the spirit of God. And in this sense the flesh profiteth nothing, that is, to understand the flesh of Christ to be eaten after a carnal manner, as though it were to be divided into parts, and to be boiled, roasted, broiled, and chewed, and converted into the substance of the receiver. And according to this faith S. Chrisostome, (25) Chrysost. in joan. hom. 46. what then, the flesh profiteth nothing, he doth not speak this of his own flesh, god forbidden, but of those who understand carnally what is spoken. And a little after, know, that this particle, the flesh profiteth nothing, is not spoken of his flesh, but of a Carnal hearing. The like Explication is given also by S. Cyprian in these words, (26) Ser. de coena Domini. There rose a question of the newness of this speech, as it is read in the Gospel of john: and the auditors were astonished at the Doctrine of this Mystery, when our Lord said, Unless ye shall eat the flesh of the son of Man, and shall drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. Which because certain of them did not believe, nor could understand, they went back, because it seemed to them horrible and wicked to eat man's flesh, thinking that it was spoken in such sort, that they should be taught to eat his flesh, either boiled or roasted, and cut in pieces; whereas the flesh of that person, if it should be divided in pieces, could not suffice all Mankind, and which being once consumed, Religion would seem to have perished, no Sacrifice remaining unto it any longer. But in these kind of thoughts, flesh and blood doth not profit any thing: because, as the Master himself hath expounded, these words are spirit and life: neither doth Carnal sense penetrate to the understanding of so great depth, unless faith be added to it. In like sort answereth S. Austin, (27) Tract. 17. in joan. 6.63. O Lord my good Master, how doth the flesh profit nothing, seeing thou sayest, unless one shall eat my flesh, and shall drink my blood he shall not have life in him? doth life profit nothing, and for what end are we that which we are, but that we may have life everlasting, which thou promisest by thy flesh? What is this then, it profiteth nothing? The flesh profiteth nothing, but as they understood it, for they so understood flesh, as it is torn in the carcase, or sold in the shambleses, not as it is quickened with the spirit. And again, For if the flesh profited nothing, the Word would not have been flesh, that it might devil in us. And a little after, As they have understood flesh, I do not give so my flesh to eat. So fully and clearly do the Father's answer this Common Objection. Secondly, as by flesh is understood knowledge depending upon sense and reason, so by spirit and life (which is here opposed to flesh) is understood such knowledge as being above humane and natural reason, submitteth itself to faith; which opposition and explication, the Apostle before expressed saying, (28) Rom. 8.6. The wisdom of the flesh, is death, the wisdom of the spirit is life. And for this want of faith, our Saviour in the same place complaineth, saying: But there are some of you which do not believe. Thirdly, the word spirit, or spiritual, can nothing hinder the Real presence, seeing it is said of the Body. (29) 1. Cor. 15.44. It is sown a natural Body, it shall arise a spiritual Body, if there be a natural Body, there is also a spiritual Body. Lastly it cannot be understood of the eating of the flesh of Christ, that it profiteth nothing, seeing our Saviour saith there himself plainly, (30) Io. 6.54. He that eateth my flesh etc. hath life everlasting, and (31) Ib. vers. 53. unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man etc. you shalt not have life in you. So evident is is, that those obscurer words make nothing indeed against the other plentiful, most clear and manifest sayings to the contrary. And yet all this notwithstanding, (32) Hist. part. 2. fo. 181. Hospinian relateth that Zwinglius in sundry places inculcateth, that flesh eaten profiteth nothing. And therefore Zwinglius inventeth these strange interpretations (33) In Exegesi. fol. ●50. Flesh in this place joan. 6. is put for the divine nature; so that by flesh must be understood Christ's Divinity: And, (34) Tom. 1. in Explicat. Art 18. fol. 37. Thou seest here Io. 6. the Body and Blood of Christ to be nothing else, than the word of faith: to wit, that his Body dead for us, and his blood shed for us, hath redeemed us: here flesh must be understood faith, or Christ's death. But these are over gross to require confutation. The second proof out of the new Testament, is taken from the words of the Institution of the Sacrament, where our Saviour performed his former promise, when at his last Supper, (35) Mat. 26.26.27.28. Mar. 14.22.23 24. Luke. 22.19.20.1. Cor 11.24 25. He took bread and blessed and broke, and he gave to his Disciples and said, take ye, and eat, this is my Body. And taking the Chalice he gave thanks, and gave to them saying, drink ye all of this, for this is my Blood of the new Testament, which shallbe shed for many unto remission of sins. These words of themselves are most plain for the real Presence, and almost every word doth confirm the same. In so much that Zwinglius speaking hereof saith, (36) In Explanat. Art 18. what can be spoken more clearly, then, This is my body? In like sort Caluin, (37) Admonit. vlt. ad Westphal. p. 812. Beza ad repetit. Sanctis. p. 8. I do not deny, but that Christ would speak most plainly. Beza, (38) Muscul. in loc. tit. de coena. Perkins of the supper. Col. 858. Hospin. Hist. part. 1. c. 2. Christ could not speak more plainly or significantly of the Sacraments. And the like is acknowledged by sundry other Protestants. Yea these words of Christ are so plain for us, that Caluin will not have (39) Instit. 4. c. 17. §. 20. The words of Christ to be made subject to the common Rule, nor to be squared by the Grammar. And indeed the words of Institution are so convincing, that Protestants refuse to be tried thereby. Peter Martyr saith, (40) Cont. Gardiner. fol. 440. That which he addeth is Idle, that in the mystery of the Eucharist we are to fly to the words of our Lord ordaining it. Caluin (41) De rat. Concor. p. 866. It is not agreeable to reason, to insist in the essential Verb (is). Bullinger, (41) De rat. Concor. p. 866. We desire of our Adversaries, that they do not hereafter as heretofore they have done, make the words of the Lords Supper, whereof the Controversy is, as it were the foundation of their opinion. Zwinglius (43) De vera & fall. Relig. c. de Euchar. p. 267. We do not reply of those words (of the Supper) but upon this one word, The flesh profiteth nothing, Yea they scornfully call this proof, (42) Apud Schlusseth. l. 4. Theol. Caluin. art. 20. (44) Pet. Mart. apud Schluss. l. 4. Theol. Caluin. art. 20. A five words proof. Burensis calleth them, (45) Apud Schluss tom. 3. cattle. haeret in Praefat. four impotent words. Shelden, (46) De miraculis Antichristi. p. 82. five omnipotent words. Hospinian (47) Hist. part. 2. fol. 63. five magical words. And Peter Martyr further saith (48) In Dial. Col. 130. You have always seemed to me to be less wise than is meet, when you so labour for an opinion as absurd as unprofitable, nor have any thing to defend it but the word of Christ, This is my Body. So that the words of Christ himself, though most plain, must not now be sufficient to confute and confounded an heretic, though never so absurd. But though the words be thus confessedly plain as you have seen, yet Prot. greatly labour by sundry sleights to evade them; for so concerning the word, blessed, whereas we affirm that our Saviour used not to blessed insensible creatures, but when he was to work some great and wonderful thing: (49) Io. 6. ●● Mat. 15.36. Mar. 8.67. Io. 11 44. Luc. 9 16. so that his Benediction was not only praying, but even working, as when God gave (50) Gen. 1.22. Fecundity to living creatures, it is said, he blessed them; Even as on the contrary when Christ cursed the figtree, forthwith it withered. Protestants reply, that blessing, is not referred to the Bread, but that thereby only praise and thanksgiving is given to God. But first seeing S. Mark saith, (51) 14, 22. jesus took bread, and blessing, brake and gave to them, it cannot be said, but as, brake, and gave are referred to the matter which was in his hands, so also, blessed, must likewise be referred to the same matter. Secondly S. Paul directly applieth the blessing to the Cup, saying, (52) 1. Cor. 10. 1●. The Chalice of Benediction which we bless etc. And in like sort it is understood by the Ancient (53) justin. in Apol. 2. liturg. jacobi. Basilij, Chrisost. Cypr. l 2. Ep. 3. ad Caecilium. Fathers. But yet for all this Zwinglius expoundeth Blessing thus, (54) Tom. 2. in Exegesi fol. 355. It came to pass when he Blessed, that is, when he had them farewell. So that blessing the bread in the Institution of the B. Sacrament, is a bidding farewell to the Apostles: to such blind absurdity doth obstinacy bring an heretic. But when such foolish Interpretations will not serve their turn, than they spare not to corrupt the Text itself: for so, because the words, Benediction, and we bless, in those words of the Apostle (55) 1. Cor. 10.16. The Chalice of Benediction which we do bless, do prove the wine in the Chalice to be consecrated: Zwinglius in great dislike thereof, saith, (56) De coena. fol. 294. Tom. 2. They aught not to use in this place the words of Benediction and blessing, for these are usually taken almost for the word of Consecrating. And therefore to avoid Consecration, he translateth the foresaid words thus, (57) Tom. 4. in. 1. Cor. p. 470. The Cup of thanksgiving wherewith we give thanks, is it not the Communion of the Blood of Chr●st? Caluin (58) In Math. 26.26. also not only expoundeth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, benedixit, blessed, by gratias egit, gave thanks; but also in the very Text of S. Matthew he translateh, when he had given thanks: And yet as himself there confesseth. Mark and Matthew use the word of blessing. This injury unto the sacred Text is so great, that Illyricus saith thereof, (59) In 1. Cor. 5. Some corrupt this Text, translating the Cup of thanksgiving wherewith we give thanks, and so they use in their Liturgies a corrupted Text, instead of the words of Institution, or the sacred supper, doubling their Sacrilege. To this Corruption of the Text of Scripture, our Prot. still fly, when all other shifts do fail them. But to proceed, (for few of these sacred words must escape them, against which they will not offer some violence) by the pronoun, this, some Prot. understand Bread or wine, making the sense to be this, This Bread is my Body. But this to be false, appeareth in that the word, this, must either be taken substantively, or adiectively; if the later, than it cannot agreed with Bread or wine, seeing this both in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in Latin, Hoc, is the neuter Gender, which agreeth with Body, which also is in Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in Latin, Corpus, the neuter Gender; whereas bread both in Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Latin Panis, is the Masculine Gender. So also wine in Greek is the Masculine Gender, and Blood, the Neuter: and so this is the Neuter Gender, to wit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; hoc, not, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hic. And of the contrary in Latin, wine is the Neuter Gender, and Blood the Masculine, and yet all read, hic est sanguis. If, this, be taken substantively, for, this thing, than it cannot be understood of Bread, for it cannot be so taken, when the thing itself is present, & openly seen & known, unless the said thing be also of the Neuter Gender: Whereas here our Saviour took bread, accepit panem etc. and said, hoc est etc. Who seeing his Brother present, and pointing to him, would say, Hoc est frater meus, this thing is my Brother. Danaeus observing the great advantage given here by the pronoun, This, hath invented an excellent help in these words; (60) L. de Euchar. c. 1. p. 543. What if I shall except the natural words of Christ, to have been only these two, My flesh: I shall with one word make voided, all that proof of the pronoun, Hoc, This. Nothing less, but you would strongly prove yourself to be a man voided of all honesty or conscience, by so grossly corrupting the word of God. Some Puritans are not ashamed to mistranslate the words thus. This Bread is my Body: of which addition to the Text M. Hutton saith, (61) Answ. to the last part of reasons for refusal of subscription. p. 2●9. 266. Had it been in our Communion book, we should have been challenged for adding these words (This bread) more, than is in the Evangelists, or S. Paul etc. But the matter is so clear that Carolostadius doth refer the particle (62) In Zwingl. l. Epist. p. 543. This, not to Bread, but to Christ's Body: whereof he giveth this good reason, (63) In dial. de coena. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Greek pronoun of the neuter Gender: now the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Latin panis, is the Masculine, and therefore the pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be joined to it etc. Therefore I must of necessity confess, that Christ saying, This is my Body, to have pointed unto his Body, not to bread. So clear and confessed it is, that the pronoun, This, cannot relate to bread, but to Body. Besides all this S. Luke plainly saith, (*) Luc. 22.20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Hic calix Nowm Testamentum in sanguine meo pro vobis effusus, where the words, which is shed, in Greek, differing in Case from Blood, and in Gender from Testament, have true relation only to the Cup: now it was not the vessel or wine which was shed for us, but the true Blood of Christ, therefore the Cup doth not signify the Cup of wine, but the Cup of Blood. To this Argument, Beza had no other Answer, but only to deny the Text of the Gospel to be perfect, for writing upon this place he saith, (64) Annot. in Luc. 22. Seeing these words, if we look unto the Construction, do necessarily belong not to blood, but to the Cup, and yet they cannot be understood of the wine, much less of the Cup, either it is a manifest incongruity, seeing it should have been said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: or rather, seeing these were noted at the Margin of Matthew and Mark, they afterwards crept into the Text. And agreably Beza in his Latin Translation changeth, Quod, into, Qui, saying, Hoc poculum est Nowm illud Testamentum per sanguinem meum, qui pro vobis effunditur. And the same Corruption is used in the French Caluinian Bibles. But it seems this charging S. Luke with incongruity, did make him somewhat ashamed of himself: And therefore in another place he saith, (65) Ad Repetit. Santis. c. 8. p. 18. My Conjectures tend to this, that rather than I will contend Luke to have committed a Soloecophenes, either this particle, to &c. to be inserted into Luke's Texts, out of the other Evangelists, or to have been casually il changed by the writers (or Printers) although Copies do agreed: to such hard shifts is Beza driven. Piscator will (66) In Refut. Sophism. Hunnij. p. 648. not admit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be referred to the Cup, and addeth that, It may be, that Clause crept out of Matthew. Bucanus acknowledgeth that, (67) Loc. 48. p. 688. If we look into the construction of the words according to Luke, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is referred to the Cup. Zwinglius thinketh that it is Resp. ad Confess. Lutheri. Tom. 2. fol. 511. an Enallage of the Nominative Case for the Dative: but if it were lawful to go by, may be, and such strange changing of Cases, any man may from Scripture defend what he list. But this truth is so clear, as that our own Whitaker confesseth that, (69) Ad rat. 1. Camp p. 11. If thou wilt adhere to the words themselves, it is necessary either that thou confess the Cup to be shed for us, or that thou bring in a Solecism: which is either to acknowledge our Catholic Real Presence, or to accuse the Evangelist of Incongruity. But Castalio, (whose Translation is by several (70) Humfred. de Rat. interpret. l. 1. p. 62. 63. Prot. preferred before all others) translateth thus, (*) Gesnerus in Biblioth. Sebast. Castal. Furius in Defence. Cast. p. 236. Hoc poculum est Nowm foedus, quod fit per meum sanguinem, quod est pro vobis effundendum: so plainly referring quoth and effundendum, to poculum, and not to sanguinem. And Beza himself confesseth that, (71) Annot. in Luc. 22.20. These words if we respect Construction, necessarily do not belong to the blood, but to the Cup. Agreably to which saith Whitaker, (72) Answer to Reinoldes p. 210. The words in Luke 22.20. in the Greek that Beza translated, by Construction indeed require, that the Cup is called the New Testament, which is shed for us: In which respect Beza translateth them otherwise etc. But Enthymius expounding these words saith expressly, (73) In Luc. 22. That which is said, which is shed for you, is to be referred to the Cup. So unanswerable are the words of Scripture, when they are not corrupted by Protestants. To come now to the little word, is, Zwinglians thereby understand, to signify: but this to be false, appeareth, in that it hath another signification most ordinary and common, in so much as all other verbs are resolved into this, and some other thing. Wherefore Ochinus maketh this strange Evasion saying, (74) Apud Schluss. l. 2. Theol Calu. Art 23. fol. 125. We answer it may be that when Christ said, This is my Body, he would have said. This bread signifieth my Body. So making it doubtful whether Christ spoke those words, which he would and intended to speak. But I will answer this impious foolery with the words of S. Hilary, (75) L. 8 de Trinit. Doth he which is the Word, not know the signification of the word etc. And he that is virtue, was he in that Infirmity, that he could not utter what he would have to be understood? he uttered plainly the true and sincere Sacraments of Evangelicall faith. Zwinglius hath a better shift, which the Prot. Schlusselburge relateth in these words, (76) Theol. Caluin. l. 2. art. 6. fol. 43. It is most certain that the Sacramentaries do falsify and change the word of God himself: And truly we have a notable and evident Example of this in Zwinglius I de vera & fall. Relig p. 262. where in recital of the words of Institution of the son of God, for the verb is, he putteth, signifieth for so Zwinglius reciteth the Text: So therefore hath Luke, with whom of the Evangelists, we will content ourselves: And taking Bread, he gave thanks, and broke, and gave them, saying, This signifieth my Body which is given for you: hitherto Zwinglius etc. Neither can this wickedness of Zwinglius be excused, with any colour, the thing is most manifest etc. And in like sort the Tigurines in their Bibles, have changed it into (significat, doth signify) as (77) Theol. Caluin. l. 2. c. 6 fol. 44. Schlusselburge testifieth himself, to have seen and read. And Zwinglius himself dared to writ thus, (78) Tom. 2. de vera & fall. Relig. c. de Eucharistia. fol. 210. So therefore hath Luke, with whom of the Evangelists we will be content, Hoc significat Corpus meum quod pro vobis datur: this signifieth my Body which is given for you. For as himself confesseth elsewhere, (79) Tom. 2. l. de coena, fol. 174. If (est, is,) be put substantively it must needs be confessed the true substance of Christ's true flesh to be present in the Supper. And, (80) Resp ad Billican. fol. 261. If thou take, est, is, substantively, than the Papists have conquered. This Corruption is so gross and wicked, that the Prot. Schlusselburge saith thereof, (81) Theol. Caluin. l. 2. c. 6. fol. 43. This only one Corruption of the words of the Son of God, aught to terrify all men, from the Company and impiety of the Caluinistes. The absurdity hereof is yet further proved by these words of S. Luke, This Cup the new Testament in my Blood: where the sentence standing thus imperfect, for want of a Verb to knit the parts together, it cannot be supplied by the word signifieth, because the Noun, Testament, is here put in the Nominative Case, whereas the word, signifieth, would require the Accusative. Wherefore in this respect, Prot. in their Bybles, are enforced to supply the sentence with the Verb, is. Now is it but colourable, that the Verb, is, being not expressed, but only understood, and thereupon placed to make up the sense of the Text, should so soon as it is so of necessity placed, be immediately cast out, and changed into the verb signifieth: that the use of speaking doth often make it left out, as being easy to be supplied or understood. I willingly grant; but that ever any use of speech, should in such case, 'cause it to be (as in this example) brought in & placed, & yet withal to lose its proper signification, is no less strange, then is our Adversary's Doctrine grounded thereupon. And seeing the pronoun, this, as I have proved, cannot relate to Bread, but to Body, to say, that his Body should signify his Body, were more than Idle. And therefore M. Hooker & other Prot. teach, that there can be no figure in the word, is. M. Hookers words are, (82) Eccl. Pol. l. 5. sect. 67. p. 177. We do not interpret the words of Christ, as if the name of his Body, did import but the figure of his Body, and to, be, were only to, signify. By the word, Body, some understand Christ his mystical Body, to wit, his Church: but this is most absurd it not being given for us, nor shed for us, nor yet can possibly be eaten of us. Others a sign of his Body; but this cannot be, for as not a sign of his Body, but the true Body of Christ, was given for us upon the Cross, so also Christ's Body in the Scripture is never taken, but either for his mystical or true natural Body. This is so certain, that D. Whitaker and M. Hooker do both confess. That, (83) Whitak. Cont. Dur. l. 2. p. 280. Hook. Eccl. Pol. l 5. sect. 67. pa. 177. The Trope is not in the Body or Blood of Christ, nor in bread or wine etc. Besides, the pronoun, This, not signifying Bread (as before) there is not any thing whereof a sign of the Body should be affirmed or predicated, unless they will have the Natural Body of Christ, to be a sign of itself. But all this is so impertinent, that other Prot. disclaim in affirming, that, (84) Collatio Cath. & orth fidei, p. 358. In the words of Chr●sts Testament, by the word, Body, they understand nothing else, but the figure of Christ's Body, the true Presence of Christ's Body denied. And the very same is affirmed by (85) Eccl. Pol. l. 5. sect. 67. M. Hooker. Z ●inglius is of opinion, that, (86) Apud S●hlussel. in Theol. Calu. l 1. art. 22. fol. 101. Body in the words of the Supper, may also be expounded for the Church. And, (87) Tom. 4. in Io. 6. Hereby the ●ords of Christ are made clear, This is my Body, where Body is put for Death: according to which, Christ is made to say, Take ye, and eat, This is my Church, or this is my Death. Ridiculous. To proceed, these other words, is given for you, is shed for you according to the Greek in all the three Evangelists, and S. Paul, are in the Present tense, and before his Passion, and therefore cannot agreed to Bread and wine, which cannot be said to have been then given for us: neither to his giving upon the Cross, for that gift was not then present; they do therefore only relate to his Body and Blood, which he then gave & offered for us at his last Supper. Now whereas Fulke replieth that, (88) Ag. Rhem. Test. in Mat. 26 sect. 10. The Apostles and Evangelists used the Present tense for the Future, as signifying Christ's Passion was at hand: and that the Vulgar Interpreter translateth accordingly, (89) Mat. 26.28. which shallbe shed: it is easily answered, that though the Present tense be used sometimes for the future, yet much more often to signify a thing present: and the rather here, in that not one only, but all the three Evangelists, and S. Paul do to our Saviour's action then present, add and use the Present tense. As for the vulgar Translation, Prot. are in great straits when they do appeal from the Original text to it, which they affirm to be (90) Whitak. in his Answer to Reinolds. p. 25-26. 344. An old rotten Translation, full of Corruptions in all parts thereof, and of all others most corrupt. But yet in defence of the vulgar Interpreter, I say, that as he translateth in the Future tense, which shallbe shed; so also he useth the Present tense, translating (91) Luc. 22.19. which is given, both which he useth to signify a certain truth, the Present tense signifying, that his Body was then given in the Sacrament, the future not impugning the former sense, but signifying withal further, that it should be then, and also afterwards given upon the Cross. So little do these Evasions prevail against the truth. The third proof is taken from such places as contain the use of this Sacrament, as (92) 1. Cor. 10.16. The Chalice of Benediction which we do bless, is it not the Communication of the (93) See Chrisost. ho. 24. in 2. ad Cor. c. 10. Blood of Christ? and the Bread which we break, is it not the participation of the Body of our Lord? As also, (94) 1. Cor. 11.29. he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement, or (as the Prot. Translation hath it) damnation, to himself not discerning the Body of our Lord: or, as it is elsewhere; (95) Ib. vers. 27. shallbe guilty of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Here some are reprehended for receiving unworthily the Body (96) Basil. l. 2. de Bap. c. 3. Chrys. ho. 14. in 1. Cor. ho. 83. in Mat. ho. 45. in Io. Hieron. in c. 1. Malach. Theophil. Oecom. cum. Ambr. Theodor. in. 1. Cor. c. 11. Aug. l. 5. de Bap. c. 8. l. 10 cont. Cresc. c. 25. Ep. 120. ad Honorat. c. 27. et. ep. 162. and Blood of Christ; but these receive not with spirit and faith, for than they received, according to Prot. worthily, therefore they receive only with the Body, and yet, as so, they are said to receive the Body and Blood of Christ, even to the unworthy Receiver: therefore the Body of Christ is present in the Eucharist; for as it is in heaven, it cannot be received with the corporal mouth. I will but name unto you the Interpretation made by Zwinglius of these words, The Chalice of Benediction which we bless, which he expoundeth thus, (97) In. 1. Cor. 10. The Cup of thanksgiving wherewith we give thanks, what I pray you is it else then we our selves? So that according to him, Blessing is only Thanksgiving, and the Cup, is ourselves, that drink the Cup. Lastly by these words, This is my Body, our Saviour instituted a Sacrament, and which is more, with a Commandment thereto annexed, saying, Take eat etc. Do this etc. He also hereby made his last Will, and Testament, which he would never do in words so figurative and obscure, as that the most learned could not understand the same, seeing thereby instead of greatest Blessings, which doubtless he only intended, he should have given and left unto us most dangerous occasions of errors, scandal, ruin, mischief, strife and Contention. And I would demand of a Sacramentary Minister, whose Father making his will, should by express words and writing, make this his son his heir of all his gold; what he would think of that judge, who should expound his Father's words not of true gold, but of Counters, figures, or Pictures of gold? Certainly he would think his sentence to be false, unjust, & maliciously wrested. Now if his Father's mind was truly agreeable to this Sentence, then would he complain, that his own Father had deceived him: none of which without blasphemy can be applied to Christ. But this is a truth so certain, that Melancthon saith, (98) In l. Epist. Oecolamp. and Zwing. Ep. ad Pridericum. p. 645. I do not find a firm reason, why by the name of Body in the words of the Supper, only the sign of a Body absent, should be understood, for although in the sacred Scriptures, there be words full of figures of all sorts, yet there is great difference between the narrations of things done, and divine ordinations, or decrees of the nature, or will of God etc. For it is necessary that the meaning of those places be certain, from whence Decrees, or Articles be taken: if it were lawful to interpret these any way, all things might be depraved etc. In like sort Musculus acknowledgeth that, (99) Loc. come. c. de Caena p. 332. Christ at his last supper made his Testament, which argueth that he did it in words plain to be understood; for as the Apostle saith, (100) Gal. 3.15. A man's Testament being confirmed no man despiseth, or further disposeth, according to Beza's Translation, if it be but a man's Testament etc. no man addeth thereto, much less than to our Saviour's Testament may Prot. add so many of their own most different and absurd Glosses. To this purpose saith Andraeas, (101) Collat. Cath. & orth. fidei etc. p. 321. n. 39 The words of Christ are the words of a Testament, in which he speaketh expressly and perspicuously, that his will may be understood by al. But to conclude, what Scriptures can be so plain, or reason so convincing for the recalling of an Heretic, when Zwinglius avouched, as before, that, (9) Apud Schusselb. l. 4. Theol. Calu. art. 9 p. 344. And see the like in Resp. ad Billicanum. To. 2. fol. 263. Although God with all his Blessed Angels, should descend from heaven, and should swear in the Supper of the Lord the Body and Blood of Christ to be given to all that receive it, yet I neither could, nor would believe (saith he) unless with my eyes and hands I should see and feel the same. Yea so plain are the words of Scripture in our behalf, that Zwinglius saith (102) In Explan. Art 18. What can be spoken more clearly, then, This is my Body? Caluin (103) In Admon. vlt. ad West ph. p. 812. I do not deny, but that Christ would speak most clearly. Beza, (104) Ad Repetit. Santis. p. 8. Christ could not speak more expressly, and more significantly of the Sacraments. And (105) De coena cont. Westphal. in Tract. I heol. p. 216. we have truly often said, that which now also I will repeat, that there cannot be kept 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Propriety of the words, in these words, This is my Body, but the Papistical Transubstantiation must be established. Chamierus repeateth and alloweth this last saying o● Beza for most true, saying, (106) Epist. jesuit. part. 1. p. 49. 16. I acknowledge my Master his speech to be most true. The Divines of Geneva profess to believe, that, (107) Apol. Modest. etc. p. 18. If the words of Christ be to be taken simply, it is necessary that the dotage (so are heretics pleased to term it) of Transubstantiation must infallibly follow. D. Reinolds is enforced to say, (108) In his Confer. c. 2. sect. 1. p. 13. I will grant the words of Christ, This is my Body, in show rather to favour your Real Presence, than that Sacramental which we defend. So confessedly clear are the sacred Scriptures taken in their literal sense, for the Real Presence and Transubstantiation. SECT. V That the Ancient Fathers do expound the Scriptures in proof of our Catholic Doctrine of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation. THe Ancient Fathers are no less clear in their Interpretations: so S. justin Martyr writing hereof, saith, (1) In Apologia. 2. ad Antonium. This nourishment is called amongst us the eucharist, the which is lawful for no other to receive, than he who believeth our Doctrine to be true, and is washed with the laver for remission of sins, and regeneration, even as Christ hath given it to the living. For we do not receive these Elements, as common bread, nor as common drink, but even as Christ our Saviour was made flesh by the word of God, and had flesh and blood to procure our Salvation. After the same manner also, we have been taught, that, that nourishment, wherein thanks are given, by the prayers of his word proceeding from him, is the flesh and blood of that incarnated jesus, whereupon our blood and flesh are nourished by mutation. For the Apostles in their Commentaries, left written by them, which are called the Gospel, have so delivered, that jesus commanded them; for that he taking bread, when he had given thanks, did say; do you this in remembrance of me, This is my Body. And the Cup likewise being taken, and thanks being given, to have said, This is my Blood. The Centuristes speaking of justin and Irenaeus, say, (2) Cent. 2. Col. 48. Neither did they think Bread and wine to be only naked figures of the Body and blood of Christ etc. They taught according to the word and Institution of Christ himself, with bread and wine the flesh and blood of Christ Incarnate to be distributed, as the place of justine doth plainly testify, in Apol. 2. So confessedly are these two Ancients for the real Presence. Origen comparing the former figures with our truths, saith, (3) Ho. 7. i● Numer. In former times Baptism was in obscurity in the Cloud & in the Sea, now Regeneration is in kind, in water and the holy Ghost: then obscurely Manna was the food, but now, in form, the flesh of the word of God is the true food: even as he saith, because my flesh is truly meat, and my blood is truly drink. And in (4) Ho. 16. in Num. another place, Seeing the drinking of blood is forbidden by God with so strong Commands, what people is this that useth to drink blood? To this he answereth, But Christian people, a faithful people, heareth and embraceth these things, and followeth him who saith, (5) Io. 6.54. Unless you shall eat my flesh and drink my blood, you shall not have life in you: because my flesh is truly meat, and my blood is truly drink. And the same Origen elsewhere to the like effect affirmeth, (6) Ho. 5. in diversis. When thou receivest the holy food, and that incorruptible banquet, when thou dost enjoy the bread and Cup of life, thou dost eat and drink the Body and Blood of our Lord, than our Lord entereth under thy roof: and therefore then humbling thyself imitate this Centurion, and say, O Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under the roof of my house: for where he entereth unworthily, there he entereth to judge, and punish the receiver. The Prot. Scultetus acknowledgeth that, (7) Medulla Theol. p. 169. The Centuristes of Magdeburge c. 10. cent. 3. do ascribe to Origen the erroneous doctrine of Consubstantiation. Magnes also another Greek Father, and very ancient, living in the age 350. teacheth the same doctrine, saying, (8) Ad Theosthenem. l. 3. If therefore the earth be affirmed of the Body, (that is, if the Body be called Earth) in regard of the ancient origine, and the Earth was Christ's own and proper Creature, by reason of Creation, and of this Earth Bread and wine hath come, of it (to wit Bread) the body of man hath been made again, and this Body Christ hath put on worthily, justly, deservedly, when he took Bread and wine he hath said, This is my Body etc. For it is not a figure of his Body or blood, as some by a stupid and senseless Exposition have tryfled, but rather truly the Body & Blood of Christ etc. But who can speak more plainly then S. Cyrill of Jerusalem? (9) Catech. 4. Mystag. When then Christ himself doth thus affirm and say of Bread, This is my Body, who ever hereafter dare doubt? and the same Christ also confirming and saying, This is my blood, who I say, may doubt, and say, there is not his blood? In times past he changed water into wine, which is near to blood, in Cana of Galilee, by his only will, and shall he not be worthy whom we may believe, that by transmutation, he turned wine into his blood? For if being invited to corporal Marriages he wrought a stupendious Miracle, shall we not much more confess him to have given his body, and his Blood to the Children of the spouse? Wherefore with all certainty and assurance let us receive the Body and Blood of Christ, for under the form of Bread, there is given thee the Body, and under the form of wine, his blood is given thee, that receiving the body and blood of Christ, thou mayest be made unto him compartner of his body and blood: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we shallbe made bearers of Christ, when we have received his body & blood into our Members, and so, as Peter saith, we shallbe made partakers of the divine nature etc. Knowing this, and holding it for most certain, that this bread which is seen of us, is not bread, although the taste perceive it to be bread, but that it is the body of Christ: and the wine which is seen of us, although to the sense of taste it seem to be wine, yet it is not wine, but the blood of Christ. And in another place, (10) Ad Calosyrium. Do not doubt whether this be true, he manifestly saying, This is my Body. So manifest are Christ's words, & S. Cyrils' Exposition for the Real Presence, and Transubstantiation. S. chrysostom also to the like effect saith, (11) Ho. 83. ex. c. 26. Mat. Let us therefore every where believe God, neither let us gainsay him, although it seem absurd to sense, and our cogitation, that which he speaketh; his word surmounts both sense and our reason: what we do in all things, but especially in the mysteries, let us do it, not looking upon those things only which lie before us, but also beholding his words, for we cannot be deceived by his words, but our sense is most apt to be deceyved: his words cannot be false, this sense is often and often deceived: therefore because he said it, This is my body, let us not doubt, but believe, and let us behold it with the eyes of our understanding, for no sensible thing is given unto us by Christ, but by things indeed sensible: but all things which he delivered are insensible. So also in Baptism by water which is a sensible thing; that gift is granted: but that which is done therein, to wit, the regeneration and renovation, is a certain thing to be conceived, for if thou wert incorporeal, he had given unto thee barely those incorporeal gifts, but because thy soul is conjoined to a Body in sensible things, things intellectual, or to be understood, are delivered unto thee. O how many do now say, I would see his form and shape, his garments, his shoes; him therefore thou seest, him thou touchest, him thou eatest &c. these works are not of humane power, which Christ wrought in that supper: he also doth now work, he doth perfect: we hold the Office and order of ministers, but it is he who truly sanctifyeth, and by transmutation altereth. I will rather give my life than I will give our Lord's Body to any one unworthily, I will rather suffer my blood to be shed, then deliver that sacred blood, except to a worthy person. Again, (12) Hom. de prodit. judae. quae est Tom. 3. There was sometimes a Pasche of the jews but it is abrogated, and made void by the coming of the spiritual Pasche, which Christ delivered, for when they did eat (saith he) & drink, he took bread, & broke, & said, This is my Body which shallbe given for you etc. And again, he took the Chalice & said, This is my blood which shallbe shed for many to remission of sins. And judas was present when Christ spoke these words, This is the blood: Speak judas, This is the Blood which thou souldest for 30. pence, for which before thou bargaynedst with the Pharisees? O mercy of Christ, O madness of judas! who covenanted to cell him for 30. pence, and Christ offereth to him the blood which he hath sold, that he might have forgiveness of sins, if so be it he would not be wicked, for judas was present, and made partaker of that Sacrifice. And expounding those words of the Apostle, (13) 1. Cor. 10.16. The Chalice of Benediction which we do bless, is it not the Commnication of the Blood of Christ, he saith: the meaning of these (words) is this, that which is in the Chalice, is that which flowed from his side, and we are partakers of it. The Centuristes city many particular sayings of S. chrysostom wherein, say they, (14) Cent. 5. c. 4. Col. 517. He seemeth to confirm Transubstantiation. But he is so fare from only seeming, that most directly he teacheth Real Presence, Transubstantiation, judas his receiving the Blood, the Sacrifice at the last Supper, & that these things are to be believed, though they seem absurd to sense and reason. S. cyril of Alexandria secureth us of this truth, saying, (15) Ep. ad Calosyrium. Neither doubt thou whether this be true, he plainly saying, This is my Body, but rather receive & believe the words of our Saviour, for whereas he is the Truth, he doth not lie: they are mad therefore, who say that the mystical Benediction doth cease from sanctification, if any relics thereof remain to the next day: for the most holy Body of Christ shall not be changed, but the virtue of Benediction, & the quickening grace is everlasting in it; for the quickening virtue is the only begotten word of God the Father, which was made flesh, not ceasing to be the word, but making the flesh quickening &c. It did therefore beseem him to be in some sort united to our bodies, by his holy flesh and precious blood, which we receive in the quickening Benediction in bread and wine: for lest we should abhor flesh and blood, put upon the Sacred Altars, God descending to our frailties, doth instill to the things offered the power of life, turning and converting them into the truth of his own flesh, that the body of life as a certain quickening seed, may be found in us. Whereupon he addeth, Do this in remembrance of me. S. Cyril is so plain herein, that Peter Martyr saith, (16) In his Ep. to Beza annexed to his Com. Pla. p. 106. I will not so easily subscribe to Cyril, who affirmed such a Communion as thereby even the substance of the flesh and blood of Christ is joined to the blessing. S. john Damascene proveth the same thus, (17) Orthodoxa fidei. c. 14. Wherefore if the word of God be lively and efficacious, and our Lord did all whatsoever he would; If he said, Let there be light, and light was made, Let there be a firmament, and it was made: if the heavens were established by the word of God, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth; If heaven and Earth, the water also and fire, and air, and all the ornaments of them, were made complete and accomplished, and moreover this noblest Creature called Man: If God himself the word, since so it was his will became man, and framed to himself flesh, without humane seed, of the pure and immaculate blood of the holy and ever Virgin, what can at last be alleged, but that of Bread he can make his Body, of wine and water he can make his blood? He spoke of old, Let the Earth bring forth the green herb and she produced, enforced, and strengthened by his divine precept, her fruit and buds, when as yet there was no rain. God said, This is my Body, This is my blood etc. this do you in remembrance of me, and by his Omnipotent Commandment this is done till he come (for he used these words, till he come) and the rain for this new Corn is the overshadowing virtue of the holy Ghost: for as whatsoever God made, he made it by the power of the holy Ghost, in like manner now also the working of the spirit doth effect those things which surmount nature, and which cannot be comprehended or understood but by only saith. After what manner, at the last shall this be done, demanded the holy Virgin; because I know not men? The Archangel Gabriel answered, The holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee. Thou also now demandest, how bread and wine mixed with water, is made the Body and blood of Christ? And I in like manner answer thee: the holy spirit cometh upon, and maketh them; which things so made, exceed all ability of speech and understanding of the mind. Moreover bread and wine are therefore used, because humane imbecility is well known and manifested to God; because for the most part it is averse, and cannot endure but things common by Custom. Hence it cometh to pass, that God for his accustomed Indulgence towards us, worketh those things which surmount nature by things usual & familiar to nature. And even as he hath therefore coupled the Grace of the holy Ghost in Baptism with oil & water, & hath made it the Laver of regeneration, because it is usual amongst men to be washed with water, and anointed with oil: in the same manner, because the use and custom of men, doth so bear it that men eat bread, and drink wine and water, therefore he hath joined his divinity with these, and hath made them his Body and his Blood, that by things usual and agreeable to nature, we may arise to supernatural things. Doubtless the body truly united to the Divinity, is that body which was borne of the holy Virgin, not that, that Body was assumed of the heaven and descended, but because the very Bread and wine are changed into the Body and blood of God. But if thou require how it be done, let it suffice thee to hear, that it is done by the holy Ghost, as our Lord also framed to himself, and in himself flesh of the holy Mother of God by the holy Ghost. Neither any more is known and searched out of us, then that the word of God is true and efficacious and omnipotent, for the manner is such, that no reason can search it out. Moreover let it not seem strange to say this also, that even as Bread by way of food, and wine and water by way of drink are changed into the Body and Blood of the eater and drinker, and become another body, and divers from the body they were: So the bread of Proposition, and the wine and water by Invocation of the holy Spirit and his coming, are turned into the Body and Blood of Christ after an admirable manner, neither are they two, but one and the same. Neither truly are bread and wine the figure of Christ's Body (for be this fare from us to say) but the very self same body of our Lord, qualifyed with his Divinity: because where our Lord himself hath said; this is not a sign of a body, but a Body: nor a sign of blood, but blood etc. That S. Damascene taught Transubstantiation, it is acknowledged, and disliked by many (18) Carlisle that Christ descended not into Hell. fol. 58. Oecolamp. in Epist. l. 3. p. 661. Whitak. count. Duraeum. p. 238. Chemnit. Exam. part. 2. p. 83. 90. Protestants. To come to the Latin Fathers, S. Cyprian writing purposely of this point, speaketh thus, (19) De coena Domini. This bread which our Lord did reach unto his Disciples, changed not in form or figure, but in nature, became flesh by the Omnipotency of the word: and even as in the person of Christ the humanity was seen, and the Divinity lay hid; so the Essence infuseth itself after an unspeakable manner into the visible Sacrament etc. Again, (20) De coena Dom. propè init. They had eaten and drunken of the same bread according to the visible form, but before those words, that common bread was only fit to nourish the body etc. but after it was said by our Lord, Do this in Commemoration of me, this is my flesh, and this is my blood, as often as it is done with these words, and this faith, that substantial bread and Cup, consecrated with solemn Benediction, profiteth to the life & salvation of the whole man, being both a medicine and holocaust to cure Infirmities, and to take away sins. The difference also of spiritual and corporal meat is made manifest, that it was one thing which at first was set before them and eaten, another which was given and distributed by our master. And in another place of the same Sermon he saith, The Doctrine of this Sacrament is new, and the Evangelicall Schools brought forth this first Mastership (or teaching,) and Christ being the Master, this Doctrine was first made known unto the world, that Christians should drink Blood, the eating whereof the authority of the old Law doth most strictly forbidden: for the law forbiddeth eating of blood, the Gospel commandeth that it be drunk. S. Cyprian is so clear, that the Prot. Vrsinus confesseth that, (21) Commune factio etc. Many things are spoken by Cyprian, which seem to establish Transubstantiation. With S. Cyprian agreeth S. Hilary, writing thus, (22) Lib. 8. de Trinitate. If the word be truly made flesh, and we truly receive the word made flesh in our Lord's food, how is not Christ thought naturally to abide in us who now borne man both assumed unto himself the inseparable nature of our flesh, and also hath joined the nature of his flesh, to the nature of Eternity, under the Sacrament of Communicating his flesh unto us? For so we are all one, because the Father is in Christ, and Christ is in us etc. Touching the natural truth of Christ in us, what things we speak, unless we learn of him, we speak foolishly and wickedly. For he saith. My flesh is truly meat, and my Blood is truly drink; he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. Touching the verity of his flesh and blood, there is left no place of doubting, for now both by Confession of our Lord himself, and by our faith, it is truly flesh, and it is truly blood: and these being received and drunken, do work that thing, that both we are in Christ, and Christ in us: what is not this verity itself? Therefore he is in us by his flesh & we are in him whilst this which we are is with him in God: And that we are in him by the Sacrament of his flesh and blood, communicated, he witnesseth saying. And this world now seethe me not, but you shall see me, because I live, and you shall live, because I am in the Father, and you in me and I in you. S. Hilary is so plain in this, that Caluin professeth (23) L. Epist. &c ep. 208. 392. He will not subscribe unto him. But who can speak more clearly than Saint Ambrose doth in these words (24) De ijs qui misterijs initiantur. c. 9 Peradventure thou mayest say, I see another thing, how dost do affirm unto me, that I receive the body of Christ? and yet this remaineth unto us to prove: how great examples therefore do we use? We prove that it is not that which nature framed, but what Benediction consecrated; and that greater is the power of Benediction then of Nature, because by Benediction Nature itself is changed. Moses' held a rod, he cast it from him, and it became a serpent etc. And after he had told many other miracles of Moses, Elias, and Eliseus, he concludeth: But if humane Benediction were of such power, that it could convert Nature, what do we say of the very divine Consecration, where the words of our Lord & Saviour work? For this Sacrament which thou dost receive is made by the word of Christ: but if the word of Elias was so potent, that it could call for fire from heaven, shall not the word of Christ be of so much power, that it may change the forms of Elements? of the works of the whole (world) thou hast read: Because he spoke, and things were made, he commanded and they were crea●ed. Therefore the word of Christ which could make of nothing the thing that was not, can it not change the things which be into that which they were no? for it is no less to give new natures to things, then to change natures &c Our Lord jesus cryeth out. This is my Body; before the Benediction of the heavenly words another form is named (he meaneth Bread) after Consecration the Body of Christ is notified: he calleth it his blood, before Consecration it is called another thing, after Consecration it is named the Blood of Christ. And thou sayest Amen, that is, it is true: What the mouth speaks the inward mind acknowledgeth etc. It is evident that besides the order of nature a Virgin brought forth, and this Body which we make, is of the Virgin: why dost thou seek here the order of nature in the Body of Christ, whereas besides nature the Lord jesus was borne of a Virgin? And the same S. Ambrose elsewhere goeth yet further, and saith, (25) L. 4. de Sacram. c. 4. Peradventure thou sayest, My bread is usual Bread, but this bread is bread before the words of the Sacraments, when Consecration shall come of bread is made the flesh of Christ. This therefore we affirm how can that which is bread become the body of Christ? by Consecration. Consecration therefore with whose words, and with whose speeches? of our Lord jesus Christ. For all other things which are said, praise is given to God, supplication is made for the people for kings, for others: but when it is come, that the Venerable Sacrament must be made, now the Priest doth not use his own words, but he useth the words of Christ Therefore the word of C●rist doth make this Sacrament. What word of Christ? to wit, that, whereby all things were made. Our Lord comm●nded and heaven was made: Our Lord commanded, and the Earth was made: Our Lord commanded and the seas were made; Our Lord commanded and every Creature was made. Thou seest therefore how powerful in operation Christ's word is! If therefore there be so great power in the word of our Lord jesus, that things which were not begun, to have being; how much more is it able in operation to 'cause that things which were, should be, and be changed into another thing? heaven was not, Sea was not, Earth was not, but hear one saying. (26) Ps. 148. ●. He spoke, and things were m●de, he commanded, and they were created. Therefore that I m●y answer thee, There was not the Body of Christ before Consecration, but after Consecration I say unto thee, that there is now the Body of Christ etc. therefore thou hast learned, that of Bread there is made the Body of Christ, and that wine and water is put into the Chalice, but it is made blood by the Consecration of the heavenly word but peradventure thou sayest, I see not the form of blood but it hath the similitude, for as thou hast taken the similitude of his death, so also thou drinkest the similitude of his precious Blood, that there may be no horror of his Blood, & yet it worketh the price of Redemption. Thou hast learned therefore that, that which thou receivest, is the Body of Christ. And elsewhere he concludeth, (27) L. 4. de Sacram. c. 5. Before it be consecrated, it is but bread, but when the words of Consecration, come, it is the Body of Christ. To conclude, Hear him saying, Take and eat of it all, for this is my Body: and before the words of Christ, the Chalice is full of wine and water; when the words of Christ have wrought, there it is made Blood, which redeemed the people: Therefore mark you in how great matters the word of Christ is potent to convert all things. Moreover our very Lord jesus testifieth unto us that we receive his Body and Blood: What aught we to doubt of his fidelity, and Testimony? Again, expounding those words of the Psalmist, (28) Ps. 98.52 Adore ye the footstool of his feet, he saith, (29) L. 3. de Spir sanct. c. 12. It is no small question, and therefore let us consider more diligently, what is the footstool: for we read else where, (30) Isa. 66.1. Heaven is my Throne, but the Earth the footstool of my feet. But neither are we to adore the Earth, because it is a Creature of God: yet let us see if the Prophet doth not affirm that earth to be adored, which our Lord jesus took in the Assumption of flesh. Therefore by the footstool, the Earth may be understood, but by the Earth the flesh of Christ, which at this day we also adore in the Mysteries, and which the Apostles adored in our Lord jesus etc. And the like exposition hereof is given by S. Hierome, (31) In ps. 98. who also further saith, (32) In Tit. 1. There is as great difference between the Bread of Proposition and the Body of Christ, as between a shadow and bodies, between an Image and the truth, between patterns of things to come, and the things themselves which are prefigured by those patterns. S. Ambrose is so clear for the Real Presence, that he is therefore reproved by (33) Oecolamp. in l. Epist. Oecolamp. 19 c. l 3. p. 756 & Cent 4. c. 4. Col. 295. Melancth. 16. p. 636. Luther. l. count. Regem Anglia. sundry Protestants. Gaudentius also a very Ancient Father, living in the year 400. writeth to like effect, saying: (34) Tract. 2. de Exod. The same throughout the several houses of the Churches being offered in the Mystery of Bread and wine, doth revive being believed, doth quicken being Consecrated, doth sanctify such as Consecrated. This is the flesh of the Lamb, this is the Blood, for the bread which came down from heaven doth say, The bread which I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world: with good reason and very aptly even then is blood expressed under the form of wine, because where he saith in the Gospel, I am the true vine, he doth sufficiently declare, that all wine which is offered in the figure of his Passion, is his blood. Whereupon the most B. Patriarch jacob prophesied of Christ, saying: He shall wash his stole in wine, and in the blood of the Grape his cloak; because he was to wash the clothing of our Body with his own proper Blood. He therefore the Creator and Lord of Natures, who brought bread forth of the Earth, and again of Bread (because he both can, and hath promised) doth make his own Body: and he who made wine of water, and of wine his blood etc. O depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God It is the Pasche of our Lord, that is, Our Lords Passover. Esteem it not terrene, which is made heavenly by him who passeth into it, and made it of his Body and blood etc. Believe thou must that which is denounced and spoken, because that which thou receivest is the Body of that heavenly Bread, & the blood of that sacred vine: for when he taught and gave the Consecrated Bread and wine to his Disciples, he thus spoke; This is my Body. This is my Blood. Let us believe him whom we have believed, truth cannot lie etc. let us not infringe that most solid word of his mouth. This is my Body, This is my Blood. But if any thing even now in any man's opinion or understanding remain, which he hath not comprehended in this Exposition, let the flame of a fiery faith consume it. S. Austin expounding the title of the Psalm in which it is written, And he was carried in his own hands, saith. (35) Conc. 1. in ps. 33. Brethrens who can understand how this could be done in man? For who is carried in his own hands? A man may be carried in the hands of another, in his own hands no man is carried. How this may be understood in David himself, according to the letter, we find not, but in Christ we find. For Christ was carried in his own hands, when commending his own Body, he said, This is my Body: for he carried that Body in his hands. This place is so unanswerable that Hospinian undertaking to set down, (36) Hist. Sacram. part. 2 l 4. p. 292. 293. The Hyperbolical phrases of the Fathers, doth among others, for such place this saying of S. Austin. In like sort commenting upon these words, Adore ye the footstool of his feet because it is holy, he saith, (37) In ps. 98. What are we to adore? The footstool of his feet etc. But Brethrens consider what he commandeth us to adore. In another place the Scripture saith, (38) Isa. 66.1. Heaven is my seat, and the Earth my footstool. Therefore he commandeth us to adore the Earth, because he said in another place, that it was the footstool of God? And how shall we adore the Earth, seeing the Scripture saith plainly, (39) Deut. 6.13. Mat. 4.11. Thou shalt adore the Lord thy God; And here he saith, Adore ye the footstool of his feet? And expounding to me, what is the footstool of his feet he saith, The Earth is the footstool of my feet. I am become staggering, I fear to adore the Earth, lest he damn me, who hath made the heaven and Earth. Again, I fear not to adore the footstool of my Lords feet, because the psalm saith to me, Adore ye the footstool of his feet etc. Wavering, I turn myself to Christ, because I seek him here, and I find how without impiety the Earth may be adored; without impiety the footstool of his feet may be adored: for he took earth of earth, because flesh is of Earth, and he took flesh of the flesh of Mary: And because he walked here in his flesh, and gave to us his flesh to be eaten to Salvation: now no man eateth that flesh, but first adoreth it. It is found out how such a footstool of our Lords feet may be adored, and that we shall not only not sin by adoring, but sin by not adoring. Now whereas Bilson answereth herto that, (40) True difference part. 4. p. 536. It is eaten with the spirit, adored with the spirit, yea the very eating of it, is the adoring of it, S. Austin directly to the contrary distinguisheth eating from adoring, and maketh, as we do, adoring in priority to eating: and this adoring not to be only in spirit, but by external bowing down and prosternation. Lastly saith S. Austin, (41) Ser. ad Neophitoes. Receive this in Bread, which hung upon the Cross; Receive this in the Chalice, which flowed from the side of Christ. S. Austin is so clear herein, that Bucer saith, (42) Scripta Anglic. p. 679. How often doth Austin writ that even judas received the very Body and Blood of our lord (43) Ibid. p. 678. And Austin writeth in many places, that the Body and Blood of our Lord, is to be honoured and received in the visible signs. Hospinian confesseth S. Austin to say, (44) Hist. Sacram. part. 1. l. 5. p 531. We do truly honour in the form of Bread and wine which we see, things invisible, that is to say, flesh and blood. So clear and confessed is S. Austin for the real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament, and our Adoration thereof. Eucherius of Lions his wholesome advice and doctrine is this: (45) Ho. 5. de Pascha. Let all doubtful infidelity departed, since he who is the author of the gift, he also is the witness of the truth; for the invisible Priest doth by his word and secret power convert the visible creatures, into the substance of his Body and Blood, saying thus, Take ye, eat ye, for this is my Body. And the sanctification being reiterated; receive and drink, This is my Blood. Therefore as at the beck of our Lords commanding, immediately the highest heavens, the deepest waters, the vastness of the earth subsisted, with like power, the virtue of the word doth command in spiritual Sacraments, and the effect obeyeth. Nor let any man doubt, that the primary Creatures at the beck of this power, by the presence of his Majesty may pass over into the nature of our Lord's Body, when he seethe man himself made the body of Christ by the workmanship of heavenly mercy: and as he who believing before the words of Baptism, is yet in the Bond of his old debt, but the words of Baptism once said, presently he is freed from all degrees of sin: even so when the Creatures blessed with the heavenly words, are put upon the sacred Altars, before they are consecrated by the Invocation of the supreme Deity, there is the substance of Bread and wine; but after the words of Christ, it is the Body and Blood of Christ. And what marvel is it, if he can convert things created, which he could created by his word? Yea now it seemeth to be a less miracle, if that which he is known to have made of nothing, being now created, he be yet able to change into a better thing. In like sort S Leo adviseth, (46) Ser. 6. de ieiun. 7. mens. Because our Lord saith, except you eat the flesh etc. let us so communicate, that we nothing doubt of the truth of Christ's Body and blood: for that is received with mouth, which is believed in hart. The Fathers do so confessedly agreed with Catholics herein, that it is acknowledged by Prot. themselves, (47) Humfr. jes. part. 2. rat. 5. That, Gregory the great taught Transubstantiation: that, (48) Cent. 5. Col. 517. chrysostom is thought to confirm Transubstantiation: that, (49) Antony de Adamo in his Anatomy of the M●sse. fol. 2●1. The Books of Sacraments ascribed to Ambrose, affirm the opinion of Christ's bodily presence in the Sacrament: That, S. Ignatius said of the heretics of his time, (50) Theodoret. dial 3. Hame●m. de Trad. Apost. Col. 746. Chemnit. Ex. part 1. p 94. They do not admit Eucharists and oblations, because they do not confess the Eucharists to be the flesh of our Saviour jesus-christ, which flesh suffered for our sins: (51) Adam F●ancisci in Margar. Theol. p. 256. That, Transubstantiation entered early into the Church: And that, (52) Ant. de Adamo Anatomy of Mass. p. 236. they have not yet hitherto been able to know, when this opinion of the Real and bodily being of Christ in the Sacrament did first begin. So confessedly most ancient is the doctrine of Real Presence and Transubstantiation: and so clearly are the sacred Scriptures expounded in proof thereof by the learned and holy Fathers, both Greek and Latin. SECT. VI That Protestant writers do teach and believe from Scriptures, the Real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist. TO examine now what sundry Prot. teach and believe concerning the Real Presence; and first to begin with the Hussi●e●, john H●sse himself prescribeth tha●, (1) L de coena Domini. c. 2. Whatsoever Christ jesus delivered by himself to his Apostles, and by them and other holy Doctors; and whatsoever his holy Roman Church holdeth of this Venerable Sacrament, that firmly is to be believed etc. By power & Institution of Christ etc. by the ministry of Priests, his true Body is in the venerable Sacrament, which was conceived and borne of the most chaste Virgin Mary etc. Likewise the blood which was shed upon the Cross in remission of sins out of the same Body. And now for Transubstantiation, saith he (2) Cap. 3● the Son of God etc. with his word by Transubstantiation maketh true Bread, flesh, and wine by Transubstantiation is made blood. Lastly for Adoration he telleth his own practice sa●ing. (3) Tract de omne Sanguine Christi glorificato. We adore the Body and blood of Christ being at the right hand of God the Father, and hid in the venerable Sacrament which Priests m●ke and so we know what we adore. Again, (4) Contra Bu●lam Papae de Electione Crucis. The Eucharist is more to be worshipped by the faithful, than the relics of other Saints. Perzib●ane another Hussite declareth the unanimous consent of the Hussites in this point, saying, (5) Cap. 21. I truly profess, that above 20. years ago M. john Husse, with the Masters & Doctors of the Country of Bohemia, by their full Counsel, and unanimous Consent, none, as they said contradicting have rejected, and confuted, and prohibited publicly those Articles of Wiccliffe, to wit, that material bread remaineth in the host after Consecration: also that in the Sacraments, Accidents do not stand without their subject: Also that Christ is not in the same Sacrament identically, and really. We need not doubt to find the Lutherans fully joining with us in the real Presence. Luther wrote a special book, entitled, (6) Extat. tom. 7. Defensio verborum Coenae Accipite, comedite, Hoc est corpus meum: contra fanaticos Sacramentariorum spiritus, wherein he avoucheth that. (7) post init. The Devil with blaspheming the Supper of our Lord jesus Christ doth assault us at this day by fanatical men, who dream that therein is given only Bread and wine in sign or symbol of Christian profession nei●her will they grant that the Body and blood of Christ is there, when as the words are most express and clear, Eat ye this is my Body etc. nothing doth more promote this heresy, than novelty etc. I cannot persuade myself, that this heresy will long continued: for it is very gross and immoderate, and it doth not impugn doubtful opinions, and doubtful Testimonies of Scripture, but plain and express sentences of Scripture. Again, I will take God to witness, and the whole world, and I will confess, that I will not be of opinion with the Sacramentaries, nor never was, nor world without end, God willing, willbe. And I will have my hands clean from the blood of all those, whose souls by this poison they drive from Christ, they seduce and kill etc. And I would friendly and familiar entreat them, that they would not be angry at me for this, that I condemn their doctrine, and ascribe it to the Devil: For I cannot do, or speak otherwise, than I bear in my hart and believe. And some pages after, Doctor Carolostadius of these sacred words, This is my Body, doth pitifully wrist the pronoun, This, Zwinglius vexeth the Verb substantive, Is. Oecolampadius putteth the Noun, Body, upon the torture; others tear in pieces the whole text etc. These tread underfoot and destroy all things: and yet the holy Ghost is in every one of these, and none will be reproved of Error etc. So grossly and clearly doth the Devil take us by the nose. Again, This is worthy of admiration, that none of the Fathers, who are infinite in number, do so speak of the Sacrament, as the Sacramentaries do. And in another place he writeth thus Catholickly, (8) De sermone Euch●r. In the Sacrament of the Altar it is not Bread and wine, but the forms of bread and wine: for bread is changed into the true and natural Body of Christ, and wine into the true and natural Blood of Christ. But this Doctrine of Real Presence is so clearly taught by Luther, that Prot. confess, that he maintaineth (9) See Bridges in his Defence of the Government, and Perkins in his 4. Treatises how to apply God's word. Consubstantiation, or the real Presence in the Sacrament. We have here then from Luther, that the impugning of the real Presence proceeded from the Devil, and is heretical: and that the Testimonies of Scripture for it are clear, and not doubtful, as also of the Fathers: and that for his part, he will not be a Sacramentary, world without end. Neither was this Luther's particular opinion, for Chemnitius hath also written purposely another (10) Exam. part. 2. p. 110. Book against the Sacramentaries, as also jacobus Andraeas, entitled, Confutatio disputationis Ioannis jacobi Grinai de coena Domini: wherein all the foresaid authors of these Books, have (uncharitably as Prot. complain) condemned them for (11) Vide libros sup. cit. Sacramentaries, and Heretics. And herein they have proceeded so far, that they affirm with Catholics against Protestants, that, the (12) jac. Audraeat in Confut. Disp. Grin●ide coena Dom. p. 110. wicked do verily receive the Body of Christ. In so much that the Prot. do therefore (13) Vide Apol. Modest. ad Act. Conuentus 15. Theol. reprove them. But the Lutherans do not rest only with the real Presence, for they defend also with Catholics against Prot. the Adoration of Christ's Body in the Sacrament. This doth Chemnitius clearly defend; (14) Exam. part. 2. p. 92. affirming moreover this point of Adoration to be extra Controversiam, out of (15) Ib p. 92. post ●●●d. Controversy, between him and the Papists: Yea saith he, (16) Ib. p. 94. circ. med. hereby we separate ourselves from the Sacramentaries. And another Lutheran Benedict Morgernsterne affirmeth, that (17) Tract. de Eccl p 135. initio & prope fin. Christ is to be adored, not only in heaven, but also in the Mysteries, as being present in the Supper. Brentius saith, (18) In Apol. Confess. Witt. We confess that Christ the son of God is always, and every where to be adored, whether in heaven or in Earth, or in the Eucharist, or out of the Eucharist. Georgius Princeps Anhaltinus affirmeth (19) Vide Georg. Princ. Anhalt. propofit. Magdeb. conc. 4. de Sacram. Altaris. fol. 188. That, 1541. he conferred with Luther upon this point, and shown by sundry Arguments, that Christ is to be adored in the Sacrament, no less than was the Holy Ghost descending in the form of a Dove. Timotheus Kirchmerus teacheth also out of Luther that, (20) In thesauro etc. fol. 586. The Sacrament is to be adored kneeling, because that the true Body of our Lord is there present And D. Luther himself adored also in like manner, and writ a special Treatise thereof, entitled, De (21) Of this Book see in Benedict Morgernsterne Trac. de Eccl. p. 147. circa med. & 149. ant. med. adoratione Sacramenti ad fratres. Which opinion of Luther's, concerning the Adoration of the B. Sacrament, the Prot. (22) Vide Apol. Mod. ad Act. Convent. 15. Theol. Torgae nuper habit. p. 40. circ. med. acknowledge and reprehend; of which reprehension made by Prot. Luther himself taketh notice and complaineth, saying: (23) Luther Tom 7. Witt●mb. de Euch. f. 335. They mock us at their pleasure, calling us shameful eaters of flesh and drinkers of blood, and that we worship a God made of Bread. This is so clearly the Doctrine or Luther, that Caluin saith of Lu●her for calling it Adorabile Sacramentum, (24) Ep. 7●. ad Bucerum. Madness draweth with it Idolatry. For to what ●nd is that of Luther, adorabile Sacramentum, a Sacrament to be adored, but that an Idol should be erected in the Temple of God? And yet this notwithstanding Calui● esteemeth Luther. (25) L 1. de lib. arb. count. Albert. Pigh. See more of Luther in Gualt. fol. 30. For an excellent Apostle of Christ. Well thus Luther believed and his followers, and in this faith he persisted even after that the Protestants doctrine was explained (26) Hereof Cowpers Chronicle. fol. 290. circ. med. And M Sleidam Comment. l. 6. f. 8●. unto him by other learned Protestants: And yet notwithstanding all this, Prot. do own and challenge him for theirs. But to come to Caluinistes also, who speaketh more plainly than Beza, who writeth two homilies with this inscription, (27) Extant Tom. 3. operum eius. Two homilies against the Error of the Sacramentaries, for the true Presence of Christ in the supper of the Lord: In the later whereof, to omit sundry such like, he saith, (28) Anto med. W● descent from them, who for the thing of the Sacrament, do place the virtue and merits of Christ, severed from Christ himself: for Christ said not, This is the merit of my Body, delivered for you, but, This is my Body and this is my blood. Neither is it added in vain etc. which is given for you, and which is shed for you: so that it could not be said more plainly, Christ himself, whose Body was given for us, and blood shed for us, to be truly given to us in the supper, to the nourishment of eternal life: And therefore the thing of that Sacrament is that very Body, which he offered for us upon the Cross, and that very blood which he shed for our sins; we are so far from dreaming of any Symbolical or typical body, or allegorical Blood. And the same he teacheth in (29) Quaest & resp. q. 29. q. 6. other places. And the like might be produced from (30) Instit. l. 4. c. 17. § 5. § 10. §. 16. §. 19 §. 33. Caluin. Barns, a Foxian Martyr, in his protestation at his death, said expressly, that the Sacrament after the words spoken by the Priest, doth change the substance of Bread & wine, into the very Body and blood of Christ: which his Protestation being then published by a professed Ghospeller of that time, and then also answered unto by D. Standish in his Book then printed in English, the said words are yet extant therein, though fraudulently since omitted by Fox, (31) Act. Mon. p. 610. 611. 612. who following the said Copy verbatim, and coming by course to these very words, doth purposely overpass them. The same Doctrine of Transubstantiation, was believed also by the (32) Act. Mon. p. 27●. L. Cobham. So that we have Hussites, Lutherans, and Caluinistes teaching with us from the Scriptures the Real Presence of Christ's Body & Blood in the most Blessed Sacrament. SECT. VII. Objections taken from the Scriptures, in disproof of the Real Presence, answered. THe Texts of sacred Scripture being so confessedly clear for the Real Presence as hath been showed, let us now see what poor Objections they make against it. Some object, that what our Saviour took into his hands, blessed, and broke, that he gave to his Disciples: but he took, blessed and broke bread; therefore it was but Bread which he gave to his Disciples. Answ. It was not the same which our Saviour took, and which he gave, for he took common bread, but by his blessing and power of his word, he changed the same into his Body, and so gave it to them, and so betwixt took and gave, passeth the word, blessed, which maketh, that all the verbs govern not the same accusative case in the same manner: as if one should say, a certain man struck Peter, slew him, and buried him, he doth not mean that he buried him alive, though he struck him alive. Yea Prot. themselves are enforced to answer this Argument, for they teach, that our Saviour taking common and ordinary bread, made it Sacramental: so that it was not the same thing which he took and gave. Secondly it is objected, that the word (is) is oftentimes taken in Scripture for (signify,) therefore in the Sacrament there is not Christ's Body, but Bread a sign thereof. Answ. Though this hath been sufficiently (1) See before. sect. 5. answered before, yet I add, that the word (is) is more often taken for its own signification. Secondly, it is so taken in Explication of words, as to say, Amare est diligere, because here one sign is affirmed of another, and because the very being and Essence of a sign is to signify: and so even in these propositions, is, doth signify to be, and because the very being and Essence of words, is to signify, therefore, is, is explicated by, signify; but in other propositions of things, not of words, as in this Proposition, Hoc est corpus meum, where, that which is the praedicatum, is not formally a sign, (is) cannot be expressed by signify. This truth is so certain, as that M. Hooker speaking hereof saith, (2) Eccles. Pol. l. 5. sect. 67. p. 177. We do not interpret the words of Christ, as if the name of his Body did but import the figure of his Body, and to be, were only to signify. And the same is defended by Kechermanus, saying, (3) System. Theol. p. 444. Others will have the figure to be in the Copula (is) which also cannot be proved, for etc. So confessed it is that, is, is not taken for, signify. The third Objection is, the Lamb is called the (4) Exod. 12.11. , Passeover, (5) Gen. 17.10. Circumcision the Covenant, being but figures thereof; so also our Saviour is called a (6) Io. 15.1. Vine, a (7) Io. 10.9. Door, a (8) 1. Cor. 10.4. Rock, and the like, all which are figurative speeches: therefore in like sort is the Sacrament figuratively called the body of Christ. Answ. Of this Objection I say with S. Austin, (9) De Doct Christ. l. 3. c. 10. If the prejudice of any erroneous persuasion preoccupate the mind, whatsoever the Scripture hath to the contrary, men take it to be a figurative speech. Wherhfore first I answer. By the same consequence may be proved all other speeches in Scripture to be figurative. 2. The Lamb is not called the passover figuratively, because it signifieth the same, for what similitude is there betwixt the kill of a Lamb, and our Lords passing over? wherefore it is so called properly, even as the festival day was called Pascha, because the Lamb was sacrifyced, and the festival day kept in memory and honour of the said Passeover of our Lord: and so in the Gospel, the Paschall Lamb is absolutely called the (10) Luc. 2●. 7.8 Mar. 14.12. Pascha. And though it were taken figuratively, yet is it expounded sufficiently, being called the (11) Exod. 12.27. Sacrifice of our Lords Passover, and the blood thereof, being (12) Exod. 12.13. a token for them upon the houses. 3. Circumcision is not only a sign, but even the Covenant itself; And so jacobus Andr●as a Prot. teacheth that, (13) Confut. Disp. Io. jac. G●inaei. p. 209. It doth not only signify the Covenant, but also is in very deed the Covenant (it self.) And though the Scripture should, as is objected, call it the Covenant figuratively, yet as other (14) Bulling. Dec. p. 988 & Commonefact. de sacra coena. etc. p. 102. Prot. do observe, the Scripture doth explain itself sufficiently in the same place, in that it doth there also call Circumcision, (15) Gen. 17.11. The sign of the Covenant. Luther himself decydeth this Argument, thinking it as wise a proof, as if a man should argue, that (16) Defence. verb. Coenae. fol. 386. Sara or Rebecca brought forth Children, and remained virgins, because our Lady did so. As for the words Rock, door, vine, and the like, they are sufficiently explained in Scriptures. Christ is called the (17) 1. Cor. 10.4. Spiritual Rock by S. Paul And (18) Io. 15.4.5.6. Christ himself expoundeth in what sense he is a vine, and his Disciples, branches. And when he calleth himself, a Door, it is expressly said, that he spoke it by way of a (19) Io. 10.6. Proverb. So that it is evident, even by the places objected, that the foresaid sayings are not taken literally, neither were they ever so understood by any one Interpreter: whereas the foresaid words, This is my Body, are not expounded or qualifyed, by any of the Evangelists, or S. Paul, otherwise then the literal sense of itself affoardeth. And the same Interpretation of the foresaid objected places, is given by sundry (20) Bulling. in his Dec. in Engl, Dec. 5. ser. p. 988. See Vrsinus his Commonefactio etc. p. 202. josias Nichols in his Abraham's Faith, p. 111. Praetorius de Sa●ramentis. p. 1●8. Prot. writers. But because this Objection is so frequently v●ged, I further add, that whereas in the example of the B. Sacrament, our Saviour did take a certain portion of Bread into his hand, & pointing to that determinate Substance, said, This is my body; in the other examples he pointed not, or spoke to any determinate substance, so much as then present, or in being, into which he might be changed; but useth only a general name of a kind of Substance, as I am a vine &c, which hath in itself no determinate and proper being, and therefore must needs be figurative. Again, in these objected examples, one different nature is affirmed of another, which would be clearly false, if thereby should be signified identity of nature or Substance, and not only likeness of Condition or Property: whereas in these words, This is my Body, one different nature is not affirmed of another, for I have proved before, that the pronoun, This, pointeth not at all to Bread, but to Body. Lastly, these and other such like (21) Gen. 41.26. Apoc. 17. ●. Mat. 13. examples vulgarly objected, are all of them spoken upon occasion of Explication, and to explain some other truth or saying, then formerly in being, or precedent; whereas these other words, This is my Body, are not spoken upon occasion, or for explication of any other saying, or truth then precedent, but are originally uttered, as by way of Institution, to ordain no less than a Sacrament, then before not in being. It is therefore more than licentious boldness, to affirm these words to be figurative, because the other are. And by like liberty, a man may defend any old or new heresy, though never so damnable. Fourthly it is objected that these words, (22) Luc. 22.20. 1. Cor. 11.15. This Cup is the new Testament in my Blood, must be taken figuratively, for first the Cup is taken for the thing contained, and whether the same be wine or blood, yet it is not the Testament, but the sign thereof. I answer. 1. to take the Cup for the thing contained, is a figure most ordinary, and the same withal is clearly expressed by our Saviour's saying, take, drink, This is the Cup, for not the vessel, but the liquor is drunk, neither was the vessel, but the liquor shed for us. Besides instead of those words, This is the Cup, set down by S. Luke and S. Paul, S. Matthew and S. Mark say, This is the Blood: now, words obscure and figurative, are to be expounded by other more clear and proper. And certainly if a man should say of the same vessel, drink of this Cup, & should annex, drink of this wine, none would doubt, but that wine, were contained in that Cup, and that man intended to make known the same: wherefore seeing the holy Ghost by two of his writers, saith, This is the Cup, & by other two of the same thing, This is the Blood, it may not be doubte●, but that blood is contained in the Cup. 2. The word Testament, is not taken improperly, for the body and blood of C●●●●t under the forms of Bread and wine, but is truly his Testament, whereby is given to the worthy receiver, title and interest to an everlasting Inheritance: & though it were figurative, yet it is sufficiently expressed by S. Matthew, plainly saying, Th●s is the blood of the new Testament. A fi●th Objection is, Christ said, (23) Luc. 22. 2●. Do this for a Commemoration of me; but memory or Commemoration i● of things absent, therefore Christ is not really present in the Sacrament. I answer, what this meaneth Saint Paul teacheth saying: (24) 1. Cor. 11.26. As often as you shall eat this Bread, and drink the Chalice, you shall show the death of our Lord until he come. Now, Christ's death and Passion is not present, but absent, yea it is not, but was. Secondly it is not said here, to be only a Commemoration or remembrance, but only we are here commanded to do it in remembrance, which we daily do. Thirdly, one and the same thing in sundry respects may be a body, and yet a figure, sign, or remembrance thereof: so was Christ's Body transfigured upon the Mount (25) Mat. 17.2. Thabor, a figure of his Body glorified in heaven; and so also is he called, (26) Heb. 1.3. See the like Phil. 2 6. 2. Cor. 4.4. The figure of his Father's substance, and is yet also of, and the same substance. This Objection though most common, is yet so poor, as that it is answered by Caluin saying, (27) In omnes Pauli Epist. in. 1. Cor. 11. p. 323. The supper is a remembrance etc. But where some gather from hence, that therefore Christ is absent from the supper, the Answer is ready etc. Sixtly it is objected, that after the Institution of the Sacrament, Christ said, (28) Mat. 26.29. I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine: therefore it was wine which before he had immediately drunk. I answer first, S. Luke who undertook to (29) Luc. 1.3. writ things in order, setteth down the foresaid words before the Institution of the Sacrament, (30) Luc. ●2. 18. applying them to the time of the eating of the Paschall Lamb, of which in the sam● place he useth the same words, saying, From (31) Luc. 22. 1●. this time I will not eat it, till it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God: which being true, it evidently followeth, that seeing our Saviour said at the time of the eating of the Paschall Lamb, which was before the Institution of the Sacrament, that he would not drink from that time of the fruit of the vine, that therefore that which he drank afterwards, was not wine, but his precious blood. And that this Interpretation is most true, is confessed by Hutterus, saying, (32) De sacrificio Missae. p. 393. Those words, I will not drink of this fruit of the Vine etc. our Saviour spoke in treating of the Sacrament of the old Testament, to wit, the Paschall Lamb. 2. Though it were understood of the Sacrament, yet it might be called Wine, as the Body also is called (33) 1. Cor. 10.16. Bread, for 3. causes. First because it was so before; so Aaron's rod being turned into a serpent, (34) Exod. 7.10.12. was yet afterwards called a rod: So water turned into wine, (35) Io. 2.9. was yet after called water. 2. Because it keepeth the forms of bread and wine, and things are called as they appear, so Angels appearing in the shape of men, were called (36) Gen. 18.2.29.5. Mar. 16.5. Luc. 24, 4. Act. 1.10. men. 3. Because Christ in this Sacrament, is very true and principal bread & wine, feeding and refreshing us in Body and Soul, until we arrive to everlasting happiness. And lastly Prot. themselves do teach that (37) Aretius' loc. come. p. 260. & 40. Marloret. in Encbyr. at the word Panis. under the name of Bread the Scripture doth (sometimes) understand not naked bread, but all kind of food, which concerneth this present life, or the eternal: according to which acceptance, the Sacrament may be called Bread, and so is Christ himself called (38) Io. 6.35.48.52. Bread. Many object that the very word Transubstantiation, was but lately invented. Answ. The word Transubstantiation was read and known some hundreds of years before the name Protestant was heard or dreamt of; for that was expressed in the Council of Lateran, which was celebrated Anno 1215. this was but stamped since the time of Luther, some hundred years ago. And that difficult places of Scripture may be cleared and expressed by words not set down in Scripture, Caluin (39) Inst. l. 1. c. 13. §. 3. acknowledgeth and proveth by examples of the words Trinity, & Persons. SECT. VIII. Objections, against the possibility of the Real Presence, answered. SOme Prot. think the Doctrine of the real Presence to imply in it certain and several Contradictions, and therefore to be impossible; As first, that the being of Christ's Body in many places at once (which must needs be admitted if the real Presence be granted) doth contradict the Unity of his Body, which is but one, and not multiplied. 2. The being of Christ's whole Body in so small an host, doth also contradict the greater quantity of his Body. 3. His being there invisible, and without Circumscription, doth likewise (say they) contradict the truth and natural properties of his humane Body. In regard hereof Beza saith, Nego (1) Cont. Brent. Deum pesse etc. I deny that God is able to make Christ's Body present in the Eucharist. Ridley also saith, (2) In the Acts and Monum. p. 964. I do affirm, that it is impossible for Christ to be both in heaven, and earth at one tyme. In like manner (3) In his Answ. to Reinolds p. 179. & 180. D. Whitaker discourseth at large, endeavouring to prove the Real Presence, to be a Contradiction, and therefore impossible. For our better proceeding and easier dissolving of all these falsely pretended difficulties & contradictions, feigned and devised only by the Adversaries of the Real Presence, we affirm first, that according to Rules of Logic (according to which only, a Contradiction must be examined) a Contradiction doth consist of two Propositions, or sayings, whereof the one is an affirmative, the other a negative, or denial of that which is affirmed; as for example to say, that Christ's Body is present in this place, and Christ's Body is not present in this place, these two sayings are contradictory, and being taken (secundum idem) that is, in one and the same respect, they cannot by any possibility be both of them true. Or secondly a Contradiction is that which cannot stand with the essence of the things, as to say, that one and the same time, and other like Circumstances, is, and is not. But the Presence of Christ's Body in this place, and that place, yea in a million of places at one time, is not of this kind, for it denieth not the being of his Body in either place, but only affirmeth the Presence thereof in all places where it is. Neither is it against the essence of Christ's Body, or destroyeth the nature of Christ's Body, to be in the Sacrament, and in as many places, as that sacred and immaculate host is offered up. For better illustration whereof, I will give some like resemblances: first in the mystery of the B. Trinity, do we not believe, that one and the selfsame substance, and divine Essence in number to be at once and for ever in three several and distinct persons? A matter no less wonderful, than the manifold Presence of Christ's Body in many places: for as there is in the Sacrament a Distinction of places, so in this Mystery of the Trinity a distinction of persons; and therefore, as there is in this a most simple unity, of nature or essence, notwithstanding the distinction of persons, so in the other also without all danger of Contradiction, there may be a like unity of Body, notwithstanding the aforesaid distinction of places. And here the Arrians might, and did aswell cavil about this Mystery of the Trinity, as the Protestants do now about the Real Presence. A second resemblance of this Mystery, may be given in the soul of Man: this soul not being proportionable to the extension of the Body, (for so it were material depending of the Body, and mortal with it) but an indivisible unity and immortal, is notwithstanding, as both Philosophy and Truth teacheth, wholly in the whole Body, and wholly in every part thereof; and we may easily imagine, that God by his power is able to conserve it at once in several members cut of, and divided from the said Body, even as it was before in the same members, when they were united to the Body. This difficulty may also be better conceived, though not proved, by example of one and the same word, the which being once uttered, is thereupon at one and the same instant in the hearing of sundry persons, and not as a confused and indistinct noise multiplied in the air, but as one peculiar word distinguished with the same syllables, wherein it was uttered. As also one Seal doth impart to sundry pieces of wax, one and the same Print or form; and sundry looking glasses can in like manner contain in them at one time, even one and the same favour or resemblance. Add herunto, that albeit Prot. do say and think, that Luther erred in point of the Sacrament, yet certes they cannot doubt, but that he was so learned as to discern a Contradiction: thus than he saith thereof, (4) Luth. tom Wittemb 1●57. defence verb. ●oe ae f 388. See further Luther's opinion herein alleged by P●t. Martyr in his Disp. annexed to his come. plac. in Eng. p. 221. What Scriptures have they to prove, that these two Propositions be directly contrary, Christ sitteth in heaven, and Christ is in the supper. The contradiction is in their carnal Imagination, not in faith, or the word of God. The like is affirmed by joachim Westphalus, saying, (5) In Apol. cont. Calu. c. 19 p. 194. The body of man is circumscribed in one place, therefore at one time it cannot be but in one place, therefore not in all places where the supper is ministered. Is not this Geometrical Argument fetched from Euclids demonstrations, the Pillar and up holder of all these Sacramentaries & c? Philosophy brought forth all heresies, and she begat the Error of Zwinglius. And with him agreeth (6) Ho. 50.2. Tom. in Euang. Lucae. Brentiu●, whom M. jewel termeth, (7) In his Defence of the Apol. p. 473. A most grave and learned Father: and so do the 15. Protestant Divines assembled together in Saxony, their words are as followeth, (8) In Apol. Modest. ad acta convent. 1●. Theol. Torge nuper babit. p. 26. ante med. Whereas the Sacramentaries do say, that the Body of Christ is in heaven, therefore it is not in the Supper, etc. Therefore Luther provoketh all Sacramentaries, that they tell him, and show him the Antithesis, and repugnance betwixt them. But Saint chrysostom answereth this Objection, saying, (9) In Ep ad Hebraeos. ho. 17. S. Ambr. in Heb c. 10. Nyss in orat. Catech. c 37. and see S. Ch●ys stome de Sa●erd. l. 3. c 4. & ho. 2. ad Pop. fin. This is one Sacrifice, otherwise by this reason, because it is offered in many places, there should be many Christ's; not so, but one Christ in every place, here whole, and there whole, one Body. Lastly M. Fox, (who should be able, as a man would think, to discern a Contradiction, who was able to writ such a huge volume of lies, as is his Acts and Monuments) saith, (10) In his Act. & Mon. p. 998. And see many more Prot. confessing the possibility in the Liturgy. Tract 2. see. 4 p 150. 1●1. That Christ abiding in heaven, is no let, but that he may be in the Sacrament, if he list. Add hereunto, that a body to be in a place, is not of the Essence of a Body, but merely extrinsecall, and accidentary, for the highest heaven is a true Body, and is not yet in any place: wherefore to be in any place, or more places, is not to contradict the Essence of a true Body, and by Consequence possible. Christ our Saviour when he appeared to S. (11) Act. 9.4.5.17. & 22.8.9 15.16. Paul, was at the same time in the highest heaven, and upon the Earth, or in the air near the Earth: therefore, as then Christ's body was in heaven, and near unto the Earth. That Christ as then was in heaven Prot. grant, and it appeareth by those words spoken of him, (12) Act. 3.11. Whom heaven truly must receive, until the times of the restitution of all things: that he was also near the Earth in the air, is evident by the text, and willbe made more evident by the ensuing discourse. Heerto two answers are framed by john Caluin. 1. (13) Inc. 9 Act. that S. Paul saw not Christ in his own person, but only in some shape or figure, neither heard a voice from Christ's own mouth, but only some voice from heaven, such as was that of God the father, at his Baptism and Transfiguration. 2. (14) Calu. instit. l. 4. c. 7. §. 29. that he truly saw and heard Christ himself, but as remaining in heaven, so that the eyes and ears of Paul did pierce the highest heaven. And here it seemeth to me, that Caluin did not remember himself, forgetting in one place what he had said in another: for in his Commentaries upon the 9 of the Acts, he avoucheth, that Paul neither saw Christ in his own person, nor yet heard any voice from Christ's own mouth; and in the fourth Book of his Institutions the 7. Chapter, he affirmeth that S. Paul truly saw and heard Christ himself: is not this a Contradiction? but pardon him, for he had forgotten the saying, oportuit mendacemesse memorem. But letting this Contradiction pass, against Caluins' first gloss, that S. Paul truly saw Christ himself, appeareth by these places, (15) Act. 9.7. But the men that went in Company with him, stood amazed, hearing the voice, but seeing no man: Where a difference is made between S. Paul and his Companions, in that they saw no man, but only heard a voice. Again, (16) Ib. ver. 27. Barnabas told the Apostles, how in the way Paul had seen our Lord, and that he spoke unto him. And yet in a third place, (17) Ib. vers. 17. Ananias said, jesus hath sent me, he that appeared to thee in the way that thou camest. And yet further, (18) Act. 22.15.26. God hath preordinated thee, that thou shouldest &c. see the just one, and hear a voice from his mouth: because thou shalt be witness to all men, of those things which thou hast seen and heard. See the like (19) Act. 1●. 15.16. 1. Cor. 9.1. elsewhere. And in proof of Christ's Resurrection, numbering the other Apostles, of whom Christ was truly seen after his death, Saint Paul saith, (20) 1. Cor. 15.8. Last of all, as it were of an abortive, he was seen also of me, which proof had been of no force, unless he had truly seen the very body of Christ, as the rest of the Apostles had before. Concerning the second, that he saw Christ not as in heaven, but in earth, or in the air near the Earth, may be proved first, in that the light of him that appeared was so great, that it struck Paul (21) Act. 9.8. blind, which it could not have done, unless it had been near. Besides his Companions also saw a light, and heard a voice, which argueth, that Christ was near them, for it is not probable, that their eyes and ears could pierce the highest heavens; they also did not hear the voice of him (22) Act. 11.20. that spoke with Paul, which argueth that Christ was nearer to Paul, whereas if he had spoken from heaven, all might have heard alike. Further if S. Paul had seen him in the highest heaven, he would not have doubted who he had been, saying, who art thou O Lord, nor yet have needed that answer of our Lord, I am jesus whom thou persecutest. Lastly, Prot. much marvel, how the Saints in heaven can have so long eyes and ears, as to see & know things done upon Earth. Much more may we marvel, how the Carnal eyes, and ears of Paul could reach from Earth to heaven: and if this perforce they must attribute to the power of God (which though it did not happen, yet to be possible we grant) with fare less reason can they deny through the same power, the like privilege to the glorified souls. S. Paul being in prison, it is said, (23) Act. 23.11. The night following our Lord standing by him, said, be constant: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou testify at Rome also. This place is so convincing, that the Prot. (24) Anno 1560. 1562. 1568. 1605. of Geneva, instead of standing by him, assistens, or adstans, in Latin, do translate, see present, he being present: and Tremelius changeth it to, visus est, was seen. But as by saying, being present, this doth not impugn, but rather prove Christ's being in the prison with S. Paul; so to change standing into seeing, is a Corruption over gross, standing, and seeing being things so different: And therefore (25) Against Rhem. Test. in Act. 23.11. Bib. of 1578. Fulke and other Translatours do truly say, stood by him. Now this proveth that though he was in heaven, yet was he also at the same time in the prison with Paul; neither will it suffice to say, that it was an Angel that stood by him, for the Text saith, it was our Lord. Neither was it an Angel, but Christ our Lord, of whom he had testified in Jerusalem, and whom he was to testify in Rome. Examples of other like apparitions of Christ upon earth, are plentiful in the ancient Fathers: as to S. Peter whereof S. (26) In orat. count. Auxentium. Egefip. l. 3. de Excidio Hierus. c. 2. Ambrose: Also unto S. Anthony, as appeareth in S. (27) Athanas. in Apol. pro fuga sua. Athanasius: To S. Tharsilla, whereof see S. (28) L. 4. Dial. c. 16. Gregory: To S. Gregory himself, witness whereof is joannes (29) L. 2. vitae ipsius. c. 12. Paulinus Ep ad Macharium. Diaconus. But against this some further urge, that Christ's Body as it is upon the Altar is not continuated with itself, as it is in heaven, for many other Bodies are betwixt; therefore it is divided, and so not one. To this, I answer, in that Case it is neither continuated, nor discontinuated or divided, for this doth properly belong to things which be many, whether they the wholes or parts. And therefore though many Bodies be betwixt Christ's Body, as it is in heaven and upon the Altar, yet this proveth not that Christ's Body is divided in respect of itself, but only in respect of the place, to wit, that heaven and Earth are discontinuated. It is urged again, if a Body can be in two places at one time, then at the same time it may be remote & near, come to, and go from the said place; in one place be extreme hot, and in another place extreme cold, in one place be wounded and slain, and in another be safe and alive, or the like, all which imply. Answ. Such respects are multiplied as follow the places, not others: so in the foresaid case it might be above and below, near and remote, move and rest etc. none of which do repugn, seeing they are in diverse respects, to wit, in regard of diverse places: even as the soul of man, which as it is in the head and feet, is remote, and not remote from the Earth; & one hand moving, the other resting, the soul at the same time is said to move and rest. Now such actions and qualities as do not agreed to the Body in regard of the place, but in regard of itself, and so are received and inherent in the body itself, are not multiplied, no more than the Body itself: So a Body hot in one place, is also hot in another; and if extreme heat should be applied in one place, and extreme cold in another, it should be in the same state, as if the said Contraries were applied to a body in one place, that is, neither extreme hot, nor extreme cold: and so if a man should be hungry, wounded, slain &c. in one place, the like he should be in another. Add lastly what Melancthon saith hereof in general, (30) Ep. ad Martinum Gerelitium. I had rather die, then affirm this which the Zwinglians affirm, that Christ's Body cannot be but in one place. Therefore constantly reprove them publicly and privately when occasion shallbe. And this may suffice for answer to the first supposed Contradiction of Christ's Body being in diverse places. The second supposed Contradiction is, that it doth imply, for Christ's Body to be contained within so small a compass, as is the Sacramental host. But to this I answer, as it is not essential to a Body to occupy a place, so neither is it essential, that the greatness of the place must portionably answer the greatness of the Body: for neither place, nor answerable greatness of place to the body, is put in the definition of a Body, which they should be, if they were essential to a Body; and the highest heaven hath exceeding great magnitude, and yet is without all place. Again, it is no more impossible for Christ's Body to be in the Sacrament, than it is for a Camel to go through the e●e of a needle: & yet our Saviour saith, (31) Mat. 19.24. Mar. 1●. 25.27. It is easier for a Camel to go through the eye of a needle, than a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. And whereas the Apostles heerupon demanding, who then can be saved? Christ answered, with men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible: here, that which is more hard, to wit, a Rich man to be saved, is said to be possible; therefore much more possible is that which is said to be more easy, to wit, for a Camel to go through the eye of a needle; but this is not possible to be but by the Camel not occupying place: therefore a Body may be, and not occupy place; & by what means soever it be, it is more incredible & improportionable according to humane sense, then for the Body of a man to be in the Sacrament: but with God these & all other things are possible. This possibility is affirmed by the Ancient (32) Aug. de Spir. & lic. c. 1. Nazianzen l. 4. de Theol. Orig. in c. 19 Mathaei. Fathers, yea and by some of the Prot. writers: for M. Willet in his Synopsis confesseth that, (33) Printed 1600. p. 526. God by his absolute power, can draw the huge Body of a Camel, remaining still of that bigness, through a needle's eye: only he denyeth that it can be, that God will do it, because (saith he) it is contrary to the law of nature. And here I would demand, whether it were not as strange, that the Godhead of Christ being infinite, should yet be wholly in the limited nature of humanity, and before his nativity wholly also in his Mother's womb, she being therefore called the Mother of our (34) Luc. 1.43. Lord, and the Mother of (35) Vide Vincent. Lyrin. l. adverse. her. paul. of't. med. Amb. l. 2. de Virg. Ephrem de laud. Mariae. Et Conc. Ephes. in Ep. ad Nestor. Et Conc. Constantinop. 5. sub justin. Imperat. c. 6. Epiph. in Anchor. iuxta med. And see the Centuristes confessing and reporting this. cent. 5. col. 802. 608. 124. See also Socrates hist. l. 7. c. ●2. God? This may be somewhat explained by the example of the sight of the eye, which being but a small member, comprehendeth in it (in full proportion of outward show, incomparably above the bigness of itself) the external figure and largeness of a great part both of heaven and earth, with a distinguished and answerable proportion of hills, dales, fields, and buildings, which at once, it receiveth and discerneth. And, which is more, we see by experience that, a Looking glass, or a little Diamond, do comprehend in them the external show of breadth and length of great Chambers & places exceeding greater than themselves, & that (which is most) in such due and answerable proportion, that whosoever beholdeth but in the said glass or Diamond the said figures so in them represented, shall withal behold in them a show of proportion and largeness far exceeding the said glass or Diamond, and so great as if he had seen the things themselves. And it is in reason no more strange, for a man to be in no greater a room then the Sacrament, than it is for the soul of man (which is an indivisible unity, & of itself can fully re●ide in less than a needle's point) to be as it were dilated, and extended as far as the whole Body of Man. But this Doctrine is so true, that Luther affirmeth, (36) Luther cited by Pet. Martyr. in Di●p. annex loc. come. Anglic. that a body of quantity, may be without a quantitive measure. And M. jewel likewise acknowledgeth, (37) Reply against Harding, p. 352. That God is able by his omnipotent power, to make Christ's Body present, without place and quantity: so far in his opinion was this matter from all contradiction. This also is strongly confirmed by this relation made by S. john, that, (38) Io. 20.19.26. When the doors were shut where the Disciples were gathered together for fear of the jews, jesus came and stood in the midst. Whereupon the Disciples (39) Luc. 14.37. were troubled, and affrighted, and imagined that they saw a spirit. Now this could not be, but either by his Body not occupying a place, or else by penetration of Bodies, which is as difficult. And the like might be showed in Christ's Nativity, Resurrection, and Ascension. Besides it is as natural for fire to burn, for a thing coloured to be seen, for a thing heavy to weigh down, for the water to be fluxible, and not to have the quality of sustaining a heavy body, as it is for a Body to occupy a place: and yet with all these things hath God's Omnipotency miraculously dispensed, yea suspended and hindered the natural course thereof, though the organs, objects, means, and all other things were applied, as appeareth by the Bush which (40) Exod. 3.2. Moses saw burn and consumed not: by the fiery furnace, whereinto the 3. Children were (41) Dan. 3.22.25.27. cast: by the axe which falling into the water, (42) 4. Reg. 6 5.6. by virtue of the Prophet's word, did swim above the water: by Christ's walking (43) Mat. 14.26. upon the waters, at the sight whereof, the thing being supernatural, the Disciples were so afraid that they cried out, it was a spirit: By Christ's (44) Luc. 4.29 30. passing through the midst of them, that had brought him to the edge of a hill etc. that they might throw him down headlong: By the Israelites passing through the read sea, (45) Exod. 14.22. Ios. 3.14. for the water was as it were a wall upon their right hand and left. All which passages recorded in sacred Scripture, are as miraculous, as Christ's Body being in the B. Sacrament, and yet that only must by Protestants be denied, and all these granted. Lastly, the third supposed Contradiction is of Christ's Body, being in the Sacrament without Circumscription. Answ. But how was Christ's Body circumscribed, when he entered in to his Disciples, as before, ianna●s clausis, the doors being shut? for we read no where that they were miraculously opened, as the Angel opened the gates of the Prison, (46) Act. 5.29. & 12.5.10. where S. Peter was: but here at our Saviour's entrance, the miracle consisted not in the opening of the doors, but the miracle rested in our Saviour his sudden standing in the midst of the Apostles when the doors were shut: for which cause S. john very carefully observeth, and twice over reciteth, the doors being shut: in so much that the Apostles at this his appearance, were (47) Luc. 24.37. afraid, supposing they had seen a spirit, as in like manner they cried out, and were troubled, when they saw (48) Mat. 14.16. him walking upon the Sea. This truth is acknowledged by S. Ambrose, who writing hereof saith, (49) Ambr. in vlt. cap. Luc. It was a wonder how the corporal nature passed through the impenetrable body. S. Hilary likewise testifieth, that, (50) Hilar l. 1. de Tria●. post med. Nothing of that which is solid giveth place, neither d● the wood or stones by their nature lose any thing etc. Our Lord's Body doth not departed from itself, that it should resume itself of nothing, & sense and speech giveth place, and the truth of the fact is without man's reason. I might allege (51) Chrysost. de Resur. ho. 9 & in loan. ho. 86. Aug. in tract. sup. dicta verba Euang. & de agone Christi c. 24 Et Ep. 3. ad volus. E●iph. haer. 64. & 20. Hier. count. jovin. l. 1. c. 21 & ad Eus●o●h. & in Ep. ad Pammach. de erroribus loan Hierosol. Cyril. in loan. l. 12. c. 53. Theodoret. Di●log. 2. Leo Eo. 22. ad Flau. & Ep. 83. ad Palestinos. sundry other Testimonies of the Fathers, all confessing it to be miraculous. But I will content myself with the Doctrine of the great Divines of Geneva, who grant, (52) Vide Apol. Modest. ad acta Convent. 15. Theol. Torgae nuper habit. p. 35. That suddenly to vanish out of sight etc. neither also to penetrate through a solid body, do take away the truth of corporal substance. As also of M. Cranmer, who speaking hereof, teacheth that by possibility (53) Answer to Gardiner and Smith. p. 454. Christ's body may be in the Bread and wine, also in the doors which were shut, and stone of his Sepulchre. Whereupon the Conclusion must needs be, that our Saviour his Body passing through the doors, either was not as then circumscribed in place; or else, which were as strange, it and the door being two several bodies, were circumscribed both in one place. The sum of all briefly is this, If God have often heretofore miraculously suspended from sundry sorts of Bodies, sundry of their natural qualities, the truth and natures of the said Bodies still preserved notwithstanding, as hath been already showed: And as touching our Saviour's sacred Body, (54) Mat. 14.26. If he walked upon the Sea, against the natural property either of his body's weight, or the water's fluxibility apt for division: If, as before, he passed through the sacred womb of his Virgin Mother, sealed up without reservation, penetrated the stone in his Resurrection, the doors at his apparition to his Disciples; if his Body was transformed (55) Mar. 6.49. Mat. 17.2. Luc. 9.29. Mar. 9.3. upon the mountain, appeared to his Disciples in (56) Mar. 16.12. another shape: If he suddenly vanished, (57) Luc. 14.31. as he sat at table with two of his Disciples, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, became unseen of them: as also in like manner, (58) Luc 4.29.30. Of his like escape read john. 10.39. & 8.59. whence all the Synagogue etc. cast him out of the City, and brought him to the edge of the hill etc. that they might throw him down headlong, he by like miracle passing through the midst of them, went his way, and so escaped (59) Seehte Marg. notes of the Engl. Bible printed 1576. in Luc. 4.30. miraculously: I say, if nature and natural actions have been suspended in all these, & every one of them, be as miraculous, as is the being of Christ's B. Body in the consecrated host upon the Altar; and seem withal to imply in each of them as much contradiction in nature, as doth the B. Sacrament, and yet there is no Contradiction in any of them against nature, but only the Prerogative and supreme power of the God of Nature, working above nature: why then should the Real Presence of Christ's sacred Body in the B. Sacrament, imply in it a Contradiction, and consequently an Impossibility? I conclude all with a notable sentence of justinus Martyr, Quae sunt earundem virium eamdem habent fidem, sive concedantur, sive tollantur. Things of equal power have the same credit, concerning belief, whether they be granted, or denied. Now let the Prot. apply, and either grant the real Presence, which is no more miraculous, than the former instances, or else deny all, since they are all alike, built upon God's power, working above nature: but the former they dare not deny, therefore neither let them dare to deny this. These premises considered, sundry Prot. upon a second and better Consideration do acknowledge the possibility of the Real presence. Caluin saith, (61) 1 Instit. prin. Argent. de coena Dom. c 11. p. 336. Hear that they may 'cause us envy, they 'cause us to speak maliciously of the power of God Omnipotent: but they either err foolishly, or maliciously: for it is not here questioned what God can do, but what he will do. The divines of Wittemberge say, (62) Harm. of Conf. p. 454. We believe that the omnipotency of God is so great, (62) Harm. of Conf. p. 454. that in the Eucharist he may either annihilate the substance of Bread, or else change them into his Body: But that God doth exercise this his absolute Omnipotency in the Eucharist we have no certain word of God for it. Cranmer affirmeth that, (63) Answ. to Steven Gardiner, p. 454. The Controversy in this matter is not, what may be, but what is: Christ's Body may be as well in the Bread, as in the Door (which was shut) and stone of his Sepulchre. Whitaker his contrary assertion notwithstanding, saith, (64) Answer to Rein p. 192. That Christ can make the Bread his Body, we grant; only show that Christ will make of Real Bread, his Real flesh, and then this Controversy is brought to an end. And the same words are used by (65) In his Serm. upon the Sacram. ser. 3. fol. 85. Bruis. So confessedly is the Real Presence possible. SECT. IX. Objections against the Real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist, in regard of certain pretended indignities thereupon ensuing, answered. THe (1) Willet in his Synop. p. 454. See Algerus mentioning the like Objections of the Heretics of his tyme. l. 2. de Sacram. Euch. c. 1. Indignities which Prot. imagine to follow upon the Real eating of Christ's Body, are two: First, that Christ should be in continual voyage of ascending up again to heaven, upon the daily corruption of the forms of Bread and wine. Secondly, he that should pass into such undecent places, as men's stomaches etc. eaten by mice, burned by the fire etc. Concerning the first, it is explained by example of the soul being wholly in every part of man's Body, the Comparison is this; even as when an arm or leg is cut off, the soul that informed that member before it was cut off, doth not perish with it, for than he that lacked his arm should lose his soul; neither doth it hung in the air, because the air is not organised to receive the information, but ceasing to inform the member cut off, it doth without any motion to place, only lose that subject and place, keeping still the place and residence in the Body where it was before: even so the Body of Christ, when the forms of Bread and wine are corrupted in the stomach, doth without any motion from place to place only become absent, or leaveth that abode, which it had in the stomach, and keepeth the place which then, and before it had in heaven. To the second I answer, that as the Divinity filleth all places how undecent and unclean soever; the Sun beams also beating upon a dunghill, and not defiled therewith; so Christ's Body being immortal & impassable, cannot be defiled with the touch or impression of any infection, or unclean Creature. The stench of sin when he conversed upon earth amongst sinners, did much more dislike the smell of his soul, than this other could molest his Body. And as it was not undecent, but a sign of great mercy and love, that he should suffer that; so it is not more unseemly, that his Body should admit the other, seeing thereby he suffereth nothing, but only his remaining there to testify and work admirable effects of love and Grace. And here for full payment and answer to all these vile, base, gross and carnal Objections of these Dunghill Heretics; these Objections and the like, are but raked out of the ashes of the old Heathens and Pagans', of whom saith S. Austin. (2) Ep. 49. add Deogratias. q. 6. We should not believe in Christ himself, if we feared the laughing of Pagans'. They, & some ancient heretics objected the very like to this against the (3) Tertul. de carne Christi. & l. de Resur. carnis. Hier. Ep. ad Pamach. Euagrius hist. l. 1. c. 2. Theodor. l. 4. haer. fab. Incarnation, Death, Passion, and Resurrection of our glorious Saviour, pretending that it was undecent, that God (4) Hilar. de Trin. l. 9 11. 12. & l. cont. Constant. See Hook. Eccl. Pol. l 4. See 8. p. 183. should lie in a woman's womb nine months, that he should take upon him the Prison of our flesh, that he should endure the difficulties of our Infancy, should be Circumcised, & coming to man's state, should (5) See in justin Martyr. in Dial. cum Tryphone. Minutius Faelix in Octavio. And see the Centurists. Cent. 5. Col. 1510. suffer most shameful and dishonourable death; and all this because Adam did taste an Apple, the offence whereof, as the Heathens thought, god was more like to pardon, than thus to redeem. And yet all this Christians firmly believe. Wherefore I will conclude this with the good advice of S. chrysostom, saying, (6) In Mat. ho. 83. Let us always believe God, and not resist him, although, that which he saith, may seem absurd both to sense and thought etc. his words cannot deceive us, but our sense is easily deceived etc. For so much therefore as he hath said, This is my Body, let us in no sort doubt, but believe. SECT. X. The foresaid truth of the Real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Blessed Sacrament, is further proved by clear and confessed Miracles, wrought by God in testimony thereof. SInce the stumbling block of pretended impossibility & absurdity conceived against our Doctrine, and whereat flesh and blood hath taken such scruple and offence, is by that which hitherto hath been alleged, so clearly removed, and that this matter is now at last confessed to be possible, as depending only upon Gods holy will: Since likewise his will, which cannot be better known to us, then by his word, is herein made so plain unto us, even by his written word, that if Protestants would but for the time suppose, that the holy Ghost were mindful and desirous to decree by Scripture the Real Presence, themselves can hardly imagine words more evident to that purpose, then are these, This is my Body which is given for you, which as Reinolds (1) Confer. with Hart. p. 68 granteth, are plainer in show for our Real Presence, then for their Sacramental: Since also the answerable sense of the same words is accordingly confirmed to us, not only by our Saviour's foresaid promise, The bread which I will give is my flesh, as also by S. Paul's agreeable Explication, whom sundry Protestants confess herein (2) Calu. in Ep. 333. p. 662. Whitak. count. Dur. l. 2. p. 188. Hook. Eccl. Pol. l 5. p. 176. to be Christ's best interpreter: and likewise by the confessed testimonies of the Primitive Church, which according to Prot. (3) Confess. of Bohemia, in the Harm of Confess. p. 400. is the true and best Mistress of Posterity, but even also by the Doctrine and believe of Prot. themselves, who enforced through the Evidence of truth, have taught and maintained the same Real Presence: hereof Luther himself shall give us a plain testimony, (4) In Epist. ad Argentinenses. Th●s I cannot, nor will not deny (saith he) that if C●rolost i●lius or any other could for the last five years have persuaded me that there had been nothing in the Sacrament but bread and wine, he should hau● bond me unto him by a great good turn: for I have taken great care in the discussion of this matter, and have endeavoured with all my power, and sinews stretched out, to be rid thereof, for I did will see, that thereby I might very greatly hurt the Papacy etc. But I do see myself captive, no way being left to escape, for the Text of the Gospel is so plain and strong etc. These so convincing proofs thus premised, I will now conclude this Controversy with only adding thereto in further Confirmation to us of God's holy will in this behalf, some few, of many undoubted miracles, reported either by Ancient Fathers, or Prot. themselves. Paulus Diaconu● in vita S. Gregorij, reporteth that, when S. Gregory to persuade an incredulous woman in the Real Presence, had, after prayer made, found the little portion of the (Sacramental) Bread, which he had placed on the Altar, to be made flesh, he said to the woman, learn, and now believe him witnessing &c. my Blood is truly drink. This History is also related and acknowledged by D. (5) jesuis, part. 2. rat. 5. p. 616. Humphrey, and instead of better answer is only derided. S. Ambrose reporteth, that, (6) Orat. Funeb. de obitu Frat. Satyri. His brother Satyrus being by shipwreck thrown into the Sea, and having tied the divine Sacrament in a stole, and fastened the stole about his neck, sought no board whereby supported, he might be helped, but thinking himself therewith sufficiently defended required no other help: neither did his hope leave him, nor his opinion deceive him, but being the first that was saved from the water, he was set safe on shore etc. This is so certain, that Peter (7) Lib. count. Gardin. Object. 88 Whitak. l. 10. cont. Dur. p 872. Martyr and Whitaker, acknowledging the matter of fact, instead of better answer, reprove both S. Ambrose, and his Brother Satyrus. S. Cyprian reporteth concerning (8) Ser. de lat sis. a certain woman who when she would with unworthy hands have opened her Coffer, wherein was (reserved) the holy thing of our Lord, there sprung up fire from thence, whereby the was so terrified, that she durst not touch it. Fulke acknowledging this fact, only answereth that, (9) Against Heskins etc. p. 52●. This was a just punishment for her reserving of that which should have been received: but S. Cyprian saith, she was punished, for that she would have touched it with unworthy hands. But now to relate some miraculous apparitions of Blood issuing from the Sacrament upon the jews misbelief or violence offered thereto: S. Basil ministering the Sacrament, a jew being present, and beholding the Bread and wine, laughed at the sacred Mysteries of Christians, which S. Basil perceiving, offered both to be eaten, but they presently appeared to be flesh and blood. This is related by Cyrus (10) In Epigram. in D. Basilium. Theodorus Prodomius, who lived Anno 440. and by the (11) Cent. 4. Col. 431. Century writers. In like sort sundry writers relate that, (12) Surius in Chron. Nicol Basilius in additione ad Chronicon Naucleri. Pontanus l. 5. rerum memorabilium. In February 1510. in a town called Knobloch, one Paul, a Sacrilegious person, went secretly into the Church by night, broke the Pixe where the Sacrament was reserved, and stole from thence two consecrated hosts, one of which he sold to a jew: afterward the jew blinded with malice said, If thou be the God of Christians manifest thyself, & that said, he pierced the Sacrament with his dagger, whereupon blood did miraculously issue forth etc. This miracle was so known & discovered, that thirty eight jews assenting thereto, were therefore apprehended, and publicly burned the 19 of july 1510. in the Marchie of Brandeburge; and all jews were also thereupon by public Decree banished out of the said Territories. This history is so certain, that it is reported by the Prot. writers, Manlius, Beuther, and Osiander. And sundry other (13) See Breerley his Liturgy of the Mass. 187. such like might be produced, so free from all suspicion of fiction, that the very time in which they happened, is specially described, the place particularly named, the numbers of the Offenders noted, and their public condemnation and execution even to death, certainly set down, and the offence in all these discovered, upon occasion of astonishment at the miracle shown. CHAP. XXII. The true State of the Question, concerning the Communion of the Laity, under one, or both kinds. Whether under either kind of the Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Christ our Saviour are truly contained, and the true Essence of the Sacrament preserved; and consequently whether it be lawful to administer the Sacrament only under one kind unto the Laity: or that, Christ hath commanded both kinds to be administered unto them? SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. THE present Controversy is not, whether Christ did institute the Eucharist under both kinds, or whether himself did administer the same in both to his Apostles, or whether the Apostles, or the Bishops of the Primitive Church, did in like manner at sundry times practise the same; for all this the Catholic Church doth willingly grant: But the main point in Controversy is, whether Christ did Command the Administration of both kinds to the Laity, and whether the Essence of this Sacrament be entire in one, and the same Grace necessary to salvation given to the Receivers by one, as both. Now, in this Case, the Catholic Church declareth and decreeth that, (1) Concil. Trident. Sess. 13. Cap. 3. Always this belief was in the Church of God, that immediately after Consecration, the true Body of our Lord, and his true Blood, together with his Soul and Divinity, are under the form of Bread and wine; but the Body truly under the form of Bread, and the Blood under the form of wine, by virtue of the words; and the Body under the form of wine, and the Blood under the form of Bread, and the soul under both, by virtue of that natural connexion, and concomitancy, whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who is now risen from the dead to die no more, are coupled amongst themselves: and the Divinity also, for that admirable hypostatical union thereof, with the Body, and the soul. Wherefore it is most true, that as much is contained under either kind as under both, for whole and entire Christ is under the form of Bread, and under every part of the form whole also under the form of wine, and the parts thereof. Hereupon it doth further decree that, (2) Concil. Trident. Sess. 21. Cap 1. the Laickes, and Clerks not celebrating, are bound by no divine Precept, to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both kinds; neither by any means can it be doubted with a safe faith, but that the Communion under one kind sufficeth them to salvation: for although Christ our Lord instituted this venerable Sacrament, in his last Supper, under the kinds of Bread and wine, and delivered it unto his Apostles: yet notwithstanding, that institution and delivery tend not to this, that all faithful Christians be bound by Decree of our Lord to receive both kinds. But neither out of those words of john the sixth is it rightly deduced, that the Communion under both kinds is commanded by our Lord, howsoever it be understood according to diverse Interpretations of holy Fathers and Doctors: for he that said, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, you shall not have life in you; said also, If any man shall eat of this Bread he shall live for ever. And he who said, Whosoever eateth my flesh and drinketh my Blood, hath eternal life; said also, The Bread which I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. And to conclude, he who said, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my Blood, abideth in me & I in him; said nevertheless, He that eateth this Bread shall live for ever. Furthermore (3) Sess. 21. Cap. 2. it declareth, this power ever to have been in the Church, that in the dispensing of the Sacraments, their substance preserved, she might ordain, or change those things, which she judged more expedient for the profit of the receivers, or the reverence of the Sacraments themselves, according to the variety of things, times, and places &c Wherefore knowing this her authority in the Administration of Sacraments, although from the beginning of Christian Religion, the use of both kinds was not rare; yet in process of time, that custom being changed in many places, moved with great and just Causes, she hath approved this Custom of Communicating under one kind, and hath Decreed that it is to be holden for a law; which it is not lawful to reject, or at pleasure to change without the authority of the Church itself. And (4) Can. 1. therefore, if any man shall say; that all and singular Christians by God's Commandment or necessity of Salvation, aught to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both kind as etc. Or (5) Can. 2. that the holy Catholic Church hath not been moved for just causes and reasons, that the Laickes, and also the Clerks not celebrating, might not be communicated only under the form of Bread, or that she erred therein etc. Or (6) Can. 3. if any shall deny, whole and entire Christ, the fountain and author of all graces, to be taken under the one kind of Bread because as some falsely affirm, he is not received according to the Institution of Christ himself under both kinds, let him be accursed. Thus clearly and particularly hath the Council of Trent determined this Controversy. It is defined by the Council of Constance. That (7) Sess 14. seeing in some parts of the world some presume rashly to affirm, that Christian people aught to receive the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist under both kinds of Bread and wine, and do not only in many places communicate the Lay people under the form of Bread, but also under the form of wine even after Supper, or otherwise not fasting etc. Hence it is, that this present Council etc. doth define, that although Christ did institute thi● venerable Sacrament after Supper and gave it to his Disciples under both kinds of Bread and wine, yet this notwithstanding the laudable authority of Sacred Canons and the approved Custom of the Church hath and doth observe, that this Sacrament aught not to be Consecrated after supper nor received by the people not fasting but in the Case of infirmity or other necessity granted or admitted by the law of the Church. And as this Custom for the avoiding of some dangers and scandals, was justly brought in, that though in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds, yet afterwards it should be received, by those that Consecrated, under both, and by the Laity only under the form of Bread, seeing it is firmly to be believed, and no ways to be doubted, that the whole Body, and Blood of Christ is truly contained, aswell under the form of Bread, as under the form of wine: wherefore seeing this Custom was rightly brought in by the Church and holy Fathers, & hath been very long observed, it is to be holden for a law, which it is not lawful to reject, or at pleasure to altar, without the authority of the Church. And the same is Decreed by the Council (8) Sess. 30. of Basil. The Council of Florence declared, and that with the assent of the Armenians, that, (9) In Decret. Eugenij PP. 4. By virtue of the words, the substance of Bread, is turned into the Body of Christ, and the Substance of the wine into his Blood, yet so as Christ is contained whole under the form of Bread, and whole under the form of wine, as also whole under every part of the host consecrated, and the wine consecrated, separation being made. The selfsame which these Counsels have Decreed, is generally taught, believed, and practised by all (10) Bellar. de Euchar. l. 4. c. 21. etc. Rhem. Test. in joan. 6. Catholics. Protestant Untruths. Luther very impudently and falsely saith, (11) De Captivit. Babyl. c. 1. de Euchar. I regard not the Council of Constance, whose authority if it be of force, why is not that of Basil of force also, which Decreeth to the contrary, that it was lawful for the Bohemians to receive both kinds. But this is untrue, for the same thing was decreed in both (12) Conc. Constant. Sess 13. Basile. Sess 30. Counsels, to wit, That the Laity were not bound by any divine Precept, to receive under both kinds, and therefore the law and Custom of the Church to be observed: And though the Council of Basil did allow the Bohemians to receive under both kinds, yet it was but upon their acknowledgement, that it was granted them by the Church, and that they were not obliged thereto by any Divine law. Protestant Doctrine. The English Prot. Church decreeth that, (13) Article 30. The Cup ●f the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay people, for both the parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance, and Commandment, aught to be ministered to all Christian men alike. And the same is taught by (14) De formula Missae. Cal. Instit l. 4. c. 17. sect. 47. Chemnit. Exam part. 2. Sess. 11. Luther, Caluin, and sundry others. In so much, that if you will believe M. Morton, (15) Of the Institution etc. or Mass of Christ l. 1. c. 3. sect. 1. All Protestants, whether you call them Caluinists, or Lutherans, hold that in the public and set Celebration of the Eucharist, the Communion in both kinds aught to be given to all sorts of Communicants that are capable of both. Protestants agreed with Ancient Heretics. Vrbanus Rhegius a Protestant writer, acknowledgeth that the Heretic Nestorius (16) Loc. come. fol. 56. communicated the Laity under both kinds, (but) the Council of Ephesus withstood him. Peter (17) Aeneas Siluius Hist. Bohem. c 35. Dresdensis, and jacobel Misnensis taught, that the lay people could not be saved, unless they drunk of the Cup of our Lord. john Husse taught, (18) Act. Mon p 260. Drisserus in Millen. 6. p. 255. The necessity of Communion under both kinds. Protestants Errors. Luther's obstinate pride was such, as that he affirmed, that, (19) In formula M●ssae. If any Council should ordain or permit both kinds, we would not use both, but in despite of the Council and the Decree thereof, we would either use one or neither, and not both, accursing all who through the power and decree of the Council should use both. And, It is (20) Tom. 3. in ps. 22. fol. 348. not determined according to the spirit of truth, nor by the authority of Scriptures, but by the pipe of the Pope, according to the vain Traditions of men, the Essence of God not to beget, nor to be begotten, the soul to be the substantial form of the Body, bread and wine to be transubstanti●●ed upon the Altar, one only form to be given to the laity for the whole Sacrament, & such like monsters. Who but a Monster in religion would censure Articles of faith to be Monsters? SECT. II. That under either kind is contained whole Christ, to wit, Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity: as also the true Essence of the Sacrament. THe proof of the first point, of Christ being whole in either kind, is drawn from three Principles of faith: first that by reason of those words of Christ, This is my body which shallbe given for you, that in the Eucharist is truly & really the very body of Christ. The second, that Christ our Saviour after his Resurrection from death was never to die again according to those words of S. Paul, (1) Rom. ●. 9. Christ rising again from the dead, now dyeth no more, Death shall no more have Dominion over him: whence it necessarily followeth, that under the form of Bread is not the Body of Christ without Blood and Soul, for so it should be without life, and consequently dead. The third, that Christ is one divine person subsisting in two natures, from whence it immediately ariseth, that since the Body of Christ hath no other subsistence then that of his Godhead, which really is all one with his Essence, that therefore wheresoever his Body is, there is also his Divinity. This argument supposing these 3. principles doth evidently convince; & for the two later I doubt not but most Prot. will admit; and the first is acknowledged for true by all Lutherans, and hath been already proved. Secondly, the same is proved by those words of our Saviour, (2) Io. 6.57. He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. Now, Christ is not eaten but under the form of Bread, therefore under that form is not only his sacred Body, but his blessed Soul, and precious Blood, even whole Christ: for of his Body only he would never have said, he that eateth me; and I am the bread of life which descended from heaven; And again, This is the Bread which descended from heaven. Touching the second point, viz. that the true Essence of the Sacrament is found in either kind, it is proved; for in a Sacrament is only required that it be a sign and cause of Grace. The sign in the Eucharist, as it is a Sacrament, is twofold: the first of internal refection, according to those words of Christ, (3) Io. 6.55. My flesh is truly meat; the second of perfect union of the faithful among themselves, and with Christ, whereof S. Paul speaketh, saying, (4) 1. Cor. 10.17. for being many we are one Bread, one Body, all that participate of one Bread. Now, both these significations are found in either kind; for first, spiritual refection only importeth the refection of the soul, which whether it be by way of meat or drink, or both importeth not, seeing in spiritual refections, one and the selfsame thing is said to be meat and drink. For example, of of justice our Saviour saith, (5) Mat. 5.6. Blessed are they who hunger & thirst justice, for they shallbe filled. Likewise of wisdom the wiseman saith, (6) Eccles. 24.29. They that eat me shall yet hunger, and they that drink me shall yet thirst: Wherhfore as our Saviour said, my flesh is truly meat and my Blood is truly drink, so also in the same place he said, he that eateth this Bread shall live for ever. And, he that eateth me shall live by me. Concerning the second signification of the Union of the faithful among themselves, it is expressed by many grains of Corn wrought together, by making Bread thereof with flower and water, as S. (7) L. 2. Ep, 3. ad Caecil. Cyprian testifieth, and the like may be showed of the wine composed of many grapes, and mingled with water in the Chalice. And as for the cause of Grace requisite in a Sacrament, it is found in either kind, for it is Christ, Cause and Author of all Sacraments, and of Grace thereby given, who under either form is whole & entire, as hath been before proved. Neither doth it heerupon follow, that because the Sacrament is Essentially contained under either kind, that therefore the Priest receiving under both, receiveth two Sacraments, for being received both at once they make but one, as being ordained to one refection, signifying one thing, and producing one effect: even as six or seven dishes of meat set upon a Table, do but make one dinner, whereas part thereof being but served one day, and the rest another, they would make two. And the reason why Priests receive under both kinds, is because they offer up a Sacrifice, which representeth the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, which were not perfectly represented but by both kinds, for the only form of Bread would not represent Christ, as dead, without some sign of blood, nor the only form of wine would sufficiently represent him as sacrificed, seeing only wine is not an host, or thing to be sacrificed: wherefore also in this sort was it prefigured in the Sacrifice of Melchisedech, offering up both Bread and wine. Having thus proved the Premises, viz. That whole Christ is contained under either kind, and the true essence of the Sacrament: from hence it directly followeth, that neither irreverence is offered to the Sacrament, it not being (as is objected) given half or maimed, but essentially whole; nor injury to the people by depriving them of any Grace necessary to Salvation, seeing the very fountain of Grace is no less received under either kind, then under both. By these premises it is evident, that if we respect the nature of the thing, no obligation or necessity ariseth of receiving both kinds: the only question therefore remaining is, Whether thereto we be bound by any Precept of Christ, whereof I will treat in the next Section. SECT. III. That Christ our Saviour, gave no Command of Receyving under both kinds, it is proved by the sacred Scriptures, and by his own, and his blessed Apostles Examples. THough in this question it belongeth to our Adversaries to prove, and to us only to answer, they affirming and we denying, yet in more full demonstrance of the truth, I will allege sundry reasons, in proof that Christ our Saviour gave no Commandment of receiving under both kinds. And first, as there were figures, which did represent this Sacrament under both kinds; so also there were others which did represent it under one only, as the Paschal Lamb: for the blood which was sprinkled upon the Posts, did not prefigure the Blood in the Chalice, but (as Ancient (1) Aug. l. 12. cont. East. c. 30. Hier. in c. 66. Isaiae. Cyp. in Tract. count. Demetr. Isidor. in c. 12. Exod. Fathers teach) the sign of the Cross, for that blood was not drunk, nor given to others, but the Posts were sprinkled therewith, and that before the Lamb was eaten; beside, in the old Sacrifices, those things which were liquid, belonged only to Priests, the lay people using, or requiring no part thereof. So also Manna was given without drink, for though S. Paul saith, (2) 1. Cor. 10.3.4. All did eat the same spiritual food and all drunk the same spiritual drink, yet they were two distinct figures, and given at diverse times; Manna being given in the (3) Exod. 16.14. Desert Sin, and afterwards water from the Rock (4) Exod. 17.1. Raphidim: and so our Saviour (5) Io. 6. comparing Manna with the Eucharist, maketh yet no mention of water. Secondly, as our Saviour sometimes doth mention both kinds, so also often he mentioneth but one, as (6) Io. 6.49. He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me: This is the Bread that came down from heaven, (7) Io. 6.57.58. he that eateth this bread shall live for ever, and the like. Thirdly, the practice of our Saviour is the best witness of his Doctrine. S. Luke relateth of him, that being at supper with two of his Disciples at Emaus, he took Bread and-blessed, and broke, and did reach to them, by which Bread is understood the Eucharist, not only by S. (8) Lib. 3. de consensu c. 25. Author operis imperfecti. in Mat. ho. 17. Hieron. Epitaph. Pauli. Beda & Theophil. in hunc locum Lucae. Austin and the other Fathers, but even by Prot. (9) Melancth. Apol. confess. August. in Art de utraque specie. writers, and yet he maketh here no mention of wine, or of the Cup, but rather by the words and circumstances, of the want thereof, for it is said, (10) Luc. 24.30. See Act. 2 42. And it came to pass, whilst he sat at the table with them, he took bread, and blessed, and broke, and did reach to them, and their eyes were opened, and they knew him, and he vanished out of their sight; so joining to the reaching of the Bread, and their knowing him, his vanishing away, not leaving any time for the Benediction and Consecration of the Chalice. Fouthly, in like sort also was the practice of the Apostles after Christ's tyme. For S. Luke speaking of the faithful, affirmeth. (11) Act. 2.42. That they were persevering in the Doctrine of the Apostles, & in the Communication of the breaking of Bread; where also by breaking of Bread is understood the Eucharist, aswel in that it is joined with Doctrine and Prayer, as also in that it had been rather a dispraise then praise, to report of the faithful, that they were persevering in corporal dinners and uppers: and so also is it understood by (12) Author operis impe●f. in Mat. hom. 17. Beda in 2. c. Act. Fathers and (13) Luther ser de Euch. Calu. l. 4. Instit. Chem. in Exam. Conc. Trid. S●ss 21. part. 2. Examinis. Protestant writers; and yet neither here is there made any mention of wine, or the Cup. Besides there were many Christians in Jerusalem, whom in those beginnings, the Apostles did permit in some things to (14) Act. 21.24.26. judaize, amongst whom were the (15) Num. 6.3.4.5.18. Nazarits, who drunk no wine, nor shaved their heads, until the time that their vows were expired; now, it is not credible, that those drunk against their vow, nor probable that they altogether abstained from Communion, seeing S. Luke saith, they were persevering etc. Fifthly, many in hot Countries do abstain from wine from their Childhood, and either by nature or education do abstain and abhor it so much, as they cannot endure to taste it. Also in some Country's wine is so scarce, and so dear, as that sufficient can not be provided for all the people: To these and sundry such inconveniences, it is not probable that the Allseeing wisdom of God would bind us. To Answer with Chemnitius, that by breaking of bread, is understood also the giving of the Chalice, by Synecdoche, by the Part understanding the Whole, this I say is insufficient, as being an answer only imaginary, and not grounded, & such, as by the like liberty any doctrine though never so impious or absurd, might easily be maintained, against all Scripture though never so plain. Neither is it any thing confirmed by affirming, that if the Chalice be not understood, that then would follow thereof, that the Apostles did but Consecrated under one kind, which yet Catholics do not admit: for S. Luke doth not set down what the Apostles did, but what the people did, and therefore they might Consecrated under both, though they did administer unto the people only under one. SECT. iv That Communion under one, or both kinds being a thing indifferent, the Church might lawfully determine the same: And of the reasons that moved the Church in limitation thereof. ALthough we were not thus stored with such plentiful and pregnant proofs, as in sundry other high mysteries of our faith we are not, nor with reason can expect; yet the Doctrine of the universal Church, inspired by the holy Ghost, and made known unto us by the absolute and infallible Decrees of Sundry General Counsels, might sufficiently serve to free the understanding of any man from Error, or his Conscience from sin; for it may not be avouched without great temerity, either that she should so heinous trespass against the sacred Laws of her dearest Spouse, or so unnaturally or uncharitably deprive her own Children of necessary blessings and helps bequeathed unto them; yea in the end it should redound to the blemish of Christ himself, if he should suffer his Church so dangerously to err, in a matter of that moment, and that clean contrary to so many promises made unto her, of his directing and continual assistance, by his spirit, and leading into all truth. Wherefore in this our present Controversy we are to assume, that the Catholic Church only, expresseth (that power which she ever had, to wit, in dispensing of the Sacraments, their substance or essence preserved, to ordain or altar whatsoever she shall judge more expedient for the profit of the receivers, or reverence of the Sacrament, according to the variety of things, times, and places: which her Authority the Apostle seemeth not obscurely to insinuate, when he said, (1) 1. Cor. 1.4. So let a man esteem us as the Ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the Mysteries of God: and himself to have used this power, it is manifest, both in many other things, as also in this Sacrament, when having ordained some things concerning the use thereof, (2) 1. Cor. 11.34. the rest (saith he) I will dispose when I come. Christ our Saviour said to his Apostles, (3) Mat. 28.19. Going, teach you all Nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the holy Ghost, and yet the Church commandeth Infants to be baptised, who are not capable of teaching. In like sort the Church hath lawfully decreed, (4) See S. Aug. l. 15. de Civit. c. 16. Ambr. Ep. 66. ad Pattern. Greg. l. 12. Regist. Ep. 31 ad Faelicem. certain impediments of marriage, which yet neither the law of nature, nor any positive divine law exacted. And not only in the Sacraments, but also in other things hath the Church upon just occasions exercised her said authority, by reducing things of their own nature indifferent, to be matter of precept and necessity: so the Apostles themselves imposed upon the Gentiles for a time a new Law of abstinence (5) Act. 15.29. from the things immolated to Idols, and blood, and that which is strangled etc. Which yet Christ himself had never imposed, but left the eating of them a matter indifferent; whereas after the Apostles Decree, the said eating had been sin, and abstinence necessary, as is manifest by those words, (6) Act. 15.28.29. It seemeth good to the holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you then these necessary things, that ye abstain from things immolated to Idols etc. And so of S. Paul it is said, that he (7) Act. 15.41. & 16.4. walked through Syria and Cilicia confirming the Churches, commanding them to keep the Precepts of the Apostles and Ancients. And in the Primitive Church it was not only thought (8) Tertul. in Apol. c. 9 Orig. l. 8. cont. Celsum. Cyril. Catech. 5. August. Ep. 154. Leo Epist. 79. c. 5. Concil. Gang. c. 2. unlawful to violate the said Law, but also severe punishment was inflicted upon the (9) Can. Apost. c. 62. Concil. 1. Aurel. can. 19.20. transgressors thereof; yea there hath scarce been any Council in the Church of God, which hath not commanded or forbidden under sin some thing, which before the said Council was free and indifferent: wherefore Communion under one or both kinds, being proved and acknowledged to be a thing of indifferency, the Church in fullness of her power, might lawfully permit or limit the same, and yet her Decree once past, the violating thereof is undoubtedly sin. So S. Bernard saith, (10) De praecepto & dispens. Although the quality of the work enjoined of itself be free from fault, yet the weight of authority adjoined, maketh it subject to Command, and the Commandment subject to sin. Yea D. Whiteguift teacheth that, (11) Defence etc. p 258. Things indifferent of themselves, do after a sort change their nature, when by some Commandment they are commanded or forbidden. And, they remain (12) Ib. p. 91. indifferent, till the Church hath taken order in them, which being done they are no more indifferent. With him agreeth Beza affirming that, (13) Ep. Theol. Ep. 24. p 155. Things of themselves indifferent, do in a manner change their natures when they are Commanded, or forbidden by any lawful Command. Yea saith M. powel, (14) Of things indifferent. p. 7. Such indifferent things, as by the Church have been lawfully and orderly instituted and approved, are so far humane, as that they are also divine, and therefore have more than humane Authority, yea plainly divine etc. Therefore the Precepts of the Church in things indifferent, are both true and holy: and consequently seeing the Church hath determined, receiving of the Sacrament to be under one kind which was formerly indifferent, it is now under sin accordingly to be used, and observed. Now, the reasons moving the Church to the restraint thereof were many and forcible, as first to prevent thereby the Occasion of Error: for whereas in the beginning of the Church the use of one or both kinds was indifferent, as may be showed in Condemnation of the Manichees, (15) See Aug. l. de haer. c. 46. Leo ser. 4 de Quadrag. Chemnit. Exam. part. 2. p. 145. Zepperus de Sacram. p. 41. Mortons' Appeal. l. 2. c. 4. p. 139. who abstained from wine, as a thing of itself unlawful, holy Bishops hereupon did much commend the use of the Chalice: but this error being extinguished, and another arising against the integrity of Christ (16) Aeneas Siluius hist. Bohem. c. 35. under either kind, as also avouching the absolute necessity of both; the Church of God herupon began more universally to practise the Communion under one, and withal in declaration of the truth & prevention of schism and scandal, did absolutely Decree the lawfulness thereof, with prohibition of the contrary: so in ancient times when the Ebionites taught unleavened bread to be necessary in Consecration of the Eucharist, the Church Commanded Consecration to be made in leavened bread: And when the Heretic Nestorius denied our B. Lady to be the Mother of God, and only to be called the Mother of Christ, the Church condemned him, and commanded the contrary: so that no course hath ever been found more effectual for confutation and utter extirpation of error & heresy, then by contrary Decrees to declare and establish the truth. A second reason moving the Church, was the deserved reverence of this highest Sacrament, in due Consideration whereof, the holy Fathers (17) Aug. l. 5. ho. 16. ho. 25. Cyril. Catech. 5. Mistag. Orig. ho. 13. in Exod. did carefully prescribe most diligent care to be used, lest any little particle of the Host, or drop of the Chalice, should fall upon the ground. Now the multitude of Christians being very great, and their negligence in sacred things, through want of zeal & Devotion notorious, it could not morally be possible, but that frequent spilling of the Blood would happen, if the Chalice were ordinarily to be given to the people, of which (18) Aeneas Siluius Ep. 13. de errore Bohem. & narratio de Bohemis ad Conc. Basil. profanations over frequent experience hath been had. SECT. V That the Ancient Fathers do expound the Scriptures in Confirmation of the lawfulness of the Administration of the blessed Sacrament under one kind. S. Austin writing by occasion upon the foresaid place of S. Luke, saith. (1) De consensu Euang. l. 3. c. 25. & Ep. 59 ad Paulin. Beda & Theophil. in hunc locum. Something happened to the eyes of them that went to Emaus, which is permitted so to remain, until the breaking of Bread, for the reason of a certain mystery that another form might be showed unto them in that Bread, and so they should not know him but in the breaking of Bread, as it is evident by S. Luke his narration etc. And it is not amiss if we understand, that this impediment was caused in their eyes by Satan, lest jesus should be acknowledged; but yet the permission was wrought by Christ until the Sacrament of bread: that the unity of his Body participated, the impediment of the Enemy might be removed, that Christ might be acknowledged. Again, (2) Serm. de temp. 140. O Brethrens where would our Lord be known? In the breaking of Bread, we are secure, we break bread, and do acknowledge our Lord. He would not have been known there but for us, who were not to see him in flesh, and yet we were to eat his flesh. jonas Aurelianensis writeth thus, (3) Lib. 3. de Imag. In the Acts of the Apostles, the Apostles are read to have taught every day in the Temple, and at their houses, and to have celebrated the Mysteries of our Lord's Body in the breaking of Bread. The Christians in Syria instead of reading, in Communion, and breaking of Bread, in their Syriac text read, in the breaking of the eucharist, which proveth thi● place to be understood not of Common bread, but of the Eucharist. Andrea's Friccius saith, (4) L. 2. de Eccles. c. 2. p. 411. Christ at his last Supper joined wine with bread if therefore the Church separate these, she is not to be hea●d: the Church of Jerusalem did separate these. S james (as some d ●●● affis me) g●ue only one kind to the people of Jerusalem. What then? the word of God is plain and manifest, eat and drink. This is to be heard of us, and preferred before all James', and words of the Church. So clear and confessed then it is, that james the Apostle, and the Church of Jerusalem in his time administered the Communion under one kind, that no other Answer is left to this Protestant, then only to make the Scriptures and the Apostles practise, one contrary to the other: than which, what more impious and absurd? SECT. VI That Protestant writers do believe, and teach the lawful use of Administering the Eucharist under one kind to the Laity. IOhn Caluin in his Commentary upon the Acts, interprete●h the for-alledged place thus, Although (saith he) breaking of bread did sometimes signify a domestical banquet amongst the Hebrews, yet in this place I do Interpret it of the holy Supper, moved thereto by two reasons: for whereas it is easily gathered by the sequel that no small multitude of men was there gathered together, it is not probable that a Supper could be prepared in a private house. Again, Luke afterwards declareth, that Paul, not at time of Supper, but after midnight, last of all to have taken Bread, to which may be added, that he doth not say, that he took meat for refection sake, but only that he might taste john Husse was so far from judging the receiving under both kinds, to be absolutely necessary, or a Divine precept, as that he writeth to a friend of his in this manner: (1) Ep. 48. Concerning the Sacrament of the Chalice, you have written what I wrote at Constance; If it may be, endeavour, that at lest it may be permitted by a Bull to them who shall of devotion desire it, Circumstances annexed. john Perzibrane a Bohemian Prot. after endeavour to prove Communion under both kinds, yet concludeth saying, (2) In profess. fidei Cath. c. 19 Here fearing God, and taking heed of the evil Customs of others, I do confess that I do not intent to condemn or censure for heretics any such persons of the Church, as do impugn the Communion of the faithful under both kinds; which yet of necessity he must, if he had thought that Christ had commanded it. Luther affirmeth that, (3) Ep. ad Bohem. & in Declar. Euch. & in Ser. de Euch. Although truly it were an excellent thing to use both kinds in the Eucharist, and Christ in this thing hath Commanded nothing as necessary; yet it were better to follow peace and unity which Christ hath Commanded us to follow, then to contend about the kinds. And again, (4) De Capt. Babyl. c. de Euch. They sinne not against Christ who use one kind, seeing Christ hath not commanded to use it, but hath left it to the will of every one, saying, As often as you shall do these, you shall do them in memory of me. He teacheth further, that it is only a matter of indifferency, (5) L. ad Christianam Nobil. I am no author (saith he) that the Bohemians be compelled to the one part of the Sacrament, but that they be left to that manner which they will themselves: Let the Bishop only take care, that discord rise not by the manner of receiving, but let him instruct them familiarly: that neither is joined with error, even as it is free from error, that Priests use a different habit from the Laity. And elsewhere. (6) Tom. 2. Germ. f. 100 & in alia Edit tom. 7. fol. 360. l. de utraque specie Sacram. If thou shalt come to a place in which one only kind is ministered, take only one, as they there receive; if two be offered, take two, neither bring in any thing singular, or oppose thyself to the multitude. And further, (7) In Declare. in ser. de Euch. Further I have not said or counsatled, neither is it my intention, that one or more Bishops by their proper Authority, may begin to minister to any both kinds, unless it should be so ordained, or Commanded by some General Council. Hospinian allegeth Luther saying, (8) Hist. Sacram part. 2. fol. 12. It is not needful to give both kinds, but the one alone sufficeth: the Church hath power of ordaining only one, and the people aught to be content therewith, if it be ordained by the Church. Lu●her here teacheth as much in this behalf, as any Catholic can require. Hospinian further reporteth, that certain (9) Ib. fol. 112. Prot. answered that, they believed and confessed whole Christ to be really present, exhibited and received under either kind, and therefore under the only form of Bread, neither did they judge those to do evil who communicated under one kind. And both (10) In Confess. Wittemb. art. de Euch. Chemnit. in fin. Disp. De utraque specie. Brentius and Chemnitius do likewise teach, that whole and entire Christ is received under either kind. And the same of necessity must all they teach, who believe the ubiquity of Christ's humanity: for if Christ be whole every where, then is he whole under the form of Bread, and whole in the Chalice. Melancthon thinketh it a matter of indifferency, and would have the use free, which supposeth no Precept of Christ for both: he writeth thus, (11) Centur. Ep. Theol. ep. 74. p. 251. 252. Concerning both kinds of the Lords Supper, we see many tumults to have been renewed &c. but the Pope without any hurt might easily help these inconveniences, if taking away the prohibition, he would leave the use free. And this liberty etc. would nothing hurt any, and the whole business is in the Pope's hands. Again he compareth the indifferency hereof, with our liberty of eating, or abstaining from swine's flesh, (12) In 2. Edit loc. come. impress Argent. Anno 1525 fol. 78. He erreth (saith he) that thinketh it impious to eat swine flesh; as also he erreth who thinketh it impious to abstain from swine's flesh; these things are indifferent and placed in our power, and so I judge of the Eucharist, that they sinne not, who knowing and beliving this liberty, do use either part of this sign And whereas M. Harding allegeth this last saying of Melancthon, as also Bucer, advising and wishing that the holy Church would give free power of receiving this Sacrament under one or both kinds etc. M. (13) Reply p. 108. 109. 110. jewel cannot deny these testimonies so alleged by M. Harding, but acknowledgeth them for truly alleged: & further he confesseth that Melancthon and Bucer accounted it indifferent. Amongst the Articles of the Conference at Ratisbone, which Bucer allowed, one was that, for deciding of the Controversy of one or both kinds, it would chief avail if the holy Church would give free choice of receiving this Sacrament, under one, or both kinds: which referring the matter to the Church, doth evidently suppose that Christ our Saviour had given no absolute Command thereof. And the like Confession might be showed from others of their Brethrens; but from hence will I infer two things. First, that Communion under one or both kinds, being a thing confessedly of itself indifferent, that then the use thereof under one, or both, cannot possibly be censured of Sacrilege, in regard of Christ's Institution, or of any hurt or prejudice to the faithful receivers. The second, that then also, was it lawful for the Church of God upon just occasions, absolutely to determine or limit the use thereof. SECT. VII. Objections from Scripture against Communion of the Eucharist under one kind by the Laity, answered. THe chief cause of the difficulty in this question, & that which giveth our Adversaries the best colour for impugning the truth, and persisting in their error, is, as they pretend, certain texts of Sacred Scripture: wherefore I will endeavour by sundry forcible reasons to lay open the true sense, scope, and understanding thereof, and thereby to discover the insufficiency & weakness of all such their grounds as they mainly insist on. First then, are urged those words of Christ, (1) Io. 6.53. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, & drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. And (2) Mat. 26.27. taking the Chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them saying, drink you all of this. (3) 1. Cor. 11.23.24.25. I received of our Lord, that which also I have delivered unto you, that our Lord jesus etc. took Bread, and giving thanks, brake and said, take ye and eat, this is my Body which shallbe delivered for you; this do ye for the Commemoration of me. In like manner also the Chalice, after he had supped saying, This Chalice is the new Testament in my blood, this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the Commemoration of me: from these texts Prot. infer three things: first, that we are not commanded only to eat, but likewise, and that expressly, to drink. Secondly, that this command of drinking, is not given only to Priests, but extended to all, it being plainly said, Drink ye all of this. And thirdly that the Institution by Christ was under both kinds, which we are bound not to altar, but straight to imitate. Answ. Touching those words of Christ, (4) Io. 6.53. unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink● his blood, you shall not have life in you: I affirm, that seeing, according to the Doctrine of sundry (5) Luth. de Capt. Babyl. c. 1. Zwingl. l. de vera & falsa Relig. c. de Euch. Chem. 2. part. Exam. p. 657. etc. 1. Sess. 21. Conc. Trid. Calu. Instit. l. 4. c. 17. §. 33. Pet. Mart. l. l. cent. Gardiner. part. 1. ad solutionem. 32. Object. Protestants, nothing in the said sixth Chapter of S. john, concerneth the Sacrament of the Eucharist, but all there said of eating and drinking is only to be understood of believing in Christ, that therefore according to them nothing can be produced from thence, for Communion under one or both kinds, seeing nothing therein concerneth the same: Yet according to the true Doctrine and General opinion of Catholics teaching, the said words, and sundry other of the said sixth Chapter, truly, and properly to concern only the Eucharist; I answer secondly, that the words of S. john objected, do not necessarily import or contain a Precept: concerning which we are to note, that not always in the doctrine of Christ, that bindeth of necessity and under sin, which seemeth to have the mark or badge of a Precept, but in sundry cases, for the attaining of the true sense and understanding, we are to make recourse to the intention of the speaker. So our Saviour himself having cured two blind men (6) Mat. 9.30.31. he threatened them, See that no man know it: but they went forth and bruited him in all that Country, and yet none holdeth that either hereby they sinned, or that Christ intended any such bond. The Bill of divorce which Moses permitted, Christ expressly calleth a Command, and (7) Mar. 10.4.5. Precept; he likewise told his Apostles that they aught to (8) john. 13.14. wash one another's feet, and yet neither by them, nor by us since was it holden for a matter of necessity: and sundry other such like. But supposing for the present, that it includeth a Precept, yet the Precept therein employed, is not in the manner of receiving, but in the thing received, for therein was cotayned one of the principal means or remedies for preservation of our spiritual life obtained by Baptism: which means and remedy consist not in the forms of receiving, or manner of eating and drinking, but in receiving of the Body and Blood of Christ, which in either kind we do (as is formerly proved) no less than in both; and so accordingly our Saviour declared himself saying, (9) Io. 6.57. He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me: which also further may be illustrated by heedful consideration of the circumstances following. As 1. the occasion of the words objected, which was the incredulity of the Capharnaits, whose doubt was not whether the Sacrament was to be received under one or both kinds, but as Protestants still doubt, whether he could give us his flesh to eat. The second, is the manner of his speech, which was not by making mention of either form or kind in the said words, but only of the things themselves, all which are contained in either kind: yea in other places of the said Chapter, where he maketh mention of either kind, it is only of the bread, and none at all of the wine; and whereas sometimes he maketh mention both of eating and drinking, yet much more often doth he mention eating. The last thing to be considered is the conclusion of his speech which was that (10) Io. 6.58. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever: from all which it followeth that, the jews not doubting of the manner of receiving under one or more kinds, but of the possibility of the things to be received, and Christ out Saviour thereupon assevering, not only the possibility, but also the necessity thereof to our spiritual life, did therefore intent no other thing, but the instruction of the jews, & declaration of the need and profit thereof: all which is performed, no less by receiving one, than both kinds of the Sacrament. It is also usual in sacred Scriptures for the Conjunction copulative (&, and) to be taken for a disiunctive; So it is said, (11) Exod. 2●. 15. He that shall strike his father and mother shall die; Also, (12) Act. 3.6. Gould and silver I have not, and sundry other such like; wherein it is manifest, the sense is disiunctive, to wit, he that shall strike his Father, or Mother shall die; and Gould, or silver I have not. And as Saint Paul speaking of this very Sacrament, said (13) 1. Cor. 11.29. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself; so also he said, (14) Ib. ver. 29. whosoever shall eat this Bread, or drink the Chalice of our Lord unworthily etc. And we are also further to observe, that the particle (nisi, unless) including in it a negation, as, unless, you shall eat, is all one to say, as if, you shall not eat, that the said Negation put in the beginning of a proposition copulative, doth deny both parts: and according to the Hebrew phrase (which not only the Latin Interpreters do imitate, but even S. john who wrote in Greek, is noted by his Expositors often to follow) is understood twice, to wit, as repeated in both parts; so according to the Hebrew it is said, (15) Ps. 1.5. The wicked shall not rise in judgement, and the sinners in the Council of the Just, which yet by the Latin Interpreters is truly and properly translated, (16) Ib. The wicked shall not rise in judgement, nor sinners in the Council of the just; as also, (17) Act. 3.6. Gould and silver I have not, that is, neither Gould, nor silver I have. So in the present, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, you shall not have life in you; is all one with, If you shall not eat the flesh of the Son of Man, or, if you shall not drink his Blood, you shall not have life in you: according to which sense, he is only excluded from life, who shall neither eat his flesh, not drink his Blood: and from this negative copulative proposition, doth directly follow this affirmative disiunctive, he that shall eat the flesh, or drink the Blood, shall have life: and that this is the true sense of the words, it is manifest by these texts precedent: I am the living Bread that came down from heaven, if any shall eat of this bread he shall live for ever: and these subsequent, He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me: He that eateth this Bread shall live for ever: By all which places it is evident, that the receiving under the form of Bread is sufficient to life. Besides it is plain to the Reader, that in this whole Chapter, Christ taketh for the same bread, his flesh, his flesh and blood, and himself, and promiseth to every one of them the same reward, to wit, ly●e everlasting, and so to eat bread, to e●te flesh, and drink blood, is nothing else but to eat Christ, seeing whether he be received under one or both kinds, nothing giveth life but Christ. And so I may lastly infer, that the said sayings were plainly false, if the foresaid words, Unless you shall eat etc. were to be taken copulatively, not disiunctively, or which is all one, if Christ had given thereby a Command of both kinds. And thus we see, this first Objection according to the doctrine of Protestants altogether impertinent, and according to the truth for sundry reasons most insufficient. Concerning the second, taken from these words of Christ, (18) Mat. 16.27. Drink ye all of this; from whence (19) Roger's Def. of the Art art. 30. p. 180. Prot. would likewise infer an universal Command, not only of eating, but likewise of drinking: I answer, the word (all) is not always taken in Scripture most universally for all men, or all things, but often for all of some certain kind, otherwise that of S. Paul, (20) Phil. 2.21. All seek the things which are their own, should include the most just; and that, (21) Rom. 3.23. All have sinned, should comprehend Christ; and that, (22) Mat. 27.22. All cried Crucify him, and the like, should belong to the Apostles, which yet are most untrue: and so if in the words objected, the word (all) should be taken universally for all, than the Sacrament were to be given to Turks, jews, Heathens, Infants, and such as cannot drink wine, these being men; all which Protestants exclude: wherefore the word (all) being to be restrained, it is clear it concerneth here the twelve Apostles, who as then only sat with Christ at the Table, for so saith S. Mark, (23) Mar. 14.17.18. And when evening was come, he cometh with the twelve, and when they were sitting at the table, and eating etc. And further S. Mark saith of the Apostles, (24) Mar. 14.23. that they drank all of it. And this sense also do all circumstances of the place convince, as (25) Mat. 26.30. When it was evening, he sat down with the twelve Apostles etc. And whilst they were at Supper, jesus took Bread, and blessed, and broke, and gave to his Disciples and said, Take ye and eat &c And taking the Chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them saying, Drink ye all of this etc. And an Hymn being said, they went forth unto Mount Olivet, than jesus said unto them, All you shallbe scandalised in me in this night. All which places jointly conspire in proving the word (all) to concern here only all the twelve Apostles. Now from the Example, or fact of the Apostles drinking or receiving under both kinds, to infer a necessity for the Laity to do the like, no Argument will be of force, as shall be hereafter clearly convinced. But though this Explication be most literal and agreeable with the Scriptures, yet Prot. object sundry things against it, as first that Christ overseeing, that some would deny the use of the Chalice to all, did therefore say, Drink ye all of this; whereas he said not of the other kind, Eat ye all of this. But the answer is easy, ●or though not by the written word, yet by Apostolical Tradition, the Church placeth in the Canon of the Mass these words, Eat you all of this. And so S. Amb●ose setting down the Institution of this Sacrament, (26) L. 4. de Sacram. c. 5. See the like in Paschat. de corpore Christi c. 15. bringeth in our Saviour saying to his Apostles, Take ye and eat ye all of this. And though it were certain that Christ had not said so, yet it availeth nothing, the disparity being manifest, for Christ giving one and the same Chalice, that all of them might drink thereof, he might well say, drink ye all of this, that so the first might know he was not to drink all, but was to leave so much as might suffice for all the rest; which form of speech he used most plainly a little before in the Supper of the Pasche: for as S. Luke saith, (27) C. 22.17. Taking the Chalice he gave thanks, and said, take and divide among you: whereas breaking the bread himself, and giving to every one his part, not the whole to be divided among them, there was no such necessity of the said words. But Luther further argueth, that to whom it is said, eat, to them it is said, drink; wherefore the whole Sacrament is either to be given only to Priests, or also to the Laity; if also to these, then to all it is said, eat and drink; if only to Priests, than it is not lawful differently from the Institution of Christ to give any part thereof to the Laity, and of this Argument he thus insulteth, I confess myself to be overcome with this unanswerable reason, neither have I read, heard, or found what to say against it. But that you may see the weakness of Luther so easily overcome, and how small and superficial his reading, hearing, and finding hath been; I answer: Admitting, that to the same was said, eat, to whom drink, viz. to the Apostles; as also I grant that the whole Sacrament is to be given not only to Priests, but also to the Laity; but that which is inferred hereof is most false, to wit, that if the whole Sacrament be to be given to the Laity, than they are to drink: for I already have demonstrated, that the whole Sacrament is truly and essentially under either kind. Neither did it further follow, that if the whole Sacrament under both kinds was given only to Priests by Christ, and not to the Laity, that then it may not now be given to them under one, for though Christ himself did not give it, yet did he no where prohibit it, yea elsewhere he commanded it, when he said, (28) Luc. 22.19. Do this; which words immediately follow the Consecration of the bread, & no where repeated by any of the Evangelists after Consecration of the Chalice; and though S. Paul saith, (29) 1. Cor. 11.25. This do you as often as you shall drink etc. yet these words are not absolute, but with this restraint, viz. As often as you shall drink, thereby signifying not the necessity of drinking, but the manner and end thereof, viz. in Commemoration of Christ; so easily might Luther have found what to have said against his so unanswerable a reason. But yet not satisfied, he further replieth, that seeing Christ said, This is my Blood which shallbe shed for you, and for many, that therefore it is to be given to all for whom it was shed, in which number no doubt the Laity is contained, & of this reason he thus triumpheth, This of all chief urgeth, and altogether concludeth me: and so it may indeed for a singular ass; for if the Blood were to be given to all for whom it was shed, than were it to be given to jews, Turks, Heathens, Infants, and most abominable sinners, for all whom no doubt Christ spent his most precious Blood; Wherefore the words objected only conclude, (and that most manifestly against Prot.) that in the Chalice was truly Blood, seeing Christ said thereof, This is my blood which shallbe shed for you, and for many. Lastly some reply, that though it be true, that Christ spoke unto his Apostles when he said, Drink ye all of this, yet the Apostles as then representing all the faithful, all the faithful did therefore drink in them, and therefore now are to do it in themselves. But this availeth not, for beside, that it is only but imagined and not proved, that all the faithful were as then represented in the Apostles, yet supposing it were so, thence might we gather that now they are not bound to the Chalice, seeing that Precept they have already either fulfilled in the Apostles, or at the lest, that sufficientty they fulfil the same in Priests, who drink of the Chalice, and whom the Apostles as then did indeed truly represent. The third (30) Roger's Def. of the Art art. 30. p. 180. principal Objection is taken from the first Institution of this Sacrament, which was by Christ our Saviour under both, and under the said both kinds given to the present Communicants the 12. Apostles; Wherefore to Communicate under one kind seemeth to altar the Institution of Christ, and therefore is unlawful. The weakness of this Objection is presently discovered, if only we observe the true natures of an Institution, and of a Precept, which of themselves are matters most distinct, for an Institution is only a Production of a thing, whereby the nature and substance of the thing is established and ordained: and though the Institution in the end be referred to the use of the thing, in that every thing is for his use; yet the Institution of itself commandeth nothing concerning the use, whereas a Precept further prescribeth, whether, and how of necessity the thing is to be used. Matrimony for example is a thing ordained by God, and yet therefore all are not bound to marry, neither yet being married, are they bound to use the same at all times, or in all sorts, which according to God's Institution they lawfully might. And so all Creatures were by God ordained to serve man, and yet all men are not bound thereby to use them all. The like is in the present: Christ instituted the Eucharist under both kinds, but thereupon it doth not follow, that therefore every one is in such sort to receive it, no more then because Christ instituted this Sacrament after washing of his Disciples feet, and after supper, and so gave the same to his Disciples not fasting, that therefore the like Circumstances now are to be observed in the Administration thereof: so exceeding careful are our Protestants of their Cup of wine, and careless of the rest. In them is truly verified that of the Prophet, (31) Isa. 24.11. Erit clamor in plateis super vino, There shall be crying for the wine in the streets. CHAP. XXIII. The true State of the Question, concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass. Whether Christ our Saviour did institute a true, proper, and external Sacrifice of his Body and Blood, to be offered to God in his Church, in Commemoration of his Death, and Passion. SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. THe richest treasure which Christ our Saviour left unto his Church, was the holy and dreadful Sacrifice of the Mass; concerning which the Catholic Church believeth, that (1) Concil. Trident. Sess. 22. Cap. 1. Our Lord God, although he was once to offer himself to God the Father upon the Altar of the Cross by death, that he might there work eternal redemption: yet because his Priesthood was not to be extinguished by death; in the last supper, which night he was to be betrayed, that he might leave a visible Sacrifice to his beloved Spouse the Church, whereby that bloody one, once to be performed upon the Cross, should be represented, and the memory thereof should remain to the end of the world, and the wholesome virtue thereof should be applied for the remission of those sins, which we daily commit; declaring himself to be ordained a Priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech, he offered to God the Father his Body and Blood under the forms of Bread and wine; and under the signs of the same things, he gave it to the Apostles, whom then he ordained Priests of the new Testament, that they should receive it, and by these words he commanded them, and their Successors in Priesthood, that they should offer it. Do ye this in Commemoration of me etc. And, (2) Cap. 2. because in this divine Sacrifice, which is performed in the Mass, the selfsame Christ is contained and unbloodily offered, who offered himself once bloodily upon the Altar of the Cross; the holy Synod teacheth, this Sacrifice to be truly propitiatory etc. Wherefore according to the tradition of the Apostles, it is duly offered not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful that are living, but also for such as are dead in Christ, as yet not fully purged. And, (3) Cap. 3. although the Church useth sometimes to celebrated certain Masses in honour and memory of Saintes, yet she teacheth, that Sacrifice is not offered to them, but to God alone, who hath crowned them; whereupon it is, that neither the Priest useth to say, Peter or Paul I offer to thee Sacrifice, but thanking God for their victories, he imploreth their Patronage, that they in heaven would vouchsafe to pray for us, whose memory we make upon Earth. (4) Cap. 5. And seeing the nature of men is such, that without external helps it cannot easily be elevated to the meditation of heavenly things, therefore our holy Mother the Church hath ordained certain rites etc. and Ceremonies, as mystical benedictions, lights, incense, vestments, and many other such like, from Apostolic discipline and tradition, whereby both the Majesty of so great a Sacrifice should be commended, and the minds of the faithful by these visible signs of Religion and piety should be stirred up to the contemplation of highest things which lie hid in this M●stery. In the first Council of Nice it is said, (5) Cap. de divina m●nsa. The Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world, to be placed upon that sacred table to be sacrificed by Priests unbloodily &c. ●his Canon is mentioned, and acknowledged (6) Oecol. l Ep. Oecol. etc. p. 667. Calu. inst. l. 4. c 17 sect. 36. jewel in Apol. Bills. true differ. part 4. p. 555. by Oecolampadius, Caluin, jewel, and Bilson. In the second Council of Nice, we are taught, that (7) Act. 6. Our Lord or his Apostles, or Fathers in no place have called an Image (or figure) the unbloody Sacrifice, which is offered by the Priest, but the very Body itself, and Blood itself. In the Council Senonense these Articles were condemned, (8) In Annotation. post decreta fidei. Mass aught to be said in the vulgar tongue; It is a manifest Error to apply, or offer Mass for sins, for satisfactions for the dead, or for any other necessities of our own, or others. According to these Counsels all (9) Bellar. de Missa. l. 1. c. 5. etc. Rhem. Test in Heb. 10.5. Catholics believe, that Christ our Lord did at his last supper, institute a true, proper, and external Sacrifice of his Body and Blood, to be offered to his Eternal Father in memory of his Death and Passion by the Ministry of Priests: and that the same is propitiatory for sin. Points Disputable. Some affirm (*) See Mortons' Mass. l. 6. c. 1. sect. 5. that Elevation, & vocal Oblation do belong to the Essence of the Sacrifice. Others, place it in the Consecration. Others in the Consummation. But none of these are defined by the Church. Protestants Untruths. Melancthon would seem to have so good liking of the Mass, that he writeth thus, (10) In Confess. August. art. de Missa. Our Churches are falsely accused that they abolish Mass; for Mass is retained with us, and celebrated with great reverence: But if he mean by Mass only the receiving and ministering of the Sacrament, than it is untrue to say, that they are accused for abolishing the Mass; and if he mean a true oblation or Sacrifice, than also it is untrue, that they are falsely accused; seeing it is (11) In Articulis Smalcaldicis. confessed, that they have abolished the Sacrifice of the Mass. He likewise affirmeth, that (12) In Confess. August. art. de Missa, & in Apol. eiusdem Articuli. The Ancient (writers) before Gregory make no mention of private Mass: But this to be clearly false, is to be seen in S. (13) L. de Ciu. Dei. l. 22. c. 8. Austin. Chemnitius (14) Exam. part. 2. p. 739. 744. 761. 766. avoucheth, that the state of the Question is, whether that representation by diverse gestures and garments, which is seen in the Mass of Catholics, be the Sacrifice instituted by Christ: As also (15) Ibid. p. 777. that completnes of words, rites, gestures, actions, ornaments, garments, which after were added to the Institution of Christ, to be the very sinews and substance of the Popish Mass. But no Catholic ever taught this, all confessing that these are only accidental Ornaments, and Ceremonies instituted by the Church. He (16) Exam. part. 1 p 359. also teacheth that Catholics do so divide the Grace of justification between the Sacrifice of the Mass, & the receiving of the Eucharist, that to the Mass they attribute ex opere operato, the remission of mortal sins, without any labour or danger of the sinner, to whom that remission is made; and to the receiving of the Eucharist only remission of venial sins, and that not without great danger of the Receyver, who if he come not pure, receiveth to judgement. And hence it is, saith he, Catholics are drawn from Communion, and are enticed to buy Masses. But all this is forgery, for no Catholic ever wrote, that the Mass did remit mortal sins ex opere operato, without any business or labour of the sinner: Neither is there any use in the Church to ask or beg, much less to buy Masses for remission of sins. And indeed we ascribe more to the receiving of the Eucharist, which we say, ex opere operato, to confer grace, then to the Mass, as it is offered for any sinner, which we only teach to impetrate for the sinner some special help, whereby he may by little and little return to himself; & not without any business or trouble, as Chemnitius falsifyeth, but by true Contrition, Confession, & Satisfaction obtain at the length remission of sins. He also averreth, that (17) Exam. ad 4. Sess. de Tradit. p. 410. Popish writers have noted what words were added by Roman Bishops to the words of Consecration uttered by Christ. But though they have noted what hath been added in the rest of the Canon, yet in the words of Consecration no man is found to have added any thing since the Apostles: A truth avouched by Pope (18) C. cum Marthae extrade celebrat. Missarum. Innocentius the 3. He further urgeth that in our opinion. (19) Exam. ad 4. Sess. p. 420. The whole Canon of the Mass is from Apostolical Tradition, & if any shall but show himself to doubt thereof, he is excommunicated. But we only say, that a great part of the Canon is from Apostolical Tradition; & we all know that Commemoration of diverse Saints, who lived 200. years after the Apostles, was added. He (20) Ibid. yet presseth, that Pope Alexander ordained water to be mingled with wine in the Celebration of the Eucharist: But Pope Alexander, words truly related are, (21) Ep. 1. for there aught not (as we have received from our Fathers, and reason itself teacheth) in the Chalice of our Lord either wine alone, or water alone to be offered. He (22) Ibid. also teacheth, that P. Felix ordained Consecration of Altars: but all know, that Pope Sylvester ordained that rite. Lastly, he writeth that, (23) Ibid. Pelagius added to the Mass the yearly memories of the dead: but Tertullian much more anciently (24) L. de Monogamia. recordeth the same, and (25) L. de Corona militis. affirmeth it to descend from Apostolical Tradition. If you will believe Rogers, (26) Def. of the Art art. 1 p. 5. The Papists give out, how sacrificing Priests are the Creators of Christ: whereas all Papists hold that Christ is present in the Sacrament not by Creation, but by Transubstantiation. Again, (27) Ib. Art 31. p. 183. 184. The Papists deliver how the Mass is a Sacrifice etc. meritorious to all them for whom it is offered, although they be not &c. endued either with zeal or knowledge, but quite destitute of faith, and that, ex opere operato: But all Catholics do necessarily require faith as the foundation to Grace, Merit, and Salvation. So true a Minister is false M. Rogers. But it is ordinary with Protestants to supply by lies, what they cannot do by any Arguments of force. Protestant Doctrine. The English Protestant Church Decreeth, that (28) Article 31. The offering of Christ once made, is that perfect Redemption Propitiation, and Satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual, and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone: wherefore the Sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceypts. Whitaker teacheth that, (29) Controu. 4. q. 1. c. 2. p. 522. Now there remaineth no sacrifice in the Church Caluin, (30) In 1. Cor. 9.19. The ●ord hath ordained no Sacrifices wherewith the holy Ministers should be busied. Surely this Caluins Lord foresaw that these holy Ministers would be so busied with their wives and Children, that they could not well attend to pure Sacrifices. Protestants agreed with Ancient Heretics. The Manichees were condemned by S. (31) Tom 6. cont. Adverse. leg. & Proph. c. 19 Austin for denying external Sacrifice: of whom he further saith, (32) Tom 6. count Faust. Manich. l. 20. c. 18. The Manichees being ignorant what is to be condemned in the Sacrifices of the Gentiles, and what to be understood in the Sacrifices of the Hebrews, and what to be holden, or observed in the Sacrifice of Christians, do sacrifice their own vanity to the Devil. The like impugning of Mass was condemned in the (33) Euthymius Panopliae part. 2. Tit. 23. c. 17. Bogomilians, and (34) Petrus Cluniacensis Ep. 1. cont. Petrobrusianos. Pseudoapostles. But it proceeded originally from the Father of all Heretics, the Devil: for so accordingly (35) Lib. de Missa privata. & vnctione Sacerd. in Tom. 7. operum. fol. 228. Edit. Wittemb. 1558. Luther confessed, that he was dissuaded by Satan from saying of Mass. The truth of this is proved at large by M. Breerly in his Lyturgy of the Mass, p. 369. S. Cyprian urged against the Heretics Aquarij, that (36) L. 2. Ep. 3. In the Chalice of our Lord water alone cannot be offered, neither wine alone etc. And for the same error were the Armenians condemned by the 6. Council of (37) Can. 32. Constantinople. The Donatists despised Altars, for which Optatus thus writeth against them, (38) L. 6. cont. Donatist. What is so sacrilegious as to break, raze, and remove the Altars of God? etc. For what is the Altar, but the seat of the Body and Blood of Christ? These all, your fury hath razed, or broken, or removed etc. what hath Christ offended you, whose Body and Blood there resyded? etc. Yet all these old heresies are received by new Protestants. SECT. II. It is proved by Scriptures, that our Saviour instituted a True, Proper, and Externall Sacrifice of his Body and Blood, to be ●ff●red in his Church to God, in Commemoration of his Death, and Passion. S. Austin (1) Ep. 49. q. 5. affirmeth, That in the divine Scripture several Sacrifices are mentioned, some before the manifestation of the New Testament etc. & another now, which is agreeable to this manifestation etc. and which is demonstrated not only from the Evangelicall, but also from the Prophetical writings. A truth so certain, that our now Sacrifice of the new Testament is clearly proved by the Scriptures of both, as first from the Sacrifice of Melchisedech, of whom, and whose Sacrifice it is said, (2) Gen. 14.18.19. But Melchisedech king of Salem bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the Priest of God most high, blessed him etc. And to make the figure agreed to the thing figured, and the truth to answer the figure of Christ, it is said, (3) Ps. 109.4. Heb. 6.20. & 7.15.17.21. Our Lord hath said, and it shall not repent him, Thou art a Priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech; from these places willbe easily proved that Melchisedech was a Priest, that he offered in Sacrifice bread and wine, and that therein he did prefigure Christ our Saviour, and his Sacrifice daily offered in the Church under the forms of Bread and wine. I think no Prot. will deny, but that Melchisedech was a Priest, the Scripture calling him, The Priest of God most high; as also they will acknowledge, that Christ was a Priest, according to the order of Melchisedech; the same Scriptures saying most plainly of Christ. Thou art a Priest according to the Order of Melchisedech: The main difficulty therefore is, whether Melchisedech did offer in Sacrifice bread and wine, and therein he, and his Sacrifice were true figures of Christ his Priesthood and Sacrifice; and therefore the title was given him in respect of the Churches daily Celebration of the Sacrifice of his Body, and Blood, under the same forms of Bread and wine, which Melchisedech used in his Sacrifice. So that in brief, from this discourse a twofold Argument may be drawn: first that Christ being a P●●●st, not a●●o●ding to the Order of Aaron, who off read bloody Sacri●●e●, but according to the Order of Melchis●d●ch, who 〈◊〉 bread and w●ne, that the 〈…〉 bloody Sacrifice, and 〈…〉 w●ne. Melchisedek's 〈…〉 w●●● wa● 〈…〉 〈…〉 the world, therefore his Sacrifice must continued as long, for he cannot be said to be a Priest, who hath not a sacrifice to offer: but the Sacrifice of the Cross was finished at once, neither can it be reiterated, seeing Christ can die no more, therefore some other Sacrifice must be, which daily may be offered, but none such is, if the Sacrifice of the Mass be not admitted: therefore the holy Sacrifice of the Mass must needs follow. Protestants (4) Calu. & Chemnis. in answer hereto, admitting Melchisedech to have been a Priest, and to have been a type or figure of Christ, they first deny, that he offered bread and wine in Sacrifice to God, but only brought forth the same to refresh Abraham and his fellows, being weary returned from battle. Secondly they affirm the Eternity of Christ's Priesthood, not to consist in the daily offering of Sacrifice by the Ministry of Priests, but either in regard that he liveth for ever, or that the virtue of his one Oblation upon the Cross, continueth for ever. But none of this will satisfy, being all of it barely affirmed without either proof or reason, for though the said bread and wine was given to Abraham and his fellows, yet were they first consecrated and offered unto God, and then given unto them, that they might partake of the Sacrifice. So that the bread and wine principally and primarily were brought forth by Melchisedech for Sacrifice unto God, and secondarily and accidentally they were bestowed upon Abraham and his soldiers for their refection; and this to be most true, may be confirmed by these reasons following. First, 〈◊〉 that there was no cause why Melchisedech sh●●ld ●●ing to Abraham corporal ●ood, seeing it is there 〈…〉 from the uva ●e, and 〈…〉 which were ●●●h things a belonged ●o 〈◊〉 ●●d 〈◊〉 ●he, 〈…〉 〈…〉 necessary, that this Sacrifice should be somewhere set down, since to sacrifice Priesthood is so ordained, that the Sacrifice being unknown, the Priesthood is likewise unknown. Now there is no where else in Scripture mention made of Melchisedeches Sacrifice, but only in this pl●ce: herfore it is certain that the Sacr●fice which he offered, was of Bread and wine. Thirdly, for that in the Hebrew, the word protulit is a word properly pertaining to Sacrifice, as you shall read elsewhere, (6) judicum 6. 18. 19 where the same word is used in Sacrifice, intimating unto us, that as I said before, the bread & wine were first offered in Sacrifice to God, and then given to the people to be eaten, though they wanted not other sufficient corporal food. Lastly, the same is proved from the words immediately following, upon which in Connexion dependeth the sense of the whole, for he was a Priest of the most high: which words can possibly bear no other sense, but that he did the function of a Priest in the bread & wine which he brought; otherwise, if the only cause of bringing that provision, had been to have relieved the Camp with victuals, the reason would rather have been yielded, for he was a bountiful King, a liberal Prince, a special friend of Abraham, as indeed he was; but none of these reasons, or causes fitted this purpose so well, nor so touched, or could touch the cause of his bringing forth bread and wine, as to signify that he was a Priest, whose office is to offer Sacrifice. And here let us join both senses, the Protestant and the Catholic, with the reason given of the bringing forth of the Bread in those words, for he was a Priest of the most high God. Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine to refresh Abraham and his soldiers, for he was the Priest of the most high God; here is no connexion betwixt the precedent words and the reason given, and yet this is the Protestant sense of this place. But to say as we do, Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine to offer in sacrifice unto God, for he was a Priest of the most high God; here is all connexion, and the sense made perfect in the reason, connecting the precedent the words with the subsequent. But some reply that in the Hebrew it is not said, for he was a Priest, but, And he was a Priest etc. so referring the said words not to the bringing forth of wine and bread, but to the blessing of Abraham. But neither will this avail any thing, for the learned in the Hebrew know, that this Coniunctive particle (and) is often taken for the causal, and the Hebrew particle is better expressed in such places, by enim, or quia, for, or because, then by and; and so also it must be translated if the sentence be expressed elegantly in the Latin phrase, which S. Hierome useth to do. Besides in the Hebrew after these words, and he was a Priest of the most high, there is an accent, which signifieth there the period to be ended, which plainly convinceth that the said words are to be joined with the precedent, he brought forth wine and bread, not with the subsequent, he blessed: which distinction is likewise found in the Chaldee, Greek, and Latin texts; also an English Bible (7) Printed 1552. readeth, Melchisedech king of Salem brought forth bread and wine, for he was a Priest of the most high God: which Translation to be good (8) Annot. in Luc. 1.42. Beza proveth by Theophilact, & sundry Examples out of the Scriptures. The later Editions also in like places have not all of them the Copulative and, but some other word as the sense requireth, and so elsewhere they (9) Engl. Bib. of 1578. in Gen. 20.3. translate, (10) Gen. 20.3. thou art but dead, because of the woman which thou hast taken: for she is a man's wife, the Hebrew phrase is, and she is married to a husband; and the (11) Gen. 30.27. Esa. 64.5. like in many other places may be observed. Only I must desire the reader to advertise, that when Prot. think it maketh for their purpose, than they can be content to change the particle, And, into, Because; as where it is said, (12) Luc. 1.41. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, they translate, (13) Engl. Bib. of 1578. Blessed art ●hou among women, because the fruit of thy womb is blessed. And in the Margin it is said, It showeth the cause why Mary was blessed; thereby to insinuate, that the B. Virgin was blessed, not for any intrinsical virtue or goodness in herself, but only because her son was blessed. So kind are Prot. to the Blessed Virgin. To come now to the second Evasion: that for Christ to be a Priest for ever, is not required a perpetual Sacrifice by the Ministry of Priests, but that himself liveth for ever, & the virtue of the Sacrifice of the Cross continueth for ever. But this availeth nothing, for otherwise the Leviticall Priests, and all other Priests after the resurrection, should be called Priests for ever, because they were Priests, and shall live for ever; Neither is the perpetuity of the virtue of the Sacrifice upon the Cross sufficient to make Christ a Priest for ever, no more than the effect of noah's Sacrifice (14) Gen. 8. offered after the Deluge, which was that the world should never be drowned again, make No a Priest for ever. And in like sort should Christ's birth, passion, and death, be said eternal, and Christ himself to be ever borne, suffer, and die, because the effects of these remain for ever: wherefore S. Paul requireth more, saying (15) Heb. 8.3. Every high Priest is appointed to offer gifts and Hosts, wherefore it is necessary that he also have some thing that he may offer. Wherefore if Christ should not have something ever to offer, he should not be said to be a Priest for ever. Now, the Sacrifice of the Cross was finished at once, and cannot be iterated, seeing Christ can die no more, therefore some other daily and perpetual Sacrifice must be admitted, and none other was ever heard of, or imagined, but the Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood, under the forms of Bread and wine. Neither may it be said, that Christ is a Priest for ever, by any offering of himself in heaven to God the Father, by his daily representing to him his Passion for us, for his Representation is not properly any Sacrifice, yea any lay man may daily present and offer to God the Passion of Christ, & yet is not he therefore said to be a Priest for ever. Not less insufficient is that which D. Fulke pretendeth, that he (16) Against Rhem. Test in Heb. 8. sect. 5. fol. 409. exerciseth his continual Priesthood in presenting his Church before God, and making continual Intercession for us: for neither is this Intercession any proper Sacrifice, as is clear by the Examples of lay-people, as also of Angels and Saints who make Intercession for the Church: Neither is this according to the Order of Melchisedech, who offered Bread and wine; whereas Christ's Priesthood for ever is according to that order. The second proof from Scripture for the Sacrifice of the Mass, may be taken from the great Correspondence between the Dedication and Celebration of the Old Testament and the New. The Old Testament was established by Moses, with a solemn Sacrifice and sprinkling of Blood, with these words, (17) Heb. 9.20. Exod. 24. This is the Blood of the Testament which God hath Commanded unto you: Christ in Confirmation of the New Testament said, (18) 1. Cor. 11.25. This Chalice is the New Testament in my Blood: and according to S. Matthew, (19) Mat. 26.28. This is my Blood of the New Testament which shallbe shed for many. Now the Blood of the Old Testament which Moses sprinkled, was the Blood of an Host already offered, and truly and properly sacrificed. Therefore the Blood of the New Testament with Christ, was the blood of himself truly sacrificed, himself saying, This is my Blood. Thirdly the Prophet Daniel speaking of the times of Christians, foretelleth, (20) Mat. 24.15. Dan. 12.11. & 11.31. That the daily Sacrifice shallbe taken away, and the abominable desolation set up; which is to be performed by Antichrist. Neither can this be understood of spiritual Sacrifices, for never in Scripture is any called absolutely a Sacrifice, and especially in the singular number, but only that which is truly and properly a Sacrifice: as also with the Hebrews, (21) Exod. 29.38.39. Num. 28.3.4. the daily Sacrifice was a proper Sacrifice, viz. two lambs, which were offered daily in Holocaust, one in the morning, and another in the evening. (25) Mat. 24.15. And whereas Chemnitius (22) Exam. part. 2. p. 156. 157. answereth to this, that it was spoken literally of Antiochus, who was before Christ's time, and is not referred to Antichrist, but by Allegory, which kind of Argument is but of small force; I must needs reply, that the accomplishment of this Prophecy was prefigured, rather than fulfilled by Antiochus: and so according to the literal sense thereof, the foresaid Chapter of Daniel is explained by (23) Apoc. 1● 14. & 11.3. & 13.5. Compare these with Dan. 12.7. & 7.25. S. john, and (24) 2. Thess. 4 Compare this with Mat. 24.15. S. Paul, as concerning the time of the New Testament: as also by our Saviour himself, by the very words of Daniel (26) Dan. 12.2 which concern the Consummation of the world, by the Exposition of Fathers (27) Aug. de ciu. Dei. l. 20. c. 8. & 25. Hier. in Dan. c. 11 Chrysost. opere imperf. hom. 49. and (28) Marg. Notes of the Eng. Bible in Dan. c. 12. Protestants. But Chemnitius (29) Exam. part. 2 p. 157. further answereth, that though this place doth concern the time of Christians, yet it is only understood of spiritual Sacrifices of prayer etc. Or of the preaching of the word, and administration of Sacraments, which (think Prot.) shall upon Antichristes' coming, be either taken away, or greatly corrupted. I reply, concerning Prayers, that Persecution shall rather perfect them, then abolish them: and as for the Preaching of the Word and Administration of Sacraments, Prot. themselves teach, that these shall continued, (30) Gifford upon Revel. ser. 21. p. 191. Fulk. ag. Rhem. Test. in Revel. c. 11. sect. 4. Szeged. in Tabul. Analyt. p. 368. during all the time of Antichristes' reign: and that these are (31) Whitak. count. Dur. l. 3. p. 260. Essential properties of the Church, which Church they confess (32) Whitak. against Reyn. p. 34. Fulke. ag. Rhem. Test. in 2. Thess. 2. sect. 5. shall continued even during Antichrists reign. And as for the imagined corrupting of the Word and Sacraments, our question upon the Prophet's words is not of corrupting them, but of the Sacrifice being taken away. Lastly Chemnitius and others betake themselves to this desperate and wicked refuge, that this taking away of the daily Sacrifice is not meant of Antichrist, but of our Saviour (33) In the Engl. Bible of 1576. in the Marg. notes in Dan. 12.11. Chemnit. Exam. part. 2. p. 157. Christ, who by his Sacrifice, shall take away the Sacrifice and Ceremonies of the law. But this Answer is dangerous, as will appear by the Text itself, (34) Dan. 12.11. The continual Sacrifice shallbe taken away, and the abomination to desolation shallbe set up: or as the same Prophet saith yet more plainly, (35) Dan. 11.31. they shall take away the continual Sacrifice, and they shall give abomination into desolation, which to apply to our Saviour's Passion were great blasphemy. To such gross and impious evasions doth obstinacy bring an Heretic. Fourthly, God said by the Prophet Malachy, (36) Malach. 1.10.11. I have no will in you etc. And gift I will not receive of your hands, for from the rising of the Sun, even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is Sacrificing, and there is offered to my name a clean Olation, because my name is great among the Gentiles. This to be spoken of the time of Christians is evident by all Circumstances, and Prot. do not deny it, but they (37) Bilson in his true Difference etc. part. 4. p. 517. Fulk. ag. Heskins p. 121. Whitak. count. Dur. l. 9 p. 753. answer that the Prophet speaketh not peculiarly of our Priests, nor of a Sacrifice to be offered only by them, but of all Christians in general, & their spiritual Sacrifices prayer, thanksgiving etc. they being therefore called, (38) 1 Pet 2.5. A holy Priesthood to offer up spiritual Sacrifices acceptable to God. But this answer is many ways defective. 1. In that the Prophet directed his speech of rejecting the jewish Sacrifices, not to the people in general, but only to the Pri●ste●, beginning his discourse, (39) Mal. 1.7. O you Priests that despise my name &c You offer unclean Bread upon my Altar. And ●herupon then foretelleth the rejecting of their Sacrifice, and the allowance in●tee●●herof of the new and pure Oblation: by which opposition he must in all due proportion be thought to mean, that as in rejecting the Priests of the Old Law, & their Sacrifice, he spoke not of all the people in general, but only of Priests in special, and their external Sacrifices so rejected; so likewise in his prediction of a pure Oblation to succeed in place of the other, he meant an Externall worship or Sac ifice to be offered. A truth so clear, that Crastovius acknowledgeth the same, saying, (40) L. 1. de opif. Miss. sect. 132. p. 60. Truly the Opposition of the Priests doth require in this place a Sacr●fice properly taken. Yea he further acknowledgeth Malachies Prophecy (41) Ibid. sect. 139. 144. 127. to be meant of the Eucharist. And Caluin speaking of this place of Malachy, granteth that thereby, (42) Calu. in Buxderfius Synagoga judaica. p. 555. And see the same in Calu. Latin Epistle. p. 683. A change of external worship is plainly and clearly foretold, sub Christo regnante, to be in Christ's tyme. Now that this change was to be made into the Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood, S. Austin plainly teacheth in these words, (43) De Ciu. Dei. l. 17. c. 20. It belongeth to the participation of this Table which the Priest himself the Mediator of the New Testament offereth according to the Order of Melchisedech of his Body & Blood: for that Sacrifice hath succeeded all those Sacrifices of the Old Testament, because instead of all those Sacrifices, his Body is offered, and given to the Communicantes. Secondly the Prophet foretelling by whom this clean Oblation is to be offered in the time of the Gospel (as Prot. (44) Reynolds Confer. p. 546. Engl Bible of 1476. in the contents and mark notes of Mal. c. 3. understand it) affirmeth and saith, (45) Mal. 3.3. He shall purge the sons of Levi, and will strain them as gold and as silver, & they shallbe offering Sacrifices to our Lord in justice. Now, that by the sons of Levi is not understood all the people, but a peculiar sort chosen to sacrifice, who therefore are figuratively termed the sons of Levi, because by their Sacrifice and Priesthood, they should abolish the Sacrifice & Priesthood of Levi, and succeed in place thereof; it is ackowledged by Prot. saying, (46) Marg. notes of the Engl. Bible of 1576. in Mal. 3.3. He beginneth at the Priests, that they might be lights and shine to others: so clearly distinguishing these Priests from the other People: as also by conference of this place with the Prophet Esay, who likewise under the same word foretelleth the Priesthood of the New Testament saying, (47) Isa. 66. And I will choose out of them Priests and Levites: (48) Reyn. Confer. p. 544. Hook. Eccl. Pol. l. 5. p. 236. Marg. notes of Bib. 1576. in Isa. 66.21. where Levits signify not all Christians, but only as sundry Prot. teach, (8) Ecclesiastical Pastors. Thirdly, according to Prot. (49) Luth. in asser. art 31. Whitak. count. Dur. l. 8. p. 572. there is not in our Prayer or other best actions any righteousness, but impurity and sin, wherefore by them cannot be understood the pure oblation to God in justice. Again, the Spiritual Sacrifice of prayer is understood agreably to the Prot. Translation, by the word, Incense, according to the like understanding thereof in other (50) Apoc. 8.3.4 Ps. 140.2. Sap. 18.21. places of Scripture. Wherhfore the Prophet here foretelling both Incense, and pure Oblation, as things different, it is thereby apparent, that by pure Oblation cannot be understood spiritual Sacrifices, which are comprehended under the word, Incense: which distinction S. Chrisostome observeth, saying, (51) In ps. 95. See how manifestly and plainly he hath expressed the mystical Table, which is the unbloody Sacrifice; the Incense also he calleth the sacred prayers which are offered after the said Sacrifice. And in the same place he distinguisheth also this unbloody Sacrifice yet more expressly from the spiritual Sacrifices of Prayer, Alms etc. in that he there numbereth up these, and making this in express terms a distinct Sacrifice from the other. Again in the Scriptures, the word Sacrifice or Oblation is not taken improperly, but when it hath something adjoined unto it, as the Sacrifice of Praise, of justice etc. and so is sufficiently declared to be taken for a spiritual Sacrifice. Neither as some others pretend, may it be said to be a pure Oblation only, because God reputeth it for such, for therefore the Oblation is said to please God, because it is clean, not therefore to be clean, because God so reputeth it. Besides if the Oblation were not truly pure in itself, it would not have been generally said, In every place is offered up to my name a pure Oblation; for in many places do wicked Priests, even among Christians, as much as lieth in them pollute the Sacrifice, and undoubtedly offer up many unclean and unacceptable prayers. Fiftly, the Sacrifice of the New Testament is strongly proved by the very words of the first Institution thereof; for our Saviour said not, This is my Body which is given to you, or, The Cup which is poured to you, but, pro vobis, for you, to wit, to God in Sacrifice for you. And he speaketh this in the present tense, concurring agreably with his action then present, which proveth, that he then did actually offer this Sacrifice. Neither availeth it to answer, that the Vulgar Translation hath (52) Luc. 22.20. which shallbe shed, to wit, upon the Cross, or that the present tense, as D. Fulke (53) Against Rhem. Test. in Mat. 26. sect. 10. p. 54. urgeth, is often used for the future; for the vulgar Translation useth both (54) Luc. 22.19.20. tenses, the present in Consecration of the Bread, and future in Consecration of the Chalice, and this to signify two certain truths, one that as than it was given at the supper, another that it should be afterwards given upon the Cross: And though the present tense be sometimes taken for the future, yet much more often for the present, and the rather here, in that the 3. Evangelists, with S. Paul, do use the same: which also being more literal and proper, is not to be denied without most urgent reason. Add yet hereunto that S. Paul saith, (55) 1. Cor. 11.24. giving thanks broke etc. which word of breaking must needs be referred to the Sacrament, in regard of the outward forms, which are in time of sacrificing broken, but not to the Cross, (56) joan. 19.33.36. For when they saw that he was dead, they broke not his legs etc. that the Scripture might be fulfilled, You shall not break a bone of him. And according to this S. chrysostom expounding these words of the Apostle, (57) 1. Cor. 10.16. The bread which we break etc. saith thereupon, (58) In. 1. Cor. hom. 24. Why doth the Apostle add, which we break? this in the Eucharist may be seen, but on the Cross not but altogether the contrary for a bone of him (saith the tex e) you shall not break, therefore what he doth not suffer on the Cross that doth he (by way of mystery, and signification) suffer in the Sacrifice of the last supper, when the forms are broken. Yea Caluin himself writing upon the foresaid words of S Paul, saith, (59) In. 1. Cor. 11.24. p. 323. Here I expound, to be broken to be put, for to be sacrificed though improperly, yet not absurdly etc. For not simply and without addition, our Lord doth offer us his Body, but as it was sacrificed for us. Chemnitius also saith of the Sacrament. (60) Exam. part. 2. p. 153. There is the Sacrifice dispensed and taken, which was once offered on the Cross for our sins. If then Christ was at his last Supper present in the Sacrament by way of Sacrifice, and before his Sacrifice done upon the Cross, how can it be, but that the Eucharist, than was, and yet is a Sacrifice? But of this I have spoken more largely before. Sixthly, whereas it is said, Do this in remembrance of me, the word, do, doth signify to sacrifice, as it is often used in other parts of Scripture, as (61) Levit. 31.19. Facietis & hircum pro peccato etc. you shall offer a goat for a Sacrifice for sin: And (62) Num 6.11. faciet Sacerdos unum pro peccato, & alterum in holocaustum, The Priest shall offer one Sacrifice for sin, and the other for a holocaust: so also is this word, do, used for sacrifice amongst profane authors, as (63) Virgilius Eclog. 4. Cùm faciam vitula profrugibus ipse venito, when I sacrifice heifers for fruits come thou. In the same sense do Varro, Cicero, Plautus, Macrobius, use the word, do, for Sacrifice. The last proof our of Scripture for the Sacrifice of the Mass, is that of S. Paul, (64) 1. Cor. 10.16. etc. The Chalice of Benediction which we do bless, it is not the Communication of the Blood of Christ? And the Bread which we break, is it not the participation of the Body of our Lord? for being many we are one Bread, one Body, all that participate of one bread etc. they that eat the hosts, are they not partakers of the Altar? the things that the heathen do immolate, they do immolate to Devils etc. you cannot be partakers of the Table of our Lord, and of the Table of Devils. We have an Altar, whereof they have not power to eat, which serve the Tabernacle. Hear S. Paul compareth the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, and the Altars of Christians, with the Sacrifices and Altars of the jews and the Gentiles, which comparison were impertinent, if we had not true external Sacrifices and Altars, as the jews and Gentiles had. But here some (65) Engl. Bib. of 1562. Protestants think to help themselves by falsely translating the words thus: (66) 1. Cor. 9.13. Know you not, that they which wait of the Temple, are partakers of the Temple, (67) 1. Cor. 10.18. And are not they which eat of the Sacrifice, partakers of the Temple? In both which places, the Apostles words in Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth Altar, and not Temple. So that if no other Answer will serve their turn, they will rather corrupt the Scriptures, then yield to the truth. SECT. III. That the Ancient Fathers expound the Scriptures agreably with Catholics in Confirmation of the Sacrifice of the Mass. S. Clemens Alexandrinus applieth Melchisedech his Sacrifice to the Sacrament of the Eucharist thus, (1) L. 4. Strom. vers. fin. Melchisedech King of Salem, Priest of God most high, gave wine and bread sanctified nutriment in type of the Eucharist. With whom agreeth S. Cyprian, saying, (2) Ep. 63. ad Caecilium. Christ is Priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech, which Order is this, coming from that Sacrifice, and thence descending, that Melchisedech was Priest of God most high, that he offered Bread and wine, that he blessed Abraham; for who is more a Priest of God most high, than our Lord jesus Christ, who offered Sacrifice to God the Father, and offered the same which Melchisedech had offered, bread and wine, viz. his own Body and Blood. And a little after, That therefore in Genesis the blessing might be rightly celebrated about Abraham by Melchisedech the Priest, the Image of Christ's Sacrifice consisting in bread and wine went before, which thing our Lord perfecting and performing, offered bread, and Chalice mixed with wine, and he that is the plenitude, fulfilled the verity of the prefigured Image. S Cyprians sayings are so clear for Sacrifice, that Fulke saith, (3) Against He●k●ns. etc. p. 1. 0. It is granted that Cyprian thought the Bread and wine brought forth by Melchisedech to be a figure of the Sacrament, and that herein also Melchisedech resembled the Priesthood of Christ. The Centurists recite this special saying of Cyprian: (4) L. 2. Ep. 3. Our Lord jesus Christ, saith Cyprian, l. 2. Ep. 3. is the high Priest of God the Father, and first offered Sacrifice to God the Father, and commanded the same to be done in remembrance of him; and that Priest truly executeth Christ's place, that doth imitate that which Christ did, and then he offereth in the 'mongst us, and taught a new Oblation of the New Testament, which Oblation the Church receiving from the Apostles, throughout the whole world offereth to God, to him who giveth us nourishment, the first fruits of his gifts in the New Testament, of whom amongst the twelve Prophets, Malachy hath thus foretold: I have no will in you, saith our omnipotent Lord, and I will take no Sacrifice at your hands, because from the rising of the Sun, to the setting thereof, my Name is glorified amongst the Gentiles, and in every place Incense is offered to my Name, and a pure Sacrifice, because my Name, is great amongst the Gentiles, saith our Lord Almighty, manifestly signifying by these things, because the former people indeed ceased to offer to God, but in every place a Sacrifice is offered to God, and this pure, for his Name is glorified amongst the Gentiles. The Centuristes say thereof, (26) Cent 2. c. 4. Col. 63. Irenaeus etc. seemeth to speak very incommodiously, when he saith, He taught the new Oblation of the New Testament, which the Church receiving from the Apostles, offered to God over all the world. S. Hierome upon this place of Malachy writeth thus, (27) Comment. in 1. Malach. And that they may know not in judaea one Province of the world, neither in one City of judaea called Jerusalem, but in every place an Oblation to offered, not unclean, as was offered by the people of Israel but a clean one, as in the Ceremonies of the Christians; for from the rising of the Sun to the setting thereof, the name of our Lord is great amongst the Gentiles, our Saviour saying, Father I have manifested thy name to men. And immediately after he addeth, And therefore of you, Priests and Princes of the jews, in every place a clean Oblation is offered unto me, & my Name is great among the Gentiles. Eusebius Caesariensis writing obiter upon this place saith, (28) L. 1. Demonst. Euang. c. 10. We sacrifice therefore to our highest Lord a Sacrifice of praise: we sacrifice to God a full, odoriferous, and most holy Sacrifice, we sacrifice after a new manner, according to the New Testament, a pure host. S. chrysostom expoundeth the same place thus, (29) Admetus ps. 95. The Church which every where carrieth about Christ in it, is prohibited from no place, but in every place there be Altars, in every place doctrine; these things God foretold by his Prophet, for both declaring the Church's sincerity and bringing into obloquy the ingratitude of the other people, he speaketh unto them, I have no pleasure in you etc. mark how clearly, and plainly he interpreteth the mystical Table, which is the unbloody host, and the pure perfume he calleth holy prayers, which are offered after the host. Thou seest how it is granted that, that Angelical Sacrifice should every where be known, thou seest it circumscribed with no limits, neither the Altar, nor the song: In every place Incense is offered to my Name, therefore the mystical Table, the heavenly and exceeding Venerable Sacrifice is indeed the prime pure host. S. Cyprian affirmeth that, (30) L. 1. cont. judaeos c. 16. The old Sacrifice is abrogated, and the new celebrated, with Malachi; and then repeateth at large the place of the Prophet. And elsewhere (31) De coena Dom. repeating our Saviour's words, This is my flesh, This is my Blood, saith thereupon, So often as with these words of this faith it is done, this bread substantial, and this Cup consecrated with holy blessing, profiteth to the health of the whole man, being both a medicine and Sacrifice to heal Infirmities, and purge sins. S. Austin avoucheth, that, (32) L. 18 de Ciu. Dei. c. 35. Malachias prophesying of the Church, which we see by Christ now propagated, speaketh plainly to the jews in the person of God, (I have no pleasure in you etc.) This Sacrifice by the Priesthood of Christ according to the Order of Melchisedech, seeing we now see it to be offered up in every place, from the Sun rising to the setting thereof, but the Sacrifice of the jews to whom it is said, I have no pleasure in you etc. they cannot deny to have ceased etc. This is so clear (33) In Tracked. Theol. Caluini. p. 389. in the Fathers that Caluin saith, It is ordinary to those knaves (meaning Catholics) to scrape together whatsoever is read faulty in the Fathers: when therefore they object the place of Malachy to be expounded by Irenaeus of the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Oblation of Melchisedech to be so handled by Athanasius, Ambrose, Augustine, Arnobius, let it be briefly answered, the self same writers elsewhere do interpret Bread, the Body of Christ, but so ridiculously, that reason and truth compelleth us to descent. Crastovius reproveth S. Gregory Nissen saying, (34) De Opificio Missae. l. 1. sect. 164. p. 81. Doth he not know that the opinion of Nyssen is of itself absurd etc. He saith, when therefore Christ gave to his Disciples his body to eat etc. then latently &c. unspeakably, and invisibly the Body was sacrificed etc. S. Denis (35) Eccl. Hier. c. 3. setting down how the Bishop comes to hours the Irons did without any outward help, fall lose from the said imprisoned persons. And afterwards they being set at liberty, & returned home, it fell out upon observation and account of time, that as S. Bede saith of the one, His hands were loosed specially at those times when Mass was celebrated for him: And as S. Gregory saith of the other, his wise calling to memory the days and hours, acknowledged him to be loosed even then when for him she remembered the Sacrifice to be offered. S. Bede mentioneth the names of the party, and of the Priest, and the place of his abode, affirming that it was told him by credible persons, who heard it from the party himself, whereupon (saith he) having so good proof, I thought good to insert the same without any doubt into my Ecclesiastical history. And the other was so certainly known, that S. Gregory beginning to speak thereof saith Dear beloved, I am persuaded that many of you do know that whereof now I will remember you. Other like to these are recorded by (56) L. 4. Dial. c. 57 S. Gregory and simeon (57) In vita Ioan. Eleemosynarij. apud Surium. Tom. 1. Metaphrastes. As also of the vision of Angels in time of the Sacrifice adoring, reported by (58) De Sacerd. l. 6. c. 4. Pallad. Hist. Sanct. c. 20. & 71. Sozom. Hist. l. 6. c. 29. S. chrysostom, Palladius, and Sozomene: which vision was also made to S. chrysostom (59) Nilus Monachus. in ep. ad ●uastasium Episcopum. himself, and by him declared in private to his special spiritual friends. These miracles are so forcible for our Catholic doctrine, as that instead of all other answer, Humphrey thinketh it (60) jesuit. part 1 p. 134. Dotage to believe that Angels be there present: and of the other mentioned by S. Bede, Fulke saith, (61) Against Purg. p. 333. I weigh not worth a fly that tale you tell out of Bede, of him that had his Chains fallen off in Mass time, that credulous and superstitious age had many such feigned miracles. (62) Against Rhem. Test. in Heb. 10.11. p. 416. And the like fable (saith he) telleth Gregory, hom. 37. in Euang. So profanely and contemptuosly do Heretics, having their hearts hardened, think and speak of undoubted miracles: and so basely do they think of S. chrysostom, S. Gregory, and S. Bede, men reverenced by all Christian posterity for their Learning, judgement and Sanctity. Lastly S. Austin relating, that, (63) De Ciu. Dei. l. 22. c. 8. A house being haunted with evil Spirits etc. a Priest went and offered there the Sacrifice of Christ's Body, (for which the English Translation most corruptly saith, one went, prayed, and ministered the Communion) praying very earnestly that the vexation might cease, & by God's mercy it forthwith ceased. This miracle is confessed by the Centuristes (64) Cent. 5. c. 6. Col. 684. Hosp. Hist. Sacram. part. 1 p. 389. 591. and Hospinian, as also by (65) De spectris. part. 3. c. 10. p. 254. Lavatherus, who reciting the story verbatim, inferreth that it is clear that Superstition began etc. as also to Pray, and Sacrifice for Souls. And Moulin acknowledgeth this Miracle, (66) Defence etc. art. 9 p. 208. of the house haunted with Spirits, and cleared by the Priest saying Mass in it. D. Reinolds confesseth. (67) Conference &c p. 552. The Relation and mutual dependence in which Altar and Sacrifice are by nature linked together. But Zepperus more particularly teacheth that, (68) Politia Eccles. l. 1. c. 18. Altars of stone and Hosts do confirm the Sacrifice of the Mass for the mutual relation of Altars and Sacrifices. Now it is evident that the Ancient Fathers erected Altars, and sacrificed upon them. S. Austin saith, (69) De Civit. Dei. l. 22. c. 10. We erect Altars upon which we Sacrifice to the one God. (70) Ser. 11. d● Sanctis. Upon the Altar the Body of our Lord is offered. (71) Cont. Faust. Manich. l. 20. c. 21. We build Altars to the God of Martyrs, although in memory of Martyrs; for what Bishop etc. standing at the Altar, hath any time said, we offer to thee Peter, or Paul? S. Gregory Nazianzen affirmeth, that, (72) In julianum. Altars take their name from the most pure & unbloody Sacrifice. Optatus asketh, (73) L. 6. cont. Parmen. what is the Altar, but the seat of the Body, and Blood of Christ? And in regard of this Relation, (74) In Enchyr. c. 210. de cura pro mort. c. 18. Greg. in Luc. hom. 37. Saint Austin and S. Gregory do call it, The Sacrifice of the Altar. This was so certainly the belief and practice of the Ancient Fathers, that they are therefore in general reproved by sundry (75) Pet. Mart. in his Com. pla. in Engl. part. 4. p. 225. Carthwright in his 1. R●ply. the last. part. p. 264. Protestant writers. SECT. iv That sundry Protestants do teach, and allow a true, and external Sacrifice in the time of the New Testament, even the Sacrifice of the Mass. Having proved before from Scriptures and Fathers, that Melchisedech was truly a Priest, and that the Sacrifice which he offered was in bread and wine, and that therein he was a true type of Christ his Priesthood, and of the Sacrifice which he was to offer under the forms of bread and wine; I will now examine what sundry Prot. think hereof: And first, I find john hus to affirm, (1) Ad Ps. 109. That Christ is a Priest according to the Order of Melchised●ch who first offered bread and wine: and Christ consecrated bread and wine into his Body and Blood, the similitude of which Sacrifice Melchisedech sent before &c: Melchisedech offered bread and wine Gen. 14. and Christ consecrated bread and wine into his Body and Blood offered it to God the Father, and committed it to his Disciples to be offered. He also calleth it, (2) Act. Mon. p. 209. The Sacrament of the Altar, and being a Priest said Mass, as john johnson acknowledgeth, even to his dying day; to which his Mass the people during his last restraint resorted, at his Hosts house in Constance, as is witnessed by a Citizen (3) Huldericke Reichental. histor. Teuton. de Concil. Constan. of Constance, who lived in that time: And we do not any where find him charged for impugning the Mass. So Papistical was john hus in the very Sacrifice of Mass. To come now to Wiccliffe, Perzibrane recordeth that, (4) Cap. 28. Wiccliffe in his Book de Apostasia c. 18. approveth all the rites of the Mass, from the beginning almost to the end, affirming that it is excellent and excellently declared, and concluding of all that rite, and saying: It is certain, that all such things are so far forth laudable, as they do stir up, that Christ may be more loved. Thus he etc. Wiccliffe celebrated his Masses, after the rite, and form of the Church etc. But no man speaketh more plainly than Martin Luther, who avoucheth, that, (5) Ad Ps. 110. Tom. 8. fol. 197. Melchisedech was a King, and a Priest, he offered bread and wine also for the Patriarch Abraham and his family etc. But what is the Oblation of bread and wine for Abraham? this expresseth the Priesthood of Christ, from this time to the end of the world, in which time the Church offereth the Mystical Sacrament of the Altar, of his precious Body and Blood. Hear Luther acknowledgeth Melchisedech to have been a Priest, to have offered bread and wine for Abraham, and therein to have exercised the Priesthood of Christ, and the Sacrament of the Altar of his precious body and Blood: which is the very same that Catholics teach. Andrea's Crastovius a learned Caluinist (6) De opificio Missae Cont. Bellar. l. 1. p. 18. sect. 9●. acknowledgeth the Father's general opinion of Melchisedeches Sacrifice of Bread and wine, and in regard of that their Harmony (as he termeth i●) or general consent therein he professeth to be of their opinion: his words in the place before cited are, It is not lawful for Christian Pastors to cast away the consent and Harmony of Interpretation, and that both for the neernes of the Apostles age, as also for the singular concord of all, which is had in all places etc. with the consent as it were of all: the sacred Oblation of Melchisedech is proposed, that not only for Abraham and his Soldiers, but also to God the unbloody Sacrifice may seem to be offered Symbolically: And immediately after he answereth the Protestants common objection, saying. But if some Doctors affirm, Melchisedech to have given to Abraham bread and wine, yet they do not deny that primary Oblation which was made to God. So that according to this Caluinist, all Fathers generally do interpret, that Melchisedech offered Sacrifice, and that his Sacrifice did represent the unbloody Sacrifice of Christ. The Lord Cobham calleth the Eucharist, (7) Act. Mon. p. 265. The Sacrament of the Altar, (8) Ib. p. 267. the Sacred Host, and is no where charged with the contrary doctrine; but as M. Foxe witnesseth, (9) Ib p. 273. His opinion, as the Papists thought at that time, was perfect concerning the Sacrament. And it is evident that King Henry the 8. and the Church in his time did publicly maintain the Mass, (10) Act. Mon. p 586. punishing the impugners thereof; and yet nevertheless, the Prot. gladly acknowledge him for a (11) Fulke ag. He●kins, Saunders. p. 563. sect. 78. Member of the Catholic Church of Christ, and (12) Ib. p. 564. the Church in his time for a true Church. jewel acknowledgeth that, (13) Reply in Engl. p. 7. Melchisedech by his bread and wine signified the Sacrifice of the holy Communion: so that with M. jewel, the Prot. Communion is now a Sacrifice: or as M. Morton calleth it, the Mass of Christ. According to Melancthon, (14) In Concil. Theol. part. 2. p. 373. Melchisedech receiveth Abraham returning from the war, and admitteth him to the Sacrifice, and blesseth him. Vrbanus Rhegius testifieth that (15) 1. part. operum de Missae negotio. fol. 65. Many there are who think a Sacrifice to be proved by the Apostle, 1. Cor. 10. where he dehorteth from the society of such as sacrifice to Idols by Arguments taken from the belief of the Sacrifice used by the jews and Gentiles for he seemeth to compare Sacrifice to Sacrifice as chrysostom teacheth, & his Comparison so to stand, that by it is gathered, Christians in the Lord's Supper, to have a certain peculiar sacrifice whereby they are made partakers of our Lord, as the Idolaters by their abominable Sacrifice, are made partakers of Devils: which thing if it be so, it seemeth it may be answered, that in the Supper of Christians are the Body and Blood of Christ, which are a holy a Sacrifice, but commemorative: So plainly doth he acknowledge the Eucharist to be no less truly and properly a Sacrifice, than were the Sacrifices of the jews, which were true Sacrifices, though they were commemorative, in respect of Christ's Passion then to come, as ours is now a true Sacrifice, and yet Commemorative, in regard of his Passion already past. SECT. V Objections from Scripture against the Sacrifice of the Mass answered. D. (1) Against Reynolds. p. 84. 85. Whitakers urgeth from S. Paul, that Christ (2) Heb. 7.24. Continueth for ever, and hath an everlasting Priesthood, wherefore no Priests do succeed him, and consequently no Priesthood, no Sacrifice: for therefore in the Old law, were Priests (3) Heb. 7.23. multiplied, because that by death they were prohibited to continued. Answ. We do not teach that Priests do succeed to Christ, but only that they are his Vicars or Ministers, and that he by them doth truly offer Sacrifice, which doth no more derogate from Christ his Priesthood, than it doth from his being our (4) Mat. 23.10. Isa. 9.7. Luc. 1.3. Mat. 26.31. Io. 10.11.14. Luc. 4.18. Eph. 2.17. Master, King, Pastor, Preacher; that others also are Masters, and Kings, Pastors and Preachers: Yea therefore is he said to be a Priest for ever, (as is showed before) because though not by himself, yet by other Priests as his Ministers, he sacrificeth for ever. And as for S. Paul objected (in proof of the many prerogatives of Christ's Priesthood & Sacrifice before that of Aaron) he doth only exclude the multiplicity of Priests in the same dignity & power; for in the old Law by reason of Aaron's death succeeded Eleazarus, and to him Phinees &c. and so, as if Aaron had n●uer died, none had succeeded him, and yet he living there were many other inferior Priests: so Christ never dying, none succeedeth him, which yet doth not hinder the being of the other true, yet inferior Priests. Again, according to D. Whit●kers own Exposition, (5) Against Reynolds pag. 83. that property is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (everlasting) that passes not away from one to another: But who of us ever affirmed C●rist his Priesthood to have departed away from him? Yea we all acknowledge that he is a Priest for ever, according to the Order of Melchisedech. Secon●ly, it is urged that the Sacrifice of the Cross is of infinite value, therefore all others are injurious to it and superfluous I answer, this no more proveth the Sacrifice of the Mass to be injurious to the Sacrifice of the Cross, than it doth the l●ke of all the Sacrifices of the old Testament, all which depended upon the virtue of the Sacrifice of the Cross, Christ being therefore called, (6) Apoc. 13.8. the lamb slain from the beginning of the world; it being therefore of infinite value, doth only prove, that there is no need for another, or the same Christ to die again, which maketh nothing against the multiplicity of Sacrifices, representing the said Sacrifice of the Cross, and applying the fruit thereof to us: in one word, the Sacrifice of the Mass being no other but the same in substance with the Sacrifice of the Cross, though in different manner offered under the forms of bread and wine, which are truly turned into the Body and Blood of Christ, whereupon it is called, Hostia incruenta, an unbloody Sacrifice; I say, the Sacrifice of the holy Mass, can be no ways injurious to the Sacrifice of the Cross. But because this Objection is much insisted upon, in further Explanation thereof, I say; 1. that the Catholic belief is, that our Saviour's Passion and death is in itself the sufficient and most accomplished price of our Redemption: And that the benefit thereof is imparted to us (as Prot. (7) Chemnit. Exam part. 2. p. 21. also teach) by special means in that behalf subordinate, as not only by faith and preaching of the word, but also, as many Prot. (8) Whiteg. Def. p. 527. Carthw. ib. p 532. Hook. Eccl. Pol. l. 5. sect. 57 Covel. in Def. of Hook art. 14. p 96 Bilson, true Diff. r. part. 4 p 539. Chem. Exam. part. 1. p 17. acknowledge, by the Sacraments, and so most especially by the Sacrifice of the Mass in our opinion, which we affirm Christ to have instituted to be to us not any new Redemption; with which some Protestant falsely charge us contrary to our (9) Bellar. de ●issa. l. 2. c. 4. writings, and contrary to the Confession had of us by sundry (10) Vrsinus Commonefactio etc. p. 289. Pro●. in this behalf; but only as chief means appointed to continued the memory of his Oblation upon the Cross, and the application of the general virtue thereof to our particular necessities: to which very Doctrine sundry Prot. do also assent. Sigwartus saith of this Sacrament, (11) Disp. Theol. disp. 16. p. 146. It is the organ, means, and instrument, by which the benefits of Christ may be conferred and applied. If you will believe Fulke, (12) Retentive. p. 24. Every Prot. doth acknowledge the Ministration of the Sacrament to be a dispensation of the Sacrifice of Christ's death. Caluin affirmeth, that by t●e Sacrament, (13) I● 1. Cor. 11.24. we are partakers of Redemption, and the benefit of the Sacrifice is applied to us. And if some reply to this, that howsoever the Communicant may apply by Faith Christ's day h to himself, yet it seemeth hard, that the Priest should in his Oblation make application of the benefit thereof, to, or for any other. I answer, that the efficacy which we attribute as proper to the Mass, being not any new Redemption, is not hard but easy to be conceived, the same being (in regard of the like peculiar effect) semblable (though in a far transcendent sort) unto Prayer; which profiteth not only the party praying, but (14) job. 41.8 Philem v. 22. Rom. 15.30. jac 5.16. others also for whom it is made. Yea S. Paul speaking of Sacrifices, saith most clearly that, (15) Heb 5.1.3. Every high Priest etc. is apppointed for men in those things that appertain to God; that he may offer Gifts and Sacrifices for sins etc. and therefore he aught, as for the people so also for himself to offer for sins. So many ways is this common Objection ansred. The (16) Roger's Det. of the Art art. 31. p. 184. third Objection is that of the Apostle (17) Heb. 9.25. Nor tha● he should offer himself often, as the high Priest entereth into the Holyes every year in the blood of others. And again, (18) Ib. c. 10.12. We are sanctified by the Oblation of the Body of jesus Christ once. And yet thirdly, (19) I●. ver. 14. By one Oblation ha●h he consummated for ever them that are sanctified. And lastly, (20) Ib. 18. Now there is not an Oblation for sins. Answ. These places are understood of the Sacrifice of the Cross, and so in the first place it is said, (21) Heb. 9.26. Otherwise he aught to have suffered often from the beginning of the world: so that they do not exclude all Sacrifice●, but only the iteration of the Sacrifice of the Cross by Christ's often suffering, for no more do the words import. And though by that one Sacrifice of the Cross, remission of sins be obtained, that is, our Redemption wrought, and due satisfaction made to God's justice for sin; yet this nothing more excludeth such Sacrifices as represent, and apply unto us the Sacrifice of the Cross, than it doth exclude Baptism, the eucharist, preaching, prayer, and other means and Instruments, whenby the fruit and profit of the Cross is applied unto us. Besides that understanding impugneth Christ's Priesthood for ever; for which (22) Heb 8.3 it is necessary that he also may have something that he may offer, and for this express reason, because every high Priest is appointed to offer. Yea Prot. contrary to this their own Objection do confess, that as now also in heaven (23) Bulling. in Decad. in Engl. Dee. ●. Se●. 7. p. 707. Christ our Lord sacrificeth for us: and offereth a Sacrifice for sins unto the living God, (even) himself, always an effectual Sacrifice, & continuing still (24) Ib. p. 707. our Priest, executeth his office (of Priesthood) before God in heaven. And some Prostants tell the Lutherans that, (25) Vrsinus in Commonsfact. p. 290. Wheresoever Christ is present, there doth he offer himself in the fight of his Father to obtain us remission for his Sacrifice once offered upon the Cross etc. But according to Lutherans, in the Mass he is corporally present, therefore in the Bread he presenteth himself to his Father for our Salvation no less than in heaven. And, the Real Presence but admitted, the Sacrifice of Christ's Body doth thence necessarily follow. In like sort saith Altkircherus, (26) De Myst●co etc. Sacrificio. p. 2. From this foundation (of corporal presence and eating) aswell Adoration as Oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ in Sacrifice must necessarily follow, and be granted. And he citeth Melancthon to say, (27) Ib. p. 3. If Christ be contained in the Bread, why is he not to be adored and offered? By all which it is clear, that our unbloody Sacrifice doth nothing derogate from that one Sacrifice of the Cross. Others object that we do not find in all the Scriptures that Christ or his Apostles said Mass. Answ. Christ himself said Mass at his last supper, when he said, (28) Luke. 22.19.20. This is my Body which is given for you: This is the Chalice the New Testament in my Blood which shallbe shed for you: from which words we have formerly proved Sacrifice. And seeing Christ at the same time commanded his Apostles saying, Do this in remembrance lick Church teacheth, that, (1) 1. Concil. Trident Sess. 14. Cap. 1. Our Lord did then chief ordain the Sacrament of Penance, when rising from death, he breathed upon his Disciples saying, Receive ye the holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them and whose you shall retain, they are retained By which so notable act, and words so plain, the consent of all Fathers hath always understood, power of remitting & retaining sins to have been communicated to the Apostles, and their lawful Successors. The Church further (2) Cap. 3. teacheth, the form of the Sacrament of Pennance etc. to be placed in these words: I absolve thee etc. The acts of the Penitent himself, to wit, Contrition, Confession, and Satisfaction, are as it were the matter of this Sacrament etc. (3) Cap. 4. Contrition is sorrow of mind and detestation of sin committed, with purpose to sin no more etc. (4) Cap. 5. From the Institution of the Sacrament of Pennance etc. all the Church hath ever understood, entire Confession of sins to have been also ordained by our Lord, & to be necessary by God's Law to all that have fallen after Baptism etc. Concerning Satisfaction, the Church (5) Cap 8. declareth, that it is altogether false and different from the word of God (to affirm) the fault is never forgiven by our Lord, but all the punishment is also pardoned etc. And therefore she further teacheth, that, (6) Cap. 9 so great is the bounty of God's munificence, that we may not only satisfy God the Father through Christ jesus with punishments voluntarily by ourselves undertaken for the revenge of sin, or imposed by sentence of the Priest, according to the measure of the fault: but also which is she greatest argument of love, by temporal punishments inflicted by God, and by us patiently suffered. In the Council Cabilonense it is thus decreed, (7) Can. 8. Concerning the Penance of sins, which is the Cure of the Soul, we judge it profitable to all men; and that Pennance be appointed to Penitents by Priests, Confession being made etc. In the Council of Florence it is defined that, (8) Decret. Eugenij PP. Penance is the fourth Sacrament whose as it were matter are the acts of the Penitent, which are distinguished into three parts, the 1. Contrition of the hart etc. the 2. Confession of the mouth etc. the 3. satisfaction for sins according to the sentence of the Priest etc. The form of this Sacrament are the words of Absolution, which the Priest uttereth, when he saith: I absolve thee etc. The Minister of this Sacrament is the Priest, having authority to absolve, either ordinary, or by Commission of Superiors. According to these Counsels all (9) Bellar. de Poenitent. l. 1. c. 8. etc. Rhem. Test. in joan. 20, 22.23. Catholics generally believe, that the Sacrament of Penance is truly and properly a Sacrament: that the Priest hath Authority from God therein to forgive sin: and that Confession of sins is therefore necessary. Points Disputable. All Catholics believing that Contrition is a Cause of remission of sin, yet (10) Capreol. in 2. Dist. 40. q. unica. Dom à Soto: l 2. de Nat. & Gra. c. 4. some teach, that it causeth as a disposition, not as truly deserving the same: But (11) Magister. Sent. 2. l. Sent. Dist. 27. S. Thomas in 1. Dist. 27 q. 4. others more probably teach, that it is not only a Disposition, but truly deserving of congruity justification. (12) Scotus in 4. Dist. 16. q. 1. Some place the essence of this Sacrament only in the Absolution. (13) Durand. D●st. 14. q. 1. 3. Gabr. dist. 14. q. 1. art. 1. Others in Absolution & Confession. (14) Sotus. Dist. 14. q. 1. art. 1. Others generally in Absolution, Contrition, and Confession as essential, and in Satisfaction as a part only integral. Some (15) Scotus in 4. Dist. 18. Navar. in Man. c. 26. n 20. think, that the Penient is not bound to accept the Penance imposed by the Priest, but may refer himself to Purgatory: but if he do accept thereof, then is he bound to perform it. (16) Caiet. q. 2. de Satisfas●. Others, that neither is he bound to accept thereof, and if he do, yet is he not bound to perform it. But (17) Magist. Sent. in 4. Dist. 16.18. S. Tho. eadem Dist. q 1. art. 3. others more generally teach, that the Penitent is both bound to accept, and perform his Penance imposed by the Priest. Protestants Untruths. Luther blusheth not to avouch that, (8) L. de Captiu. Babyl. Cap. de Foevis. Our Babylon (meaning the Catholic Church) is not content with this, she hath also so extinguished faith, as that with shameless forehead she den●●th it to be necessary in this Sacrament, yea with Antichristian impiety she defineth it Heresy, If any shall affirm faith to be necessary, But this to be most untrue, Lu●her himself doth acknowledge in ●hese words. (19) Aduersus execrab. Antichristi Bullam, de sexto Art This I have done by that Doctrine, Penance to be of no weight, unless it be done in Faish and Charity, which themselves also teach, only that they neither know or teach, what is Faith, or what is Charity. So clearly doth Luther prove himself liar. He also accuseth us to teach that, (20) L. de Captiu. Babyl. cap. de Foenit. Contrition goeth before the faith of promise, and is much more profitable, as not being a work, but merit of saith. But all Catholics teach, that Contrition followeth faith, and that faith is so the gift of God, as that it cannot be gained by Contrition, or any other work, as of merit. He (21) In Comment. Epist. ad Gal. affirmeth likewise that we make no mention in the Sacrament of Confession of the merit of Christ, but only inculcate humane Satisfactions; which he proveth by the form of Absolution which Catholics use. But this is so absurdly false, that in the very form of Absolution which Luther himself setteth down in the same place, & which Heshusius reciteth out of Luther, the f●●st words are, (22) L de Error. Pontif. loc. 9 n. 57 The merit of Christ's Passion etc. Melancthon (23) In Confess. August. art. 12. & in Apol. ad art. 12. in sundry places affirmeth us to teach. sins to be forgiven not by faith, but by Charity, works, and satisfactions: whereas we teach that sin is to be forgiven by Absolution, God applying the merits of Christ by the Ministry of Priests, and this gratis, not for any merit, or work of Contrition, of other works of ours. Caluin (24) Instit. l. 3. c. 4. §. 1. affirmeth, that we make Penance to consist in external Exercises, But of the interior renovation of the mind which draweth with it true amendment of life, a strange silence. But himself presently after in the same place make●● himself a liar, by these words, with them there is much speech of Contrition and Attrition. He also introduceth Catho●●ckes to say, (25) In Antid. art. Paris. art. 3. For as much as concerneth Confession it is to be observed, that the matter is by God's Law, but the form by Positive Law. But no Catholic eue● writ, that the form of Absolution was by Positive Law. He also falsely avoucheth that, (26) De necess. reform. Eccl. p. 60. The Adversaries do not show any necessity of Confession to have been imposed upon the faithful before Innocent the 3. But Innocent the 3. only declareth that none have power to administer this Sacrament by God's Law, bu● only such as have jurisdiction over others. Che●nit●us affirmeth that (27) Exam. 2. part. p. 955. Lombard first made of Penance a Sacrament. But this to be most untrue may be seen in S. (28) Ep 180. ad Honor. Austin. Protestant Doctrine. The English Prot. Church decreeth, that (29) Art 25. There are two Sacraments ordained by Christ &c Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. Those commonly called Sacraments, that is, Confirmation, Penance etc. are no● to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel etc. for that they have not any Ceremony or visible sign ordained by God. And hereupon Prot. teach, that, (30) Willet. Synop. Controu. 5. q. 4. Ecclesiastical Ministers have only power granted to them to declare and pronounce Remission of sin●es according to the will ●f God, and do not properly in their own pour absolve or release sins: (31) Ib p. 211. They do not reconcile men to God, but pray them to be reconciled. Caluin thinketh that, (32) In refut. Cathol. p. 384. The Law established for auricular Confession is diabolical. jewel, (33) Defence of the Apol. p. 132. We say, that it is neither ordained by Christ, nor is necessary to salvation, that private Confession be made to the Minister. So that Prot. deny the Sacrament of Penance, and all necessity of Confession. Protestants agreed with Ancient Heretics. S. Ambrose affirmeth of the Novatian Heretics, that, (34) L. 1. de Poenit. c. C. 7. See Cypr. l. 4. Ep 2. They say they give the reverence to God, to whom alone they reserve the power of forgiving sins, but none do greater injury unto him, than those who will break his Commandments: for seeing our Lord himself in his Gospel hath said, Receyve you the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall rem t they shallbe remitted, who doth more honour him, he who obeyeth his Commandments, or he who resisteth? And to omit the like censure given by (35) Ep. 1. ad Sympron. Pacianus against Sympronianus the Novatian, Socrates relateth the Heretic Acesiu● to have s●yd, that (36) Hist. tri. part. l. 2. c. ●3. Sinners were to be invited to Penance, but the hope of remission they were not to have from Priests, but from God alone, who hath power to forgive sins: which when he had spoken, the Emperor said. O Acesius, set up a ladder, and if thou canst ascend alone to heaven. T●is History is so true, that it is confessed by (37) Cent. 4. p. 119. Chem. Exam part. 1. p. 188. & part. 2. p. 193. Cent. 4. Col. 653. Osiander, Chemnitius, and the Century writers. And M. D●llingham granteth that, (38) Disp. de natura Poenit. p. 12. The Novatians did reserve to God alone, the power of forgiving sins. The Montanists are also reproved by S. (39) Ep. ad Marcell. Hierome, for denying Confession; as also the Messalians by S. (40) L. de haer. c. 80. Damascene. And as concerning Penance enjoined after Confession by the Priest, Theodoret reproveth the Heretics Audianis, for that, (41) L. 4 haeret. Fab. de Audianis. They give remission to such as are Confessed without prescribing time for Penance, as the laws of the Church command. The jacobites were condemned Anno 600. for affirming that, (42) Alphons. de Cast. aduer. haer. l. 4 c. de Confess and the Prot. Author of Catholic Traditions. p 126. We are to confess our sins to God only: and that Confession of sins to a Priest is not needful. So fully ●o Protestant's symbolise with Ancient Heretics. Protestant Errors. Danaeus affirmeth that, (43) Controu. 4. c. 9 p. 195. Christ the Son of Man, & conversing then upon Earth, forgave sins, but not as he was man, but as he was true God: even as in the same divine nature he wrought miracles, not as he was man. Yea saith Perkins (44) In Gal. 3.5. Christ himself as he was Man could not work a miracle. It is no m●ruayle then if Prot. deny to Priest's power to forgive sins, when they deny it to Christ, as man. According to Luther, (45) Ep. ad Senatum Pragensem. Priests by no right, but damnable abuse, do use in Confessions and Excommunications the office of binding and losing; for all we who are Christians, have the Common office of the keys. And elswere he affirmeth, (46) Art 13 à Leon. decimo Damnato. that a woman or Child aswell as a Bishop or Pope, may absolve in the Sacrament of Penance: wherein he followeth the Pepuzian Heretics condemned by S. Augustine, (47) L. de haer. c. 17. for that they gave to women the Privilege to be made Priests. Bu● Luther proceedeth yet further, directing us thus, (48) L. de Capt. Babyl. fol. 86. Be now certain, and let him acknowledge himself whosoever knoweth himself to be a Christian that we are all Priests alike, that is, have the same power in the word and every Sacrament. So that every Shoemaker may a●well administer any Sacrament, as any Bishop or Priest. SECT. II. It is proved by Scriptures that Christ gave to his Apostles, and in them to Bishops and Priests, true authority to forgive and retain sins, in the Sacrament of Penance: And that Confession of sins is necessary. CHrist our Saviour claimed and received as being man power and authority to remit sin here upon Earth, in so much that when certain of the Scribes blasphemed against him (as Prot. Ministers do now calumniate Catholic Priests) saying, (1) Mar. 2.7. who can forgive sins but only God?) he did therefore miraculously cure the man sick of the Palsy, (2) Mat. 9.6. Mar. 2.10. that they might know, that the Son of man hath power in Earth to forgive sins: Whereupon (3) Mat. 8.9. the multitudes etc. glorified God, that gave such power unto men. Neither is it probable or any way possible, that he received this power only for himself, or for his own abode here with us upon Earth, but to communicate the same over to his Church, to which end he accordingly said to his Apostles, (4) Io. ●0. 21. As my Father sent me, I also sand you. Now, that Priests have power from Christ to forgive sin, it may be proved from the promise and performance of our Saviour unto the Prince of the Apostles S. Peter, that from him it might be derived to all the rest. (5) Mat. 18.19. I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon Earth, it shallbe bound also in the heavens; and whatsoever thou shalt lose in Earth, it shallbe loosed also in the heavens: the like power also is promised to the rest of the Apostles, even by our Saviour himself saying, (6) Mat. 18. ●8. Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon Earth shallbe bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall lose upon Earth shallbe loosed also in heaven. Now that by binding and losing is meant forgiving, and not forgiving of sins, it is proved by another place in whic● Christ after his Resurrection repeated again and confirmed the same power, saying unto them, (7) Io. 20.22.23. Peace be to you, as my Father and an Egg to be an Oyster. A second proof for this power in Priests to forgive sins, may be the Common practice of the Church, and Christians in S. Paul his time, confessing their sins, for it is said, (14) Act. 19.18.19. And many of them that believed, came confessing and declaring their deeds. And many of them that had followed curious things, brought together their books, and burned them before all. Here it is evident, that they confessed themselves not only in general to be sinners, but their deeds in special, amongst which was their following of curious things, to wit, curious & unlawful sciences, as witchcraft, negromancy, and other means of divination, by soothsaying, figure-casting, interpretation of dreams, and the like, for which cause they burned their books of Curiosity, being enjoined so to do by S. Paul, who had heard their Confessions. Neither may it be said, that they confessed some of their mortal sins, and not all, for besides that no cause can be assigned, why they should be bound to confess some sins and not others, wheresoever the Scripture speaketh absolutely of sins, it is, and aught to be understood of all, as (15) Dan. 4.24. Redeem thy sins with Alms, that is, All thy sins. Again, (16) Mat. 1.21. He will save his people from their sins: Lastly, (17) Luc. 7.48 Thy sins are forgiven thee, and the like, where to understand the word sins, of some, and not of all, were absurd. This place is so clear for Confession of sins, that Caluin acknowledgeth, that (18) In Act. Apost. c. 19 18. p. 199. Of their own accord they Confessed the sins of their life past: But as Caluin cannot prove that they confessed their sins only of their own accord; so may every one judge that neither they not others, would make Confession of their secret sins, if there were not a just necessity therein, Confession being a thing so contrary to man's natural inclination: Howsoever, Caluin here is enforced to acknowledge, that they confessed the sins of their life paste. This Confession in particular was prefigured in the old Testament: for whereas several Sacrifices were appointed to be offered for several sins, as you shall read in diverse places of Scripture of the (19) Levit. 4.2.3.5.14. & 6 11.15 & Num. ●5 22.23.24.25. old Testament, for which the Priest was appointed to offer and make atonement (20) Levit. 4.3.20. & 5.6.13. & 6.7. . This the Priest could not do, unless the party offending confessed his several sins unto him: Yea it was expressly Commanded, (21) Num. 5. 6 7. That man or woman when they sh●ll do any of all the sins, that are went to chance to men, and by negligence have transgressed the Commandment of the Lord, & have offended, they shall confess their sin, & restore the principal itself. M. Morton to evade the force of this Argument, allegeth Lira as saying, (22) Appeal p. 393. The people of the old Testament did not make Confession to the Priest of their particular sins; in proof whereof he citeth Lyra in Levit. c. 16. 21. as saying of the people, In veteri lege non omnia explicabant. But this is M. Mortons' vonted forgery and abuse of Authors, for Lyra speaketh not there, with explicabant, as in the plural number, or of the people's own confessing, but only of the Priest and his general Confession made to God for the people saying, Confiteatur omnes iniquitates non explicando omnia particulariter: let him confess all iniquities, not expressing all things particularly: because he could not then have either time to recite the people's many sins, or memory to retain each man's offences in particular. Read but Lyra in the place cited, and you will see just cause ever to look to M. Mortons' fingers. Answerably to this practice of the old Testament it is said of S. john Baptist, (23) Mat 3.3.6. Mar. 1.5. than went forth to him Jerusalem and all jewry, and all the Country about jordan, and were baptised of him in jordan confessing their sins. For the holy Baptist being a foreunner of Christ, did prepare the way to Christ & his Sacraments, not only by his Baptism, but by inducing the people to Confession of their sins, which was not to acknowldge themselves in general to be sinners, but also to utter in particular every man his sins. Caluin much troubleth himself, but cannot avoid the force of this place in his answer thereto, and thereupon acknowledgeth, that (24) In Harm. in Mat. 3.6. p. 52. Before Baptism Confession of sins is required, and that Baptism aught not to be administered to them of years, nisi examine priùs habito, but after examination of Conscience. So confessedly is it, that the Sacrament of Penance and confession of sins, was prefigured in the Old Testament. Besides these pregnant places of Scripture, reason doth convince, that no worldly power or Policy of man could have introduced Confession into the Church, for if Confession had been man's Invention, and not the Institution God, then doubtless the same would have been earnestly contradicted at the first, seeing thereby even the greatest Princes and Kings are forced to lay open to Priests their secretest, foulest, and most enormous sins, and to undergo and perform all such penalty as shallbe by the Priest imposed upon them for the same, which certainly being a thing so repugant to man's nature, is the heaviest burden in the Catholic Church. Neither is it probable, that t●e Pastors of the Church durst ever have endeavoured the enacting of so burdensome a law, or that the people of the world could have been persuaded and brought thereunto, if this Sacrament of Penance had not been instituted by Christ, and put in execution by the Apostles, and the Primitive Church. Add lastly, that seeing Priests are thus appointed by Christ as judges, that therefore particular Confession of sins is to be made unto them: Otherwise their judgement would be no other than of a blind man's, concerning colours, or a deaf man's, touching music. SECT. III. That the Fathers expound the Scriptures in proof of Priest's authority to retain or remit sin: And for the necessity of Confession unto Priests. THe Fathers do most clearly expound the Scriptures in this behalf, so S. Au●tine advising incontinent persons saith, (1) L. 50. homiliarum, ho. 40. c. 3. See ho. 12. & 41. If you have lain with any others besides your wives, do penance such as is done in the Church, that the Church may pray for you. Let no man say to himself, I do it secretly, I do it to God, God who pardoneth me, knoweth that I do it in my hart. Therefore without cause is it said, (2) Mat. 18.18. what things you shall lose upon Earth, shallbe loosed in heaven? Than without cause are the keys given to the Church of God? we make frustrate the Gospel of God, we make frustrate the words of Christ, we promise' to you what he denyeth? Again, (3) L. 2. de visit. imfirm c. 4. See Tract. 49. in loan. c. 11 & ix ps. 101. con. 1. There are some who think it sufficeth them to salvation, if they confess their sins to God alone, to whom nothing is hidden etc. for they will not, or are ashamed, or scorn, to show themselves to Priests, whom yet our Lord appointed by his Lawgiver to discern between Leper & Leper. But I would not have thee deceyved with that opinion, that thou shouldest be confounded to Co●f●sse before the Vicar of our Lord, languishing for ●hame, or stubborn for Anger: for his judgement is humbly to be undergone, whom our Lord doth not disdain to be his Vicar. Therefore ask the Priest to come unto thee, and make him wholly partaker of thy Conscience. Let not that superstition of dreamers seduce thee, which in visiting avoucheth, that Confession of sins to God doth save, the Priest not consulted withal. But we do not deny, but that Confession of sinnes is to be often made to God etc. But we witness, & sound Doctrine doth testify it etc. that first thou needest the wholesome sentence of the Priest, who may be a Mediator to thy God; otherwise how should the divine Answer be perfected, both under the law, and undergrace, (4) Levit. 14. 2. Mat 8.4. Go and show yourselves to the Priests? how should be fulfilled, (5) jac. 5.16. Confess your sins one to another? Therefore let the Priest be called, in God's place to judge of thy wounds, and make known to him thy ways, and he will give thee the Preseruative of Reconciliation. As also, (6) In joan. Tract. 22. & de vera & falsa Poenitentia. c. 10. Before he confessed he was hidden, but when he confesses he cometh forth out of darkness to light; And when he hath confessed what is said to the Ministers? That which was said at the Grave of Lazarus. Lose him and let him go: how? It is said to the Apostles the Ministers, whatsoever you shall lose upon Earth, shallbe loosed also in heaven. By which it appeareth, that Saint Austin expounding sundry Texts of Scripture, teacheth Confession to God alone is not sufficient, but that it must be also made to Priests, to whom God hath given power to absolve from sin. S. Ambrose reporteth the Novatian Heretics to say accordingly as Prot. still say, (7) L. 1. de Poenit. c. 2. They reserve the honour to God, to whom only they attribute power of remitting sin: But none do him greater injury, than they who &c. dissolve the charge committed, for seeing himself said &c. whose sins you forgive they are forgiven, who therefore more honoureth him, whether he that obeyeth his Commandment, or he that resisteth? S. Hierome teacheth that, (8) In Mat. 6.16. The Bishop or Priest according to his office when he hath heard the variety of sins, knoweth who is to be bound, and who is to be loosed. S. Chrisostome speaking of the great dignity of Priesthood affirmeth, that, (9) L. 3. de Sacerd. who devil upon Earth, and are conversant therein, to them is committed the dispensing of those things which are in heaven: to them is granted that power which God would not give to Angels or Archangels; for to them it is not said, Whatsoever you shall bind upon Earth, shallbe bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shall lose upon Earth, shallbe loosed also in heaven. Earthly Princes have indeed power of binding, but the Bodies only; but this binding of Priests which I speak of, toucheth the soul itself, and reacheth to the heavens: In so much, that whatsoever the Priests do upon Earth the same God alloweth in heaven. And again, (10) Ho. 5. de verbis Isaiae. Vidi Dominum To the Priest a Throne is placed in the heavens, and he hath authority to give sentence of heavenly matters. Who saith so? The King of heaven himself, Whatsoever you shall bind upon Earth, shallbe bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall lose upon Earth, shallbe also loosed in heaven. What can be compared with this honour? Or what can be spoken more plainly against Protestants? According to Pacianus, (11) Ep. 1. Never would God threaten him that doth not repent, unless he would pardon the Penitent: Only God (thou sayest) can do this; but what he doth by his Priests, is his power: for what is that which he saith to his Apostles whatsoever you shall bind on Earth etc. wherefore this, if it were not lawful for men to bind and lose? Was this only lawful to the Apostles alone? then to them alone is it lawful to baptise, and to give the holy Gh●st etc. S. Basil believeth that, (12) In regulis Brevioribus. Interrog●t. ●88. Sinnes of necessity are to be opened to them, to whom the dispensing of ●he Mysteries of God i● committed: for we see these ancient to have followed this so me●n Penance, when it is written even in the Gospel (13) Mat 3.6. that they confessed their sins to john, and in the Acts, (14) Act. 19.18. to the Apostles themselves etc. The Father's Doctrine herein is so clear, that the C●nturists speaking of those ancientest times of Cyprian and Tertullian affirm that, (15) Cent. 3. c. 6. Col. 127. & Cent 4. c. 6. Col. 4.25. They gave Absolution from sins thus, If any did Penance, they should first confess their sin, for so doth Tertullian in his Book, De Foenitentia, greatly urge Confession. And it appeareth by certain places of Cyprian, that Private Confession was usual, wherein they Confessed their sins and wicked thoughts, as in Ser. 5. de lapsis. & l. 3. Epist. ep. 14. & 16. where he expressly saith of lesser sins also, which are not committed against God, it is needful that Confession be made, and this also he often commandeth to be, l. 1. Ep. 3 etc. That Satisfaction also was accustomed to be imposed according to the offence, it appeareth Servant 5. de lapsis. And whereas M. Morton affirmeth against this Confession of the Centuristes, that (16) Appeal l. 1. c. 14. p. 254. Cyprian mentioneth not sins of thought; this showeth M. Morton to be either very ignorant, or very false: for if he but read Ser 5. de lapsus, he shall find him say, But because they have but thought hereof, let them confess this sorrowfully and simply to the Priests of God etc. They disburden their minds, they seek for wholesome cure, though but for little and small wounds etc. I beseech you Brethrens that every one Confess his sin etc. whiles satisfaction and remission, made by the Priests, is grateful with our lord M. Morton if he please, may here see that S. Cyprian mentioneth even sins in thought: & though he had not, what would this diminish from the foresaid Confession, made by the Centuristes of S. Cyprians clearest doctrine for Confession. Now as Concerning Penance & Satisfaction, whereas the 4. Carthage Council decreed, that (17) Cap. 76.78. He who in his sickness desired Penance etc. should be reconciled by Imposition of hands etc. If he recovered etc. he should be subject to the appointed laws of Penance, as long as the Priest who gave him Penance shall think good: this Canon is confessed by (18) Cent. 5. l. 1. c. 1. p. 15. Osiander, and approved. The great Penance and corporal Austerities used in ancient times, is also acknowledged, and disliked by the Centuristes, who herein reprove (19) Cent. 4. Col. 254 and see Col. ●31. the Fathers of the fourth age, and the other age's precedent. Caluin holdeth (20) Inst. l. 4. c. 11 n. 8. & l 3. c. 4. sect 38. Inexcusable the immoderate Austerity of the Ancient Fathers etc. And, (21) Exam. part. 4 p 68 I am not ignorant, saith Chemnitius, that the Ancient do sometimes commend that Canonical discipline over largely, and with o●er great words. Whereof also saith Melancthon, (22) Li●●●i aliquot. fol. 11. All ●he Nicene Council being overcome with the consent of the multitude and time, approved the Canons of Penance. Whitaker saith plainly, that, (23) Cont. Camp. rat. 5. p. 78. The Father's thought by their external Discipline to pay the pains due for sin, and to satisfy Gods justice. And that, (24) Ibid. Not Cyprian only wrote some things concerning Penance very incommodiously and foolishly, but almost all the most holy Fathers at that time were in that Error etc. So confessed are the Fathers for the Sacrament of Penance. SECT. iv That Protestant writers do teach that Priests have authority to retain, or to forgive sins: and that Confession of sins in particular is to be made to Priests: And that Penance is truly a Sacrament. THough the practice of Penance be little pleasing to Prot. yet they spare not to preach and teach the great necessity even of the Sacrament of Penance and Confession. Lobechius Doctor and Professor in the University of Rostocke, writeth thus confidently hereof, (1) Disp. Theol. etc. disp. 13. art. 11. p. 295. We defend out of the Scriptures Absolution and Private Confession against the Caluinistes. And another saith, (2) Theolog. Christiana Scripturae, Patrum etc. c. de Bap. p. 491. There be some who take away auricular Confession, as not commanded in the Scripture, but nevertheless all Godly men, do with Great Luther so greatly magnify it, that they had rather lose certain millions of worlds, and whatsoever, then to take this from the Ministry, which they neither may nor will want. Luther giveth this wholesome counsel, (3) De praepar. ad Mortem. A man being at the point of death, let him call the Priest unto him, when he may confess all his sins. If the Priest absolve me, I rest with his Absolution, as the words of God, and upon this I die: for thou aught as firmly to believe the Absolution of the Priest, as if God should sand unto thee a special Angel, or Apostle, yea as if Christ himself shall absolve. In like manner other Prot. affirm, (4) Antichristus five Prognost. fin. Mund. p. 140.141. Confession and Private Absolution to be necessary. In regard whereof others of their Brethrens name them (5) Ibid. Nostri novi Papa, Our new Popes. But some proceed so far herein, that they reprove (6) Heisbrunerus l. Schwenckfeldio. Caluinismus. p. 55. Lobech. Disp. Theol. p. 295. 301. A libamerus in Concil. loc. Script. pug. ●. ●4. fol. 218. the Caluinistes for contemning private Absolution, and believing that the Minister of the Church cannot forgive sins, but only God. Caluin expounding those words of the Apostle, (7) 2. Cor. 5.20. We are Legates for Christ, acknowledgeth, that the (8) Inst l. 4. c. 1. §. 22. Embassage of Reconciliation is left with the Ministers of the Church. And a little before, when Christ gave to his Apostles command and power of forgiving sins he did not only mean, that they should lose those from sins, who should be converted from Impiety to the faith of Christ; but rather that they should continually use this function among the faithful. And more particularly concerning Confession he saith, (9) Instit. l. 4. c. 19 §. 14. I think that old observation whereof Cyprian maketh mention, to have been holy and profitable to the Church, and I should desire, that it were at this day restored. This later though I dare not disprove it, or at lest more sharply impugn, yet I think it less necessary. And having said, and confirmed from the Testimony of S. james, that, (10) Inst. l. ●. c. 4. §. ●2. The Scripture doth approve that form of private Confession, that (11) jac. 5.10. we confess our sins one to another, he giveth this his Interpretation thereof: Although james by naming none into whose bosom we should disburden ourselves, permitteth us free choice to confess to him who of the flock of the Church seemeth most fit; yet because Pastors for the most part, are to be thought more fit than others, they are therefore chief to be chosen by us. And a little after, Therefore let every one of the faithful remember, that it is his duty, if he be so privately vexed and afflicted with the feeling of his sins, that he cannot free himself, but by the help of another, not to neglect the remedy which is offered him by our Lord, to wit, that for his help he use private Confession with his Pastor. Again, (12) §. 13. That the sheep present themselves to the Pastor so often as they communicate, I am so fare from gainsaying, that I greatly wish it were every where observed. As also, (13) Inst. l. 3. c. 4. §. 17.18. Thou wilt say, what then, is not every sin to be confessed? Than no Confession is acceptable to God, but that which is included in these words, Peccator sum, I am a sinner? But truly we are rather to use diligence, that as much as is in us, we pour out our whole hart before the Lord; Neither let us only in one word confess ourselves to be sinners, but as such, let us truly and from our hart acknowledge ourselves. Let us remember withal our thoughts, how great and divers are the spots of sins; not only that we are unclean, but of what sort, how great, and in how many parts our impurity is; not only that we are debtors but with how great debts we are burdened, and by how many names we are bound; not only whereby is promised sin to be forgiven, the key absolving. And the same is acknowledged by the (35) Cent. 1. l. 1. c. 4. Col. 53. Centuristes. Husse affirmeth that, (36) Tract. de P●enit. There are three parts of perfect Penance, to wit, Contrition, Confession and Satisfaction. Again (37) Ibid. The second part of Penance is Confession, which is a recounting of sins before God and the Priest, which aught to be plain and eutyre: Plain, that the Priest may understand: entire, jest he that confesseth wittingly hide any sin, for he that hideth his sins shall not be directed etc. Rokzana saith, (38) De Sacram. c. 17. The second part of Penance is Confession itself, which is made to Priests, and unless this Confession should have Efficacy, is should seem that Christ had superfluously given the power of the Keys to the Apostles and Priests succeeding. And the same is taught by the (39) In Confess. fidei exhibita Anno 1508. Waldenses. Perkins speaking of Confession granteth, that the want thereof, (40) Vol. 3. p. 446. Is a great fault in our Churches. A speech most true, seeing the want thereof causeth amongst all Protestants a general inundation of enormous sins. But by the premises all men may see that all sorts of Protestants, Hussites, Lutherans & Caluinistes, do acknowledge and teach the Sacrament of Penance, and Confession of sins. SECT. V Objections from Scripture against the power given by Christ to Priests for the remitting of sins, answered. IT is ordinarily objected by Protestants now, as formerly it was by the Scribes against Christ, saying (1) Mar. 2.7. Esa. 43.25. & 44.42. jer. 32.34. Who can forgive sins but only God? But in best answer herto S. Matthew reporteth Christ himself to say: (2) Mat. 9.6. Mar. 2.10. That you may know that the Son of Man hath power in Earth to forgive sins, than said he to the sick of the palsy; Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house. And he arose, and went into his house. And the multitudes seeing it &c. glorified God that gave such power to men: Yet in more Explanation hereof, it is to be observed, that sundry things are attributed to God as proper to him, which are nevertheless in a secondary respect communicated also to creatures; so it is said, (3) Luc. 18.19. Mat. 19.16. None is good but only God; Yet our Saviour as being Man was good, and so also are (4) Luc. 6.45. Mat. 7.18. others. God (5) Ps. 72.18. & 136.4. only doth miracles, and yet also Moses (6) Deut. 34.11 12. did Miracles, and so likewise are (7) Eccl. 48.4.14 Io. 14.12. Mat. 7.22. others said to do them; the very power (8) Mat. 10.1. of healing every sickness, and casting forth of unclean Spirits being in express terms given to his twelve Disciples, and thereby so truly in them, that S. Peter said to the lame man, (9) Act. 3.6. That which I have, the same I give to thee, In the name of jesus Christ of Nazareth, Arise and walk etc. And he went walking and leaping, and praising God. In like sort it is said, that, (10) 3. Reg. 8.39. God only knoweth the hearts of men, yet (11) 4. Reg. 5.26. others also knew the secrets of the hart. Lastly, D. Whiteguift doth prove, & explain, how that (12) Defence. p. 300. Names proper to God may in some respect be attributed to others, for as he teacheth, they belong to God properly, and to man but in respect he is the Minister of God, and so God only by his proper power and authority forgiveth sins, and yet also men do actually and truly, yet ministerially forgive sins, for to them is (13) 2. Cor. 5.18. given The Ministry of Reconciliation. This Objection is of so small force, that it is answered according to the Premises by the Protestant (14) Disp. Theol. p. 301. Altham. in Conciliat. locor. etc. loc. 194. fol. 218. Hailbr. in Suenckfeldio-Caluin. p 55. Lobechius, who repeating the same saith, Only God can absolve from sin, but s●, that he doth this sometimes immediately (or by himself) & sometimes mediately, by his Ministers, pardoning our fault etc. The Caluinists therefore err, who &c. take away that efficacy from the Absolution of the Minister of the word etc. contending that the Minister doth absolve only as a Messenger. And the like is answered by Althamerus and Hailbrunerus: and Sarcerius avoucheth that (15) Loc. come. de Confess fol. 28. It is false, that Confession which is made to God, doth take away private Confession. So impertinent and weak is this so often repeated Objection, being cleared by other most plain Scriptures, and rejected by Protestant writers. CHAP. XXV. The true State of the Question, concerning punishment to be suffered after Remission of the fault. Whether the fault of Sin, being pardoned by the Sacracrament of Penance, the punishment due to sin, is also always pardoned therewith: or whether the said punishment is not afterwards to be paid, or satisfied by Prayer, Fasting, and Alms, and the pains in Purgatory? SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. THE liberty of the new Gospel extending itself so fare as to the taking away of all punishment after the forgiveness of the fault: in condemnation thereof the Catholic Church teacheth, that In the (1) Conc. Trid. Sess. 6. Cap. 14. Penance of a Christian, there is not only contained cessation from sins, and detestation of them etc. but also Sacramental Confession etc. and Priestly Absolution; as also Satisfaction by Fasting, Alms, Prayer, and other pious Exercises of spiritual life, not for the Eternal pain which together with the fault is remitted by the Sacrament, or the desire thereof, but for the temporal punishment, which as the Scriptures teach, is not always wholly forgiven them, as it is in Baptism etc. And therefore she further Decreeth, that, (2) Sess. 6. Can. 30. If any shall say, that after the Grace of justification received, the fault and guilt of eternal punishment is so remitted to every Penitent sinner, that no guilt of temporal punishment remaineth to be paid either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory before he can come to Heaven, Anathema. In the Council Senonense it is decreed, that, (3) Decret. 12. The fault by Penance taken away, there doth often remain the guilt of temporal punishment, as certain relics of sins remaining, which are to be purged by fruits worthy of Penance; so that the iniquity and fault of sin forgiven, the sinner yet remaineth subject to temporal punishment. Agreably to these Counsels, (4) Bellar. de Poenitent. l. 4. c. 2. 3. Rhem. Test. in Hebr. 12.6. Catholics with one consent teach, that after the remission of the fault, there often remaineth the guilt of temporal punishment to be paid: And that the same may be satisfied by the good works of Prayer, Fasting, Alms, and the like. Points Disputable. Some (5) Tapperue in art. 6. Lovan. teach that the temporal punishment so remaining is the selfsame in kind with that which should have been paid in hell, and so is to be paid in Purgatory, if it be not redeemed in this life. (6) See Valent. Tom. 2. Disp. 6. Quaest. 17. Punct. 5. Others think it a pain of a different kind, which also may be paid in this life, according to the order prescribed, and appointed by God's Providence. Some (7) Palud. in 4 Dist. 15 q. 1 Conc. 7. Capreol. ead. Dist. Sylvester verbo, Satisfactio. think, that satisfaction done by a man that is not in state of grace, if the satisfaction be such as leaveth any effect behind it, as Alms, Fasting, and the like, that then it beginneth to be of force, when a man returneth to the grace of God. Others (8) Caiet. q. 2. de satisfact. think, that when satisfaction is imposed by a Priest by virtue of the keys, that then it reviveth, when the Penitent recovereth grace. But (9) A●rian in 4. q. 1. de satisfact. Sotus Dist. 19 q. 1. art. 5. others more probably teach, that, Satisfaction done in the state of sin, doth never after revive, or be of force, whether the satisfaction be imposed by a Priest, or leave any effect behind it. Some (10) S. Tho. Durand Palud. in 4. Dist. 15. teach, that Satisfaction is not duly made by works otherwise due: But (11) Adrian tract. de Poenit. Caiet. q. 1. de satisfact. others not improbably think the contrary. Some (12) Scotus, Gabriel. think, that the Penitent is not bound under sin to accept the Penance imposed by the Priest: but the common (13) S. Thom. and most others. opinion is to the contrary. Protestants Untruths. Protestants pretend that our Catholic Doctrine of Satisfaction is neither taught by the Scriptures, nor the Ancient Fathers. Luther saith, (14) In Assert. Art 5. Wherefore I said true, that this Arbitrary Satisfaction is neither found in Scriptures or Fathers etc. Melancthon following Luther affirmeth, (15) Apol. Confess. August. Art de Confess. & Satisfact. That all this of Satisfaction is false, and lately feigned without authority of scripture, and Ancient Ecclesiastical writers: And not Longobarde doth speak thus of Satisfaction etc. But that both Scriptures and Fathers do teach our Doctrine of Satisfaction, the two next Sections will abundantly prove. And as for Longobarde, Melancthon doth so foully belie him, as that he having proved from Scriptures and Father's Satisfaction, he concludeth thus, (16) Lib. 4. Sentent. distinct. 16. To do Penance it sufficeth not, to amend our manners, and to departed from evil deeds, unless for these which are done, God be satisfied by the sorrow of Penance, by the groans of humility, by the Sacrifice of a contrite hart, Alms working therewith. And this saying Longobard taken from (17) Lib. 50. homil. ho. 50. c. 15. S. Austin: so that we have both Longobard and S. Austin for Satisfaction to God. And by this may also Caluin be confuted, who affirmeth, that, (18) Instit. l. 3. c. 4. What Catholic writers bring from the Fathers for Satisfaction, is for the most part Canons, out of the absurd fooleries of Monks. Melancthon also avoucheth that Catholics, (19) In loc. come. tit de satisfact. do obscure the Gospel, because they feign eternal Death to be abolished by our Compensation: yea the unlearned do easily transfer Satisfactions also to the Remission of the fault. But this is so false, that this forgetful liar doth confute it himself in the same place saying, The Monks (meaning Catholic writers) here define Satisfaction to be works not due, wherewith they will have the pains of Purgatory to be redeemed, or certainly some other temporal punishments, for so they teach: God seeing he is merciful doth remit the fault: but seeing he is Just and a Revenger, doth change the pain Eternal, into the temporal of Purgatory: Than they add, part of these punishments to be remitted by the Power of the keys; Part to be redeemed with Satisfactions. So that according to our Doctrine, Eternal punishment is remitted by Christ's mercy and merits, and the temporal, by our Satisfactions, which also have their virtue and value by the Grace of Christ, and his mercy and merits. Protestant Doctrine. The Protestant Church is in so great dislike of Satisfaction and doing of Penance, as that the very name thereof is hateful unto them. Luther saith, (20) In assert. art. 5. I do much hate, and would have the word Satisfaction taken away, which not only is not found in the Scriptures, but hath a dangerous sense, as though man could satisfy God for any sin, when he forgiveth all gratis. The Papists, saith (21) Instit. l. 3. c. 4. §. 15. Caluin, assign the third place of satisfaction in Penance, whereof whatsoever they babble may in one word be overthrown. They say, it sufficeth not a Penitent man to abstain from sins past, unless he satisfy God for them which are committed: and that there are many helps whereby thou mayest redeem sins, as tears, fasting, works of Charity etc. To such lies, I oppose the free remission of sins, than which nothing is preached more clear in the Scriptures. Beza, (22) In Mat. 6.12. The opinion of the Sophisters thinking sin to be forgiven, the pain reserved, is not only false, but idle and foolish. And the same is taught by many other Protestants. Protestant Errors. Bullinger, (23) De justif. serm. 6. fol. 17. What had Christ bestowed upon us, if (temporal) punishment should be yet exacted for our sins? as though Remission of the fault, & of the eternal punishment were not great benefits bestowed by Christ. SECT. II. It is proved by Scriptures, that temporal punishment often remaineth to be paid after the fault is remitted: And that the said Punishment may be taken away by the good works of Prayer, Fasting, Alms, and the like. THe Scriptures do afford us several Examples, where death itself hath been inflicted upon sinners for punishment of their sins; the fault being pardoned: so to Adam God said, (1) Gen. 3.17.19. Because thou etc. hast eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat, cursed is the Earth in thy work; with much toiling shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life etc. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread, till thou return to earth: whereof saith S. Paul, (2) Rom. 5. 2●. As by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death, and so unto all men death did pass, in which all sinned. Here Prot. do not deny that Death is a Punishment of original Sin, and yet many die to whom Original Sin is forgiven; wherefore punishment remaineth after the fault is remitted. Some reply, that death is inflicted not for punishment, but for the Exercise of virtue. But this is clearly false in Infants, that die presently after Baptism, to whom Original sin is forgiven, and yet by reason of their Infancy, they cannot practise any virtues, and yet in punishment of sin they are taken away before they come to years of Discretion. And not only death, but also sickness and pains Children often endure, which are also punishments of Original sin, which can nothing profit them to prevent sins to come, or for the Exercise of virtue. When the Children of Israel had sinned, and Moses prayed for them, whereupon our Lord said, (3) Numer. 14.20.22. I have forgiven it according to thy word; yet he addeth withal their temporal Punishment, saying, But yet all the men that &c. have tempted me etc. neither have obeyed my voice, they shall not see the land for the which I swore to their Fathers: but (4) Ver. 32.33.34. your Carcases shall lie in the wilderness: Your Children shall wander in the Desert 40. years, and shall bear your fornications etc. 40. years, you shall receive your iniquities, and shall know my revenge. Again, although at their first passage out of Egypt they committed horrible (5) Exod. 3●. 1.4.8. Idolatry, and were pardoned (6) Exod. 32.11.14. thereof at the Instance of Moses, their Punishment yet of the said sin is signified in these worde●: (7) Ver. 34.35. I in the day of revenge will visit this sin also of theirs: our Lord therefore smote the people for the fault concerning the Calf: So likewise (8) Deut. 32.51.52. Num. 20 24. Moses and Aaron, though their incredulity was pardoned, yet were they afterwards punished with death before the Israelites entrance into the land of Promise. Here the sins are said to be forgiven, and yet the Sinners after punished for the same. Though David so repent him (9) 2 Reg. 12.13.14. of his Adultery & murder, that the Prophet said to him, Our Lord hath taken away thy sin: but yet it was added, Nevertheless because thou hast made the Enemies of our Lord to blaspheme, for this thing the Son that is borne to thee, dying shall die. And though David's (10) 2. Reg. 24.10.12.13. 1. Paral. 22.8.10.12. hart struck him after the people was numbered; and David said to our Lord, I have sinned very much in this fact, but I pray thee Lord transfer the iniquity of thy Servant: yet for punishment he was to make choice of famine, war, or Pestilence. Add yet hereunto that the same K. David expresseth this answerable concourse of God's justice and mercy in pardoning, and withal punishing the sins of the Elect, saying, (11) Ps. 88.37.33.34. If they shall profane my justices, and not keep my Commandments: I will visit their iniquities with a rod, and their sins with stripes; But my mercy I will not take away from him. Caluin and Fulke answer to the foresaid Examples of God's punishments, that, (12) Inst. l. 3. c. 4. sect. 31. 35. Fulke ag. Pu●gat. p. 41. 49 God did them not to revenge or punish, but rather to teach and admonish us to be more wary afterwards, in avoiding sin to come. But this Evasion is idle, for first in the Example of Adam's punishment by Corporal death, the same was inflicted upon him, not only for his admonition against sin to come (for how could the Admonition against sin to come take place with him after his death?) but as punishment before hand appointed in penalty of his offence afterwards committed, accordingly as it was said, (13) Gen. 2.17. In what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death. And, (14) Gen. 3.17. because thou hast eaten of the tree, cursed is the Earth for thy sake. In the Example likewise of David, his punishment is said to be, Because thou hast made the Enemies of our Lord to blaspheme, for this thing thy son shall die. Also, the Israelites punishment was first conceived in (15) Ex. 32.10.12. fury and anger and their sin threatened to be afterwards. (16) Ex. 32.34. Visited in the day of revenge etc. for the fault concerning the Calf which Aaron had made. Lastly Moses and Aaron who both died in God's favour, for their Incredulity being punished by death, and so prevented for entering the land of Promise, could not have this Punishment for any Admonition after their death, but it was done in justice and judgement, as the Prophet expresseth saying, (17) Ps. 98.8. God thou wast propitious to them, and taking vengeance upon all their Inventions. S. Paul speaking of the Incestuous Corinthian, (18) 1. Cor. 5.3. appointeth to deliver such an one to Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord jesus Christ. These words cannot be referred to remission of the fault, but to some temporal punishment, to be paid, the fault remitted; for not by death but by Penance we obtain pardon of our deadly sins: Also in that he further saith, (19) 2. Cor. 2.10. Whom you have pardoned any thing, I also, for myself also that which I pardoned, if I pardoned any thing for you in the person of Christ: these words cannot concern the remission of the fault, seeing that was pardoned (20) 2. Cor. 2.7. before by his great sorrow; but only of the temporal punishment which was imposed in the name of Christ. This truth (21) In 2. Cor. 2. Caluin dareth not deny, nor (22) Beda Ib. Beza, who confesseth that the pardon of this rigour, was afterwards called Indulgence. Now, that this punishment may be taken away by works of Satisfaction and Pennance, it appeareth clearly by sundry Texts of Scripture; as where it is said, (23) Dan. 4.24. Redeem thy sins with Alms, and thine Iniquities with the mercies of the poor. (24) Prou. 26.6. By mercy and truth iniquity is redeemed. Here the word Redeem, is certainly equivalent to satisfy; and Redemption doth as much belong to justice as Satisfaction: wherefore if it were untrue or absurd to say, we satisfy by works, than the like were to be said of Redeeming by works. And doubtless all Prot. would take it more heinously to have men called in any sense Redeemers, than Satisfiers; Wherefore seeing the Scriptures affirm that sins are redeemed by works, in the like sense we may say, that they are satisfied by works. Neither will it avail to say with Caluin, (25) Instit. l. 3 c. 4. §. 30. that this Redemption was of the debt due to men, as to restore what he had unjustly taken away: for it is clear by the text, that the chief sin for the which he was to be punished, was pride, for having said, (26) Dan. 4.27. Is not this Babylon the great City which I have built to be the house of the kingdom in the strength of my power, and in the glory of my beauty? Immediately it followeth, And when the word was yet in the king's mouth, a voice came down from heaven etc. Thy kingdom shall pass from thee, and from men they shall cast thee out etc. till thou know, that the High one ruleth in the kingdom of men, and to whomsoever he will, he giveth it. And so accordingly when he was restored to his senses, he (27) Dan. 4.31. presently praised and glorified God. Besides though the king sinned in Injustice towards men, yet certainly he had many other sins, all which Daniel advised him to redeem with Alms, according to that elsewhere, (28) Tob. 4.11. Alms delivereth from all Sin and from Death. And, (29) Luc. 11.41. give Alms, and behold all things are clean unto you. This place of Daniel is so clear, that Prot: for their last shift corrupt the Text, translating it thus, (30) Engl. Bib. of 1578. Break of thy sins by righteousness, whereas the Greek hath most literally, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, redeem with Alms: And the Chaldee, as Munster confesseth, signifieth rather and more principally to redeem: And lastly, that which they translate righteousness, in the Scriptures signifieth also Alms, as the Greek Interpreters translate it, and is most plain, where our Saviour saith, (31) Mat. 6. 1● Beware you do not your justice before men, which is in other Greek Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, alms: Yea Beza himself teacheth, that, (32) Annot. in Mat. 6.1. by the name of justice with the Hebrews, is also signified beneficence, or beneficialnes to the poor: and that in this place of Daniel it is specially taken for Alms. God himself speaking of a perfect cleansing from all sin saith, (33) Isa 1.16.17.18. Wash you, be clean, take away the evil of your cogitations from mine eyes, cease to do perversely, learn to do good, seek judgement, secure the oppressed, judge for the Pupil, defend the widow; And come and accuse me, saith our Lord, If your sins shallbe as scarlet, they shallbe made white as snow; and if they be read as vermilion, they shallbe white as wool. Here this full remission is not granted to those that only repent and believe, but withal they must exercise themselves in many good works. Lastly all such texts as teach, that the works of the just are meritorious of life everlasting do confirm this truth, for if they have that Efficacy truly and properly to merit life Eternal, it cannot be denied but that they are also Efficacious to satisfy for temporal punishment. Glory eternal being a fare greater matter than the remission of temporal punishment. But of this I shall hereafter have occasion to speak more at large. SECT. III. That the Fathers do expound the Scriptures in proof of Punishment remaining after the fault pardoned: And that the said Punishment is paid by works of Penance. THe foresaid Scriptures are answerably expounded by the Ancient Fathers: so Blessed David (saith S. Cyril) (1) Catech. 2. Hilar. in ps. 118. forbeared not from Penance although he had heard that our Lord had transferred his sin: but instead of Purple he used Sackcloth, and in place of a golden throne, the king sat upon the Earth, and in ashes: neither did he only sit in ashes but also did eat them, even as himself saith, I did eat ashes as bread: he revenged with tears his coveting eye, saying, I will every night wash my b●d and I will water my Couch with tears: when the Princes entreated him to eat bread, he would not be persuaded, and continued his f●st, even until the seaventh day. S. Chrisostome expounding S. Paul, saith, (2) Ho. 42. in Math. Harken to Paul saying, If we would judge ourselves we should not be judged. But thou wilt say, how may I exact account and punishment of myself? powre out great floods of tears, afflict thyself with labours & watchings, remember thy sins of all kinds. The wounds, saith (3) Epitome diuin. Decr. c. de Poenitentia. Theodoret) which are made after Baptism, are curable; but curable, not pardon given by only faith, but by many tears, weeping, sorrow, fasting, prayer, and labour answerable to the greatness of the sin committed. S. Hierome teacheth that, (4) Ep. 30. ad Ocean. c. 2. Peter blotted out his threefold denial, by his threefold Confession. Aaron's Sacrilege etc. his Brother's prayers corrected. Seven days hunger amended David's etc. murder and Adultery; he lay upon the Earth, he was rolled in Ashes, and forgetful of his kingly power he sought light in darkness, and looking only upon him whom he had offended, with a crying voice he said, To thee only have I sinned. But none is more full herein then S. Austin, (5) Ho. vlt. inter 50. bo. c. 5. It is not sufficient to amend your manners, and to give over evil deeds, unless for these which are done God be satisfied by the grief of Penance, by the groaning of humility, by the Sacrifice of a Contrite hart, Alms cooperating. For blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. It is not said, that ye only abstain from sins, but for (6) Eccles. 21.1. the sins past pray our Lord that they may be forgiven thee. Again, (7) Admetus ps. 50. ask mercy, but attend justice: mercy is, that he pardon a sinner, justice is, that he punish sin. What then? thou seekest mercy, will thy sin remain unpunished? Let David answer, let those which are fallen answer, let them answer with David, that they may deserve mercy as David, and let them say, my sin, O Lord shall not be unpunished, I have known his justice whose mercy I seek, it shall not be unpunished: but therefore I will not that thou punish me, because I punish my sin. With S. Austin agreeth S. Gregory saying, (8) Mor. l. 9 c. 17. Our Lord doth not spare the sinner, because he leaveth not the sin without revenge; for either the man penitent punisheth it in himself, or God revenging it with man striketh etc. So David after his Confession deserved to hear, Our Lord hath transferred thy sin, and yet afflicted afterwards with many punishments, and flying, he paid the guilt of fault which he had committed. God endeavoureth with temporal affliction to wipe from his Elect the spots of their sins, which he will not revenge in them for ever. According to S. Cyprian, (9) Serm de opere & ●leemos. the holy Ghost speaketh in the Scriptures and saith, with Alms and faith sins are purged, not those sins which were contracted before (Baptism) for those are purged by the Blood and Satisfaction of Christ. But the Fathers are so clear for Satisfaction and Pennance, as D. Whitaker affirmeth, that they (10) Cont. Camp. rat. 5. p. 78. Thought by their external Discipline of life to pay the pains due for sins, and to satisfy Gods justice. And that, (11) Ibid. rat. 5. p. 78. Not Cyprian only, but almost all the most holy Fathers of that time were in that Error. The Cen●uristes speaking of the third Age, relate that, (12) Cent. 3. Col. 1.7. Of those who so confessed little sins, their life also was looked into, and judged, whether they had done just Penance, as it appeareth in the third Book and 16. Epist. of Cyprian: that also accustomed Penance was imposed upon them according to their fault, is to be seen in his 5. Sermon de lapsis. Tertullian also mentioneth the same in his Book de Poenitentia. And, (13) Ibid. Col. 81. Most of the writers of this age did strangely deprave the Doctrine of Penance. Caluin also doth so much dislike the Father's Doctrine of Satisfaction, as that he writeth thus, (14) Inst. l. 3. c. 4. §. 38. Chemnit. in Exam. part. 2. p. 1082. & p. 306. Little do those things move me, which every where occur in the writings of the Ancient concerning Satisfaction: I see some of them, I will speak simply, Almost all whose Books are extant, either to have erred in this, or to have spoken over sharply and severely. So Confessed it is, that the Ancient Fathers taught our Doctrine of Satisfaction and Pennance. SECT. iv That Protestants do agreed with Catholics, in teaching that Punishment often remaineth to be paid for sin, the fault being remitted: and that the same punishment may be satisfied by good works. THe great Divine of Scotland john Knox contesteth, & collecteth from the foresaid Scriptures, that the sins of such as are Elect, and therefore freed from Hell punishment, are nevertheless yet temporally punished, and that not for Admonition only against sin to come, but in God's justice and hatred to the said sins already past: to this end he saith, (1) Answ. against the Adversaries of God's Predest. p. 215. We protest and acknowledge, that sin is so odious to God, that he never suffereth the same unpunished, in any of his Elect Children. And, (2) Ib. p. 216. we preach, write and maintain, that sin was so odious before God, that his justice could do no other, but inflict upon Adam and his Posterity the penalty of Corporal Death, the punishments and plagues, which daily do apprehended God's Children: that upon David he did execute his just judgement, which in these words he pronounced, Now therefore the sword shall never departed from thy house; with sundry other Scriptures by him alleged to the same effect. And yet it is certain, that the fault of Adam, and David's sins were forgiven them. Gaspar Olevianus affirmeth that, (3) In symbolum Apost. p. 8. God is so just, and sin so great an evil, that he doth not then approve sins when he hath pardoned them, and that he may show this, he also after the remission in those that are converted, punisheth them with most sharp whips, as in David etc. Melancthon (4) Acta Colloq. Regenspurg. p. 111. in the name of all the Protestants, (5) Ib. p 82. who stood to the Confession of Auspurg, teacheth that, (6) Ib. p. 130. The offences of the converted persons are punished with certain peculiar pains, as was David's Adultery: and that these pains are (7) Ib. p. 133. And see Melancth. loc. come. de bonis oper. p. 158. In Concil. Theol. p. 547. And loc. come. de Satisfac. p. 241. mitigated through good works. Sarcerius teacheth not only (8) Loc. come. Tom, de Poenit. fol. 276. temporal pains, but also the mitigation of them by good works. And here withal agreeth the Confession of Auspurg teaching that, (9) Harm. of Confess. p. 219. Sins are punished even by Temporal punishment in this life, as David, Manasses, and many others were punished: and we teach that these punishments may be mitigated by good works, and the whole practice of Repentance, as Paul declareth, If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged of the Lord. And repentance deserved (that is obtained) that God should altar his purpose touching the Destruction of Ninive. And, (10) Ib. p. 124. We are of that mind, that the calamities of this life may be assuaged by good works, as Esay teacheth, Chap. 58, Break thy bread unto the hungry, and the Lord shall give thee rest continually. The Confession of Saxony doth distinguish between (*) Harm. of Confess. p. 235. eternal Punishment, and the Punishment of this life: affirming further that, The temporal punishments are mitigated even for the very Conversions sake. Of the like judgement also is Peter (11) Com. plac. in Eng. part. 3. c. 4. p. 114. Martyr. And the Confession of Wittenberg doth upon this ground acknowledge, (12) Harm. of that the Saints have CHAP. XXVI. The true State of the Question, concerning Indulgences. Whether the Church of Christ hath Authority to grant Indulgences or Pardons for the temporal punishment due to sin, the fault being formerly pardoned by the Sacrament of Penance. SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. PROTESTANTS denying any punishment to remain the fault being pardoned, do consequently affirm all Indulgences to be superfluous: as also that the Church hath no authority to grant them: But in Confutation hereof the Church hath Decreed, that, (1) Concil. Trid. Sess. 25. Decret. de Indulgentijs. Seeing the power of giving Indulgences is granted by Christ to the Church; and this power given her by God she hath used in most Ancient times; The Sacred Synod teacheth and commandeth that the use of Indulgences most profitable to Christian people, and approved by the authority of holy Counsels, be ever kept in the Church: And it accurseth them who either affirm, that they are unprofitable, or deny that in the Church there is power to grant them. Yet in the granting of them, it desireth moderation to be used according to the Ancient and allowed Custom in the Church; jest by overmuch facility Ecclesiastical Discipline be weakened. And desiring that the abuses which have crept in them, and by occasion whereof this worthy name of Indulgences by heretics is blasphemed, may be amended and corrected; by this present Decree it generally desires, that all wicked gains for the obtaining of them, from whence much cause of abuses in Christian people hath flowed, be utterly abolished. And the rest which have come by superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or otherwise howsoever, seeing for the manifold corruptions of the places and Provinces where these are committed, they fitly cannot be particularly prohibited, it commandeth all Bishops that every one diligently gather the abuses of his Church, and that he make them known in the first Provincial Council: that being tried also by the judgement of the other Bishopt, they may forthwith be made known to the B. of Rome, by whose authority and wisdom that may be ordained, which willbe expedient for the universal Church: that so the benefit of holy Indulgences may piously, godly, & purely be bestowed upon all the faithful. It was ordained in the Council of Arles: (2) Conc. 2. Arelat. cap 10. Of those who have transgressed in persecution, if they have voluntarily denied their faith, the Nicene Council hath Decreed this of them, that they shall spend 5. years among the Catechumen, and 2. amongst those that do Communicate etc. yet it shallbe in the power and liberty of the Bishop, that if he see them bewail their error from their hart, & do Penance, by Ecclesiastical favour he may receive them to Communion. In the fourth Lateran Council it is granted, that, (3) Conc. 4. Lateran. Cap. 3. Catholics etc. who shall prepare themselves for the banishment of Heretics, shall enjoy that Indulgence etc. which is granted to them that go to the aid of the holy land, which is a Plenary. And it is evident, that Indulgences have been actually given by several General (4) Conc. Claramont. teste S. Anton. 1. part. Hist. tit. 16. c. 1. Conc. Lateran. Constantiense. Trident. Counsels. And (5) Bellar. de Indulg. l. 1. c. 1. etc. Rhem. Test. in 2. Cor. 2.10. Catholics now believe that to remit the temporal Punishment or chastisement due to sinners after the offence itself and the guilt thereof be forgiven of God, is an Indulgence or Pardon: And that God hath given to the Pastors of the Church power and authority to give the same. Points Disputable. Some (6) Durand. in 4. Dist. 20. q. 3. Palud in. Ib. q. 4. Antonin. in. 1. par. Sum. tit. 10. c. 3. Catholic writers teach, that Indulgences are only a payment or recompense of punishment taken out of the treasure of the merits of Christ, and his Saints, and applied by authority of the Pope. (7) Dom. Soto in 4. Dist. 21. q. 1. art. 2. Bonavent. in 4. Dist. 20. p. 2. q. 5. Others think, that it is not only a payment, but likewise a juridical Absolution. Some (8) Pet. à Soto, lect. 2. de Indulg. teach, that Indulgences are granted only for punishments imposed. (9) Tho. in 4. Dist. 20. q. 1. art. 3. sylvest verbo Indulg. q. 2. n. 1. Others better think, that they do extend to all punishments due in the sight of God. Some (10) Dom. à Soto. in 4. Dist. 21. q. 1. art. 4. Navarre, de jubil. notab. 21. n. 2. think that a general Council without the Pope may give Plenary Indulgences: But (11) Bellar. l. 1. de Indulg. c. 11. others more probably deny it, and ascribe the same only to the Pope. Some (12) S. Tho. in 4. Dist. 20. q. 1. art. 3. Antonin. 1. part. tit. 10. c. 3. §. 1. think, that no proportion is required between the Indulgence, and the Cause, for the grant thereof, so that the cause be truly pious, and not merely temporal or vain. (13) S. Bonau. in 4. Dist. 20. par. 2 q. vlt. Caiet. tract. de causa Indulg. Navar. de jubil. notab. 5. n. 3. Others more probably think, that the Indulgence is not of force, if there be not observed proportion, as if for the smallest cause, the greatest Indulgence should be granted. Some (14) Caiet. tract. 10. q. 2. tract. 15. c. 9 Pet. à Soto. ●c● 〈◊〉 de Indulg. teach, that to gain an Indulgence a man must be in the state of grace, not only when he receiveth the Indulgence, but also when he performeth the satisfactory works imposed for the same. Others (15) S. Antonin 1. part. tit 10. c 3. §. 5. Palud. in 4. Dist. 29. q. 4. art. 3. think, that the state of grace is only required when the Indulgence is to be received. Some (16) Dom. à Soto in 4. Di●t. 21. q. 2. art. 3. Navar. de jubil. notab. 22. n. 20. teach, that Indulgences profit the dead of justice, and of condignity. (17) Caiet. tract. 16. q. 5. Pet. à Soto. lect. 3. de Indulg. Others only of God's bounty and congruity. But these and sundry such like, are not defined by the Church. Protestants Untruths. Caluin very boldly saith of Catholics, (18) Instit, l. 4. c. 9 n. 41. Let them acknowledge whether these be their Decrees; Martyrs by their Death to have performed more to God, and merited, then was needful for them: and so great plenty of merits to have abounded to them which might redound to others: Jest therefore so great a good should be in vain, their blood to be mingled with the blood of Christ, and of both, the treasure of the Church to be made, for remission and satisfaction sins. By these imputations we acknowledge, that Caluin was either very ignorant, or impudent, or both: for our Decrees truly are, 1. Martyrs by their death have not performed more to God then was absolutely needful for themselves, but more than was needful to satisfaction for the guilt of their temporal punishment. 2. Though we acknowledge satisfaction in some Saints to abound, yet we deny it of their merits, or that their merits do redound to others. 3. The Passions of Saints are not mingled with the Passions of Christ in the Treasure, as though these of themselves were not sufficient to take away all pain eternal and temporal, and all fault original and actual, mortal and venial; but that thereby the excellencies of Christ's suffering might be showed, which was able to communicate to others the virtue and power of satisfaction for temporal punishment. 4. The Passions of Saints not absolutely but as they are satisfactory, would be without fruit, if neither themselves had need of them, neither could be applied to others, though they be otherwise always of great worth in regard of God's glory, honour to the Martyrs, and profit or example to the Church. Heshussius Desexcentis erroribus ●ont●ficiorum. tit. 31. chargeth Popes to forgive sins, and grant Indulgences for money. But Popes never require money for Indulgences or Pardons, but only command those who desire to have the Indulgences, to pray, fast, and give Alms, either to the Poor in general, or to some pious use, as building a Church, or the like. Chemnitius (20) Exam. part 4. p. 218. avoucheth us to teach, that the temporal 〈…〉 That we ma● be 〈…〉 washed in vain, 〈…〉 de 〈…〉 rem. Au●●or vitae S. Bernardi. l. 1. c. 4. Abbas Vrsperg. in Chron. Ludgerus in vita S. Suibert. for corruptible gold and silver 〈…〉 and works, may and will ●a●e v●, 〈◊〉 we will ●hat ●epenta●●● 〈…〉 of necessity unto salvation of man; for without the same a Popi h ●don may save: But without either a Pardon from the Pope 〈◊〉 ●u●● 〈◊〉 or Absolution of a Priest, there is no salvation, by the Doctrine of 〈◊〉 Church of Rome: or else Rogers lieth, as he doth most ●ou●●, Catholics holding the direct contrary to all that he ●eer ascribeth unto them: (24) Def. of the Art art. 22. p. 123. so ignorant, or maliciously wicked i● this Minister. Protestant Doctrine. The English Protestant Church hath Decreed, that, (25) Article 22. The Romish Doctrine concerning etc. Pardons etc. is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warrant of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God. Luther affirmeth that, (29) Indulgences are the most wicked deceits, (26) Art 18. à Leone 10. damnat. and Impostures of most wicked Popes. Caluin professeth, (27) Instit. l. 3. c. 9 §. 39 Indulgences even cleaned from all spot, that is, if they be defiled with no abuse, to be nothing else but the profanation of Christ's Blood, and the mockery of Satan, wherewith they withdraw Christian people from the Grace of God, and from life which is in Christ jesus, and avert them from 〈…〉 FOr the clearer proceeding in this Controversy, we are ●●●st to know, that Indulgences are remissions o● Pardons of the punishments which often remain to be paid after forgiveness of the fault and reconciliation obtained by the Sacrament of Penance: having proved heretofore that punishment often remaineth to be paid after the fault be forgiven, I must yet before I come to the main question confirm certain truths, which will much avail for the better understanding thereof. As first, that in the actions of the just a double valour or worth may be assigned, to wit, of merit and satisfaction. Alms giving for example doth merit, seeing Christ said, (1) Mat. 25.34. & 6.4. Possess you the kingdom prepared for you etc. For I was hungry and you gave me to eat etc. And it doth also satisfy, in that it taketh away sin, (2) Luc. 11.41. Give Alms, and behold all things are clean to you. (3) Tob. 4.11. Alms delivereth from all sin. (4) Eccl. 3.33. Water quencheth burning fire, and Alms resisteth sins. And so the same work is meritorious, as it is a good work done in Charity, and it is satisfactory, in that it is laborious and painful. The like might be exemplified in Fasting (5) jonas. 3.7.10. & Mat. 6.18. and (6) Mat. 6.6.12. Prayer. The second truth is, that a good work in what respect it is meritorious, it cannot be applied to others, but as it is satisfactory it may. The first part is clear, for he is said to merit who doth good, and by his good is worthy of reward; but it cannot be said because one doth well, therefore another doth well, or is worthy of reward. Again no man can be deprived of his own merit, though he pray, fast, & give Alms for others, wherefore he cannot communicate his merit with others. And this is that which the Scriptures teach when they say, (7) 1. Cor. 3.8. Every one shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. The second part is also proved, for satisfaction is a releasing of the Punishment, or paying of the debt: now, one may so satisfy for another man's punishment and pay his debt, that he may truly be said to have satisfied and paid. Again, he that satisfyeth for another, cannot by the same work satisfy for himself, therefore he truly communicateth his Satisfaction with another. A friend may with his own money so satisfy another man's debt, that it will not serve also to pay his own: but he cannot by his own good works deserve, that another shallbe worthy of some great Office or Magistracy, which otherwise he were not worthy of. But in further proof that the works of the just may help others by way of impetration and satisfaction; it is to be remembered, that as God in his justice, doth punish some for the offences of others, and visiteth (9) Exod. 20.5. the sins of wicked Parents upon their Children to many generations; so likewise his mercy being answerable to his justice, and above (10) Ps. 144.9. all his works, he spareth some for the good deeds of others. Examples in these kinds may be, how God said to Solomon (11) 3. Reg. 11.11.12. when he had sinned. I will rend asunder thy kingdom etc. Nevertheless in thy days I will not do it because of David thy Father. So also when Abias' had offended. God was merciful unto him. (12) 3. Reg. 15.4.5. for David's sake etc. because David had done right in the eyes of our Lord. God protesteth his mercy to Isaac, (13) Gen. 26.5. because Abraham had obeyed (his) voice and kept (his) Precepts. And (14) Gen. 18.26. If I shall find in Sodom 50. just persons within the City, I will spare the whole place for their sake. S. Paul persuadeth the rich Corinthians to relieve liberally the poor Christians in Jerusalem, saying, (15) 2. Cor. 8.14. Let in this present time your abundance supply their want; that their abundance also may supply your want, that there be an equality. So plainly doth he teach, that the Satisfactory Deeds of one man, may be available to others: yea, and that holy Saints, or virtuous persons may in measure and proportion of other men's necessities and deservings, allot unto them, aswell the Supererogation of their spiritual works, as these that abound in worldly goods may give alms of the superfluities to them which are in necessity: which interchange, communion, and proportion of things the Apostle doth here evidently set down. The third truth to be proved is this, In the Church there is an infinite treasure of satisfactions from the sufferings of Christ, which can never be spent. Christ his Passion being the Passion of an Infinite person was of infinite value, but the worth of Satisfaction receiveth its measure from the worth of the person satisfying, even as the greatness of offence is measured by the worth of the person offended: therefore Christ his Passion or Satisfaction was of infinite value. Again, Christ suffered for all men (as is proved (16) See Hereafter chap. 30. elsewhere) but it is more than certain, that to all those who have hitherto lived, Christ his sufferings have not been actually applied for the pardon of their sins, the greater part being damned; wherefore much of that price remaineth, which may always be applied, though it were not infinite, as indeed it is: And this the rather, seeing all the Satisfaction of Christ may be applied to us, himself never sinning, needing no satisfaction for himself. The fourth truth; To this Treasure of superaboundant Satisfactions, belong also the sufferings of the B. V Mary, and of all other Saints, who have suffered more than their sins required. Supposing first, that Satisfaction for the fault and guilt of eternal punishment is not made by the suffering of any Saints, but only by the Blood and suffering of Christ, the foresaid truth concerning the B. Virgin Mary is proved, in that according to the uniform doctrine of the Church, (17) Conc. Trid. Sess. 6. Can. 23. Ambr. ser. vlt. in ps. 118. Aug l. de Nat. & Gra. c. 36 Bern. Ep. 174. she never committed the lest actual Sin, and therefore to her most aptly are applied those words, (18) Cant. 4.7. Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee: wherefore she needed not any satisfaction for herself, and yet she suffered much for God, and especially when according to S. Simeons' prophecy, (19) Luc. 2.35. a sword should pierce her soul. The like might be showed of S. john Baptist, who from his mother's womb was sanctified, living after most austerely, and suffering imprisonment, and death. As also of the Prophets, who being most holy men, yet (20) Heb. 11.32. suffered exceeding much: In so much as one of them said, (21) joh. 6.1. Would god my sins were weighed whereby I have deserved wrath, & the calamity which I suffer, in a balance. As the sand of the sea this would appear heavier. S. Paul reciteth (22) 2. Cor. 11.23. etc. And 2. Cor. 1.5.8. his many and most grievous sufferings, and yet how little he had to satisfy for his sins, himself testifieth, saying, (23) 1. Cor. 4.4. I am not guilty in Conscience of any thing. And. (24) 2. Cor. 1.12. Our glory is this, the testimony of our Conscience, that in simplicity and sincerity of God etc. We have conversed in this world. And he particularly (25) 1. Cor. 4.9. etc. numbereth the like sufferings of all the Apostles, who no doubt lived most holy lives. And the like might be said of Martyrs, and holy Confessors. These truths supposed, I am now to prove that in the Church there is power to apply the foresaid treasure to such as have need thereof. And first that the said treasure may be applied, it appeareth by the Article of Communion of Saintes, for thereby we are taught, that all the faithful are each others (26) Rom. 12.5. 1. Cor. 12.11. members, and as it were one lively Body: and as the lively members do help one another, so the faithful do Communicate their goods each to other, specially when those that are superfluous to one, are necessary, or very profitable to another. The same is also proved from the words of S. Paul, (27) 1. Cor. 12.15. I most gladly will bestow, and will myself moreover be bestowed for your souls. (28) 2. Tim. 2.10. I sustain all things for the Elect. (29) Col. 1.24. I rejoice in suffering for you, and do accomplish those things that want of the Passions of Christ in my flesh, for his Body which is the Church. Though these texts may be so expounded, as that S Paul suffered much for the Elect, and the Church, because he exposed himself to many dangers and labours that he might preach unto them, and that by his example he might strengthen the weak, and encourage others: yet it may also be truly understood of the Communicarion of his sufferings or satisfactions, for these senses do not impugn one another, but may be all admitted. The Apostle desired to profit the faithful by all ways he could, now he might greatly profit them by communicating his Passions, which were superaboundant to him, as I have formerly showed, therefore no doubt by this way he did, help them. And so by suffering he fulfilled those things, which were wanting of the Passions of Christ, that is, such as Christ in his Saints was yet to suffer for the Body of his Church. Now, that this Treasure is to be dispensed and applied by the Church's Pastors, it appeareth by these words of Christ to S. Peter, (30) Mat. 16.19. whatsoever thou shalt lose in Earth, it shallbe loosed also in the heavens; and these also to all the Apostles, (31) Mat. 18.18. Whatsoever you shall lose upon Earth, shallbe loosed also in heaven. These promises are most ample, general, and not restrained only to sins, as these others are, (32) Io. 20.23. whose sins you shall forgive etc. but they include all Bonds which may hinder the attaining of Eternal Salvation, as absolving from censures, dispensing in laws, vows, oaths, upon just occasion. According to this we read, that S. Paul himself gave Indulgence to the Incestuous Corinthian, saying, (33) 2. Cor. 2.10. Whom you have pardoned any thing, I also: for myself also that which I pardoned; If I pardoned any thing for you, in the person of Christ, that we be not circumvented of Satan. The Incestuous Corinthian being (34) 1. Cor. 5.3. excommunicated, and put to Penance by S. Paul, here at the entreaty of S. Timothy, and S. Titus (as Theodoret thinketh) as also upon his own serious repentance, was by S. Paul absolved, and the rest of his Penance pardoned: which S. Paul professeth to do in the person of Christ that is, by authority received from him. Reason also confirmeth this, for in every well governed Commonwealth, it belongeth to the Prince, and his chief Magistrates to dispense the Common treasures or goods: And it also belongeth to them to admit the satisfaction of one for another, when they shall judge it profitable for the Kingdom: wherefore the like is also to be granted to the Church. SECT. III. That the Ancient Fathers do agreed with Catholics in the Doctrine of Indulgences. M. Bell acknowledgeth, that (1) Survey of Popery part 3. c. 11. Pardons sealed with lead, called the Pope's Bulls, were granted by Pope Adrian, Anno 772. The Prot. writer M. Symonds confesseth that (2) Upon the Revel. p. 84. S. Gregory remitted Canonical Penance, and promised clean remission of sins to such as frequented Churches on set days. Bale affirmeth that, (3) In Act. Rom. Pont. p. 46. 47. Gregory confirmed by Indulgences Pilgrimages to Images for the Devotion of the people: And that he was a defendor of Pardons, yet not a seller; As also that he first granted Pardons for set days, and to such as visited Churches. In like manner Pantaleon avoucheth of him that, (4) Chronogr. p. 48. He first granted Pardon of sins to the people visiting Churches upon set days, in Decret. and in 3 Psal. Paenit. Hieronymus Mar●us thinketh, tha● (5) In his Eusebius Captiws published by Pezelius, under the title of 1. Diei de Indulg. fol. 48. Gregory the 1 and Boniface the 8 were the chief Authors of Pardons. And the like is confessed of Saint Gregory by other (6) Cyprian Valera of the lives of Popes Englished p. 32. Humfred. in jesuit. part. 2. Rat. 5. p. 5. & 627. Prot. writers. But to clear S. Gregory of all Innovation in this point, the Centuristes acknowledge that S. chrysostom mentioneth (7) C●nt 5. c. 6. Col. 692. Days of Indulgence and Pardon. And D. Field confesseth that, (8) Of the Church. l. 1. c. 17 p. 33. The Ancient Bishops were wont to cut of great parts of enjoined Penance, which Remission was c●lled an Indulgence. Yea M. Nappier affirmeth, that, (9) Upon the Revel. p. 363. In the 10 Articles of the 1. Council of Nice are superstitious rites, even the observation of days, to wit, of Peace (or Indulgence) and superstitious Pennances. But to ascend yet higher, Tertullian in his Book de Pudicitia (written after he became an heretic) doth even by his impugning (10) L. de Pudic prope fin. of the Churches than practise in granting Indulgences upon the Martyr's Intercessions, give sufficient testimony to the Church's allowance thereof: whereto himself, in his other writings, when he was Catholic, giveth also his own (11) L. add Martyrs post initium allowance. As also doth Cyprian mentioning (12) L. 3. Ep. 15 16 18. & ser. de lapsis. Peace, or Indulgence given upon the Intercession of Martyrs, before the parties enjoined Penance was accomplished. And whereas it is proper to Catholic Doctrine to have no first beginning known thereof, unless we ascend to the Apostles and the Scriptures; Heresies always having their first author, time and place observed, and remembered; it is most certain that no man yet was ever able to name the first Author of Indulgences, or the place & time wherein it was first preached: yea all, whether Doctors, Popes, or Counsels, who make any mention thereof, do speak of it as a thing usual and received. And though Chemnitius would have it thought, that this our Doctrine of Indulgences, (13) Exam. part. 4. p. 73. had it beginning not long before the year of Christ 1200. yet this is clearly refelled by the former grants of other Protestants, for the much more ancient times of S. Gregory, S. Chrisostome, the council of Nice and Tertullian; as also by sundry (14) Ludgerus Ep. de S. Swiberto apud Surium. Tom. 2. Conc. Claromontanum apud Antonin. 2. part. hist. tit. 16. c. 1. § 23. Conc. Later. apud Vsperg. in Chron. 1116. writers and Counsels much ancient to the time prescribed of 1200. years. Whereas it is clear not only by all Catholic writers, but even by Chemnitius, that the Waldenses who lived about the year 1170. were (15) Exam. part. 4. p. 83. the first that impugned Indulgences. SECT. IU Protestant Writers teaching Indulgences. IOhn Husse being accused as an Impugner of Indulgences, ex●useth himself in these words, (1) Tom. 1. fol. 9 I am falsely accused to teach, that Indulgences were nothing. Yea I affirm, that, (2) Quaestione de Credere. fol. 170. The Pope who is the immediate Vicar of Christ hath authority to grant Indulgences etc. Luther himself granteth, that, (3) In Resolution●bus de Indulgentijs Indulgences do take away punishments imposed by Bishops, and holy Fathers etc. bishops and Curates are bound to admit with all reverence the Commissaries of Apostolical Pardons. So that according to these two prime Protestants, the Church hath authority to grant Indulgences. SECT. V Objections against Induldgences answered. MAny do (1) Roger's Def. of the Art art. 22. p. 123. object, that our Doctrine of Indulgences doth derogate from the sufficiency of Christ's Merits, Passion and Satisfaction, as though they without the Merits of Martyrs, Saints, and our own sufferings, were not sufficient to satisfy for the sins of the whole world, whereas the Scriptures every where testify, that Christ by his Blood satisfied for the sins of the whole world. Answ. All Catholics confess that Christ hath most fully satisfied for the sins of the world; but it doth not thence follow, that we are not to satisfy for the temporal punishment due unto our sins: even as it is most true, that Christ by his Blood merited for us grace and glory, and yet we must seek grace by faith and the Sacraments, and glory by striving and running for it. The reason hereof is, because the price of our Redemption and Satisfaction paid by Christ, profitteth only those to whom it is applied by certain means or Instruments: for no other cause can be alleged, why Pagans', Turks, and jews are not saved, seeing Christ died and satisfied for all. Now these means we affirm to be Faith, Baptism, Contrition, Confession and Satisfaction: Neither do we adjoin these means to Christ's Satisfaction, as though this of itself were not sufficient; but because it pleased him to give us this power to satisfy, that the Efficacy of his Blood might the more shine, when not only himself satisfied, but that he communicated the power of Satisfaction, for temporal punishment, to his members. Others object, that Durand and some other Catholic writers do acknowledge that the Doctrine of Indulgences is not to be found in the Scriptures. Answ. Though it be not taught in particular, and express words, which is all that Durand and others affirm, yet the grounds thereof I have formerly deduced out of the Scriptures. And though it were not at all in the Scriptures, yet thence it would not follow, that it were a Doctrine humane and only Ecclesiastical, seeing many articles are believed as divine, which are no where taught in the Scriptures, as hath been proved (2) See heretofore, chap. 7. heretofore. It is yet further urged that some Indulgences have been granted for 20000. years; whereas if any were to be punished so long in Purgatory, doubtless they were to be punished long after the day of judgement. Answ. Some think there were never any so granted by any Pope, but that they were forged by Officers for their profit: for Popes do but use to grant them for so many years, as Pennances were accustomed to be enjoined, which were for the most but for a man's life, which ordinarily is not above 100 years. But howsoever this be, it cannot be denied, but that according to the Canons some deserve Pennances for some thousands of years; for if for one mortal sin, the Canons do enjoin sometimes 3. years, sometimes 7. for punishment, who is able to number the years, which according to the Canons were to be enjoined to such as hourly swear, forswear, blaspheme, and frequently murder, rob etc. And therefore if Indulgences of many thousand years have been granted by any Pope, no doubt it was in this foresaid respect. But as in this life many years Penance may be satisfied in one hour through the fervour of Charity and Contrition, so the vehemency of the pain in Purgatory, may satisfy in 300, or 400. years, that which otherwise might require 10000 Others yet object, that some Indulgences do pardon both the fault, and the punishment. Answ. This is only meant in regard, that with Indulgence Confession is ordinarily joined, by which the fault is pardoned. And therefore when it is said, that by Indulgences sins are pardoned, it is only understood in regard of the punishment, the fault being supposed to be formerly forgiven by the Sacrament of Penance. CHAP. XXVII. The true State of the Question concerning prescribed days for Fasting, and Abstinence from certain meats. Whether certain days prescribed by the Church for Fasting: as also Abstinence at some times from certain meats, be things lawful, and to be observed under sin: or rather that they are to be left free according to every man's Devotion, and liking. SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. PROTESTANCY ever having for an individual Companion Sensuality, will by no means admit of appointed fasts, or abstinence from the better meats: whereas the Church of Christ for just reasons doth command both. So in the Laodicene Council it is ordained, that, (1) Can. 5●. We aught not to break fast in Lent upon Thursday in the last week, and dishonour the whole Lent, but that it is more meet to honour the whole Lent with strict fasting. In the Council Agathense it is decreed, that, (2) Cap. 12. All the sons of the Church do fast in Lent, Sundays excepted etc. In the eight Council of Toledo it is defined, that, (3) Cap. 9 whosoever without inevitable Necessity and weakness, and manifest infirmity or impossibility of Age, shall presume to eat flesh in the days of Lent, he shall not only be guilty of our Lord's Resurrection, but also shallbe made an alien from the holy Communion of that day: And this shallbe added to his Punishment, that for that year he shall abstain from all eating of flesh etc. But those whom either Age hath bowed, or Infirmity weakened, or necessity urged, let them not before presume to violate the things forbidden, than they have received licence from the Priest. In the Council Gangrense it is said, (4) Can. ●9. If any man shall dissolve the fasts which are commonly kept by the Church, Anathema. And the like is taught by sundry other (5) Conc. Triburiense. can. 35. Conc. Carthag. 4. Can. 63. Conc. 6. Constantinop. Can. 56. Counsels. The Common (6) Bellar. de bonis oper. in partic. l. 2. c. 7. Rhem. Test. in 1. Tim. 4.3. opinion of all Catholics is, that they are bound in Conscience to observe such days of fasts, & Abstinence from such meats, as the Church shall command: and that the infringing of these without just cause is sinful. Points Disputable. Some (7) Io. Medina q 5. de ieiunio. Catholic writers teach that, so often as a man eateth upon a day of fast after his first refection, so often he sinneth. But (8) Durand. in 4. Dist. 15. q. 11. silvest Verbo, jeiunium. others think, that he only sinneth after the first eating. (9) Navar. c. 21 n. 22. Some affirm that such as have Privilege to eat flesh upon fasting days, are yet obliged to one meal or refection. But (10) Azor. l. 7. c. 10 q. 3. others deny it, and sundry such like are disputed, and not defined by the Church. Protestant untruths. Chemnitius affirmeth that, (11) Exam. ad 4. Sess. Telesphorus ordained the fast of Lent. But this is most untrue, for he (12) In Ep. sua. only decreed that the Clergy should add 3. days to the customed fast of all Christians. He also chargeth Calixtus to have ordained the 4. Ember weeks: but (13) Ep. 1. he only added one to the former three, which we have from Apostolical Tradition. He (14) Exam. ad Sess. 25. avoucheth Catholics to teach, that fasting of itself (and as he saith) ex opere operato, is able to appease, or satisfy God without any other help of good works or Grace, which is a mere fiction of his own, not a Doctrine taught by any Catholic writer. Protestant Doctrine. Luther teacheth that, (15) De Doctrinis hominum vitandis. Calu. Instit. l. 4. c. 12. §. 20. 21. It is erroneous and false, in that they impose a necessity of fasting at certain times of the year, as the Vigils of the Apostles, and other Saints: And this, under grievous sin, as a Decree and Commandment of the Church; For fasting, for as much as concerneth days and meats, aught ever to be free and indifferent. Perkins, (16) Reform. Cath. Controu. 12. c. 2. col. 434. The Papists prescribe a certain choice of meats upon fasts: but we judge that difference of meats to be foolish and pernicious. Others teach, that (17) Harm. of Conf. p. 481. The fast of Lent hath Testimony of Antiquity, but none out of the Apostles writings, and therefore aught not, or cannot be imposed on the faithful etc. And the Apostle calleth the Doctrine of those, which teach to abstain from meats, the Doctrine of Devils. But how impertinent and untrue this is, we shall see hereafter. Protestants agreed with Ancient Heretics. For the impugning of prescribed Fasts S. Austin (18) Haer. 53. and S. Epiphanius (19) Haer. 75. condemn Aerius: of whom D. Fulke saith, (20) Answer to a Counterf. Cath. p. 44. 45. He taught that fasting days are not to be observed. Yea saith D. Field (21) Of the Church. l. 3. p. 138. He disliked set fasts etc. he was justly condemned. And according to Osiander, he not only taught that, (22) Cent. 4. p. 4●4. Set fasts are not to be observed etc. but that according to liberty a man is to fast when he william. In which he was so purely Prot. as that D. Whitaker affirmeth that, (23) Cont. Dur. l. 9 p. 830. Aerius taugh nothing concerning fasting different from the Catholic faith, by which he meaneth his own Prot. Faith. S. Austin also reproveth jovinian for saying, (24) Haer 82. Fasts, or Abstinence from certain meats do nothing profit. Yea he avoucheth further, that. (25) De Ec. l. Dogm c. 68 To believe, that such as abstain from wine and flesh have no greater merit, is not the part of a Christian, but of jovinian. This Censure of S. Austin is confessed in him (26) Exam. part. 4. p. 142. by Chemnitius. Doctor Humphrey, (27) Ad rat. 3. Camp p. 263. We grant it to be true what Sanders hath of the jovinianists and us, Fast and Abstinence from certain meres to profit nothing. And jovinian is further defended herein (28) 3. Part. of his Defence of the Ref. Cath. p. 60. Willet. in Antilog. p. 13. Dan. 1. part. alt part. p. 938. by Abbot, Willet, and Danaeus. And whereas our purest Prot. do keep their strictest fasts upon their Sabothes, S. Epiphanius witnesseth that the (29) Haer. 75. Aerians desired rather to fast upon Sunday, and to eat upon wednesday and friday. S. Austin affirmeth, that (30) Ep. 86. To fast on the Lord's day is a great offence, especially since the detestable heresy of the Manichees etc. who appoint unto their hearers this day as lawful to be fasted upon. This saying of S. Austin is alleged by D. Whiteguift (31) Defence. p. 501. Cent. 4. Col. 401.445. and the Centurists, and the like of S. Ambrose by (32) Against Symbolyzing part. 2. p. 38. Parker. Luther, (33) Tom. 4. in jonae. 3 fol. 422. The fasts and haircloathes of Beasts are in as great esteem with God, as of men, and of the contrary. Perkins, (34) Reform. Cath. Controu. 6. c. 4. Fasting of itself doth no more profit to gain the kingdom of Heaven, no more I say, than meat or drink. SECT. II. It is proved by the Scriptures, that days pr●scribed by the Church for Fasting; as also Abstinence at some times from certain meats, be things lawful, and to be observed. THat it is lawful to use Abstinence from certain meats not condemning the creatures as though they were of their own natures unclean and unlawful to be eaten, may be proved by the Example of Daniel, saying, (1) C. 10. 2. 3. I Daniel mourned the days of three weeks, desiderable bread I did not eat, and flesh and wine entered not into my mouth etc. S. john Baptist abstained from all meats, saving (2) Mat. 3.4. Locusts and wyldhony. The Centuristes' report of S. I●mes the Apostle, that he abstained (3) Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 10. Col. 581. and Aegesip. apud Euseb. hist. l. 2. c. 21. from wine and flesh. The abstinence of Timothy, though then being sickly is so certain, that S. Paul therefore adviseth him in regard of his health to (4) 1. Tim. 5.23. Drink not yet water, but use a little wine for thy stomach, and thy often infirmity. Now none will say, that these holy persons, did forbear these meres and drinks, as thinking them of their own natures to be unclean, or unlawful. And that this Abstinence and fast may be limited by the Church to certain appointed and prescript days, appeareth first, in that the thing in general being itself lawful and commendable (in so much as it is oftentimes in the Scriptures (5) Luc. 2.37. Mat. 17.21. Mar. 9.29. Act 13.2. & 14.23. matched in mention with Prayer) the people may be bound thereto at set times, even as they are to prayer. 2. Sundry examples are hereof in the Scriptures: jonadab Hier. 35.14. commanded his sons not to drink wine: and they have not drunk until this day because they have obeyed the Commandment of their Father. In (7) C. 8.19. Zacharie mention is made of 4. Fasts, which were called Fasts of Months, of the 4. 5. 7. & 10. which were not commanded by God himself, but by them who governed the commonwealth of the jews, being brought in upon several occasions. Mardochaeus appointed a new (8) Hest 9.21. festival day to be celebrated for ever (9) Ver. 31. with fasts and prayer. Chemnitius (10) Exam. part. 4. p. 437. 438. hath no better answer to these so plain Texts, then to reprehend these observations of the Hebrews, and to ascribe it to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a naughty zeal. But in this he manifesteth intolerable boldness, and impudence, seeing the Scriptures do not reprove but commend these laws of fasts, greatly praising Mardochaeus and jonadab, and avouching that those fasts mentioned by Zacharie should be changed into joy and great solemnities. In the New Testament we have the Apostles commanding the Gentiles converted, & all Christians to (11) Act. 19.29. Abstain from things immolated to Idols, and blood, and that which is strangled. And that this was a Command, & of Necessity to be kept, appeareth by these texts, (12) Ver. 28. It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you then these necessary things. (13) Act. 15.41. Paul commanding them to keep the Precepts of the Apostles, and the Ancients. And Tertullian (14) In Apologet. reporteth, that the Christians would rather die then taste blood in those firster times. Now if the Magistrates in the old Testament, and the Apostles in the new might make laws for good ends of Abstinence from certain meats, and upon certain days, which yet were not commanded by God, and these laws to bind in Conscience, the Necessity thereof yet not resting in the thing, but in the Commandment; no doubt the like power cannot be denied to the Church, prescribing the same for other good ends; Especially seeing it is certain, and might easily be proved, that the Church of Christ hath authority to make Laws, which do bind in Conscience. SECT. III. That the Fathers do expound the Scriptures, in proof of the lawful Abstinence from certain meats, and the appointed days for fasting. S. Austin affirmeth, that fasting in general is commanded by the Scriptures: (1) Ep. 89. ad Casulanum. I pondering (saith he) that in my mind, do see fasting to be commanded in the Evangelicall and Apostolical letters, and in the whole Instrument, which is called the New Testament. But what days we aught not to fast, and what to fast, I do not find it defined by command of our Lord or the Apostles. Wherefore concerning this last he further teacheth that, (2) Ibid. In these things whereof the divine Scripture decreeth nothing certain, the custom of the people of God, or the Ordinances of our Ancestors, are to be kept for a law. And when the custom of the people is different, then saith he, (3) Ibid. The Custom of them are to be followed to whom the Government of the people is committed. Yea, (4) Ep. 118. ad januarium. c. 2. There is no better discipline in these things for a grave and wife Christian, then to do so, as he seethe the Church to do, where he comes. And then relating how that for the satisfaction of his Mother he demanded of S. Ambrose what was to be done, when the custom of fasting was various, he reporteth S. Ambrose his Answer to be this, To what Church thou shalt come, keep the Custom thereof, if thou wilt not give scandal to any, or any to thee: when I had told this to my Mother, she willingly embraced it. And I often thinking of this his sentence, I did ever so esteem it, as if I had received it from a heavenly Oracle. S. Ambrose applieth those words of the Apostle, (5) 1. Cor. 15.32. Let us eat and drink, to morrow we shall die, to our modern Epicureans that take away fasting, and deny the merit thereof: (6) L. 10. Epist. ep. 82. How can we be saved (saith he) if we wash not away our sins by fasting, seeing the Scriptures say, Fasting and Alms deliver from sin? What are these new Masters then that exclude all merit of fasting? Is not this the very voice of the Heathen saying, Let us eat and drink, to morrow we shall die? Concerning the fast of Lent, S. Austin affirmeth that, (7) Ep. 119. ad jan. c. 15. The fast of Lent hath authority both in the old books, from the fast of Moses and Elias, & in the Gospel, because our Lord fasted so many days, showing that the Gospel doth not differ from the Law and the Prophets. And of the bond thereof he avoucheth that, (8) Ser. 62. de Temp. to fast other days is a remedy or reward, in Lent not to fast is sin. He that fasteth another time shall receive Indulgence, he that fasteth not in Lent, shallbe punished. Yea, saith S. Ambrose, (9) Serm. 25. de Quadragesima. It is no light sin to violate the Lent appointed by our Lord for the faithful etc. therefore if thou wilt be a Christian, thou must do what Christ did. He that sinned not, fasted Lent, wilt not thou who sinnest, fast Lent? And again, (10) Serm. 36. de Quadrag. some days ago preaching the Devotion of holy Lent, I brought forth Examples of holy Scriptures, whereby I might prove, this number of forty, not to be ordained by men, but consecrated from heaven, nor to be invented by Earthly thought, but commanded by heavenly Majesty etc. These Commandments are not so much the Priests, as Gods. And therefore he that despiseth (them) despiseth not the Priest, but Christ, who speaketh in his Priest. Lastly S. Hierome speaking of the practice and obligation of his times saith, (11) Ep. 54. ad Marcellam. We in the whole year fast one Lent, according to the Tradition of the Apostles, at a time fitting for us. The (Montanistes) make 3. Lents in the year, as though three Saviour's had suffered. Not that it is not lawful to fast all the year, excepting Pentecost, but that it is one thing to offer a gift of necessity, another freely. And (12) Ad c. 58. Isaiae. our Lord fasted 40. days in the desert, that he might leave to us the solemn days of fasting. The Fathers of the Council Senonense do Decree that, (13) Decret. 7. As concerning the choice of meats, although &c. now nothing is to be said common or unclean, yet nothing could be ordained more holy or profitable etc. then that upon the days of fasting and Abstinence ordained by the Church, forbearing the eating of flesh, we should only eat dry meats: for truly the Authority of our holy Mother the Church is no less with us then with the sons of Rechab the Command of their dying Father, who jest they should infringe the Ordinance of their Father, did perpetually abstain from wine. Prescribed fasts were so generally used in the Primitive Church, that Caluin saith, (14) Inst. l. 4. c. 12. n. 19 20. I cannot altogether excuse the Ancient (Fathers) in this respect, but that they laid some seeds of superstition etc. The observation of superstitious Lent was then every where in force. Chemnitius acknowledgeth, that, (15) Exam. part. 1. p. 89. Ambrose, Maximus, Theophilus, Hierome, and others do affirm the fast of Lent, to be an Apostolical Tradition. And the very same is confessed by Scroderus. (16) Opusc. Theol. p. 71. And whereas S. Austin teacheth, that, (17) Ser. de Temp. Ser. 77. & 62. Not to keep Lent at all is Sacrilege, and in part to break it is sin, this is confessed and disliked in S. Austin by the Centuristes (18) Cent. 5. c. 6. Col. 686. 687. Ham. de Tradit. A●ost. part. 3. ●. 3. Col. 824. , and Hamelmanus. Scultetus (to use his own words) affirmeth, (19) Medulla Theol. p. 440. The superstition of Lent and fasting to have been allowed and commanded by Ignatius who was scholar to S. john. So ancient and approved is our Catholic custom of observing prescript fasts and Abstinence from certain Meats. SECT. iv That sundry Protestant writers do teach our Catholic Doctrine of Abstinence from certain meats, upon Prescribed days. THis Catholic truth is so clear, as that M. Hooker undertaketh special proof thereof, and doubteth not to say, (20) Eccl. Pol. l. 5. sect. 72. We are &c. to make it manifest in all men's eyes, that set times of fasting appointed in spiritual Considerations to be kept by all sorts of men, took not their beginning either from Montanus, or any other whose heresies may prejudice the credit and due estimation thereof, but have their ground in the law of nature, are allowable in God's sight, were in all ages heretofore, and may till the world's end be observed, not without singular use and benefit. Again, Of public enjoined fasts, upon causes extraordinary, the (21) 1. Paral. 20.3. jerem. 36.9. 1. Reg. 7.6. examples of Scripture are so frequent, that they need no particular rehearsal etc. Touching fasts not appointed for any such extraordinary causes, but either yearly, or monthly, or weekly observed and kept, first upon the nynth day of the Month etc. And then reckoning up the several fasts of the jews, and the causes thereof, he concludeth. All these not commanded by God himself, but ordained by a public Constitution of their own, the Prophet Zachary expressly toucheth. The Prot. Author of the Book entitled, Q●aerimonia Ecclesiae, doth purposely and at large (22) à pag. 90. ad p. 123. defend set fasting days, and Abstinence from certain meats, reproving his other Brethrens for rejecting the Ancient Fathers in this behalf, and condemning Ae●ius for the now Prot. Doctrine, and undertaking a particular and large Defence of the fast of Lent. Caluin acknowledgeth thus much, that, (23) Inst. l. 4. c. 12. §. 14. The other part of Discipline, which is not properly contained in the power of the keys, consisteth in this, that according to the necessity of times, Pastors may exhort the People either to fasts, or to solemn prayers, or to other Exercises of humility, penance, and faith, the time whereof, or manner, or form is not prescribed by the word of God, but left to the judgement of the Church. The observation of this part, as it is profitable, so was it usual to the Ancient Church, even from the very Apostles. Neither were the Apostles themselves the first authors, but they took example from the Law and the Prophets: for we see that as often as there happened any great business, the People were assembled, Prayers appointed, fast proclaimed. M. Trig professeth to defend and urge against his other Prot. Brethrens, (24) In his true Catholic. p. 601. the fast of Lent, & solemn weekly fast of wednesday and friday. So free are our appointed fasts from any Doctrine of Devils, or Superstition. SECT. V Objections from Scripture against Abstinence from certain meats, and Prescript fasting-days, answered. THe Ancient Heretic jovinian urged against S. Hierome, as Prot. do now against Catholics, that God created all things for man, whereas hens, geefe, and some other Creatures are nothing for his use, unless they be eaten. Answ. S. Hierome (1) L. 2. cont. Iou●●. to this Argument of jovinian answerth, that no living Creatures were made only for that end, that they should be eaten, but either for physic or other uses, or at lest for the Ornament of the world. This he proveth in that before the Deluge no man did eat flesh; as also, in that otherwise Owls, Toads, serpents, spiders, and the like were to be eaten, they being not in other respects useful for man: besides the foresaid Creatures are eaten upon certain days, though they be abstained from upon days of Abstinence. Others object that, (2) Mat. 15.11. Not that which entereth into the mouth defileth a man. Answ. If this in all respects were true, than gluttony and drunkenness should not defile a man: wherefore it is to be said, that though meats of themselves, or their own nature, do not defile the Soul, yet accidentally in that they make a man to sin by gluttony or disobedience to God, or our Superiors, they do defile; And thus is this expounded by (3) De moribus Eccl. c. 33. S. Austin. Again, as these words do not import that the jews than might have eaten of those meats which God forbade them, no more do they now that are Christians, eat of those which the Church forbiddeth: Neither they then, nor we now abstain, for that any meats are of their own nature abominable, or defile the eaters, but they for signification, we for Obedience & Chastisement of our Bodies. Some argue, that Christ said to his Apostles, (4) Luc. 10.7. In the same house tarry you, eating and drinking such things as they have. And that of S. Paul (5) 1. Cor. 10.25. All that is sold in the shambleses eat, ask no question for Conscience. Ergo, this liberty is not to be taken from us. Answ. Christ only commandeth that when we are entertained, we seek not sumptuous meats, but be content with such as are set before us: And so is this place understood by S. Ambrose. (6) In hunc locum. Neither is it questionable, but that he spoke only of such meats as according to place and time were lawful and profitable, for as then he would not have had swine flesh, or poison eaten, if it had been placed before them. In like sort S. Paul only freed the faithful from enquiring whether the flesh had been offered to Idols or not, for otherwise we have seen before, that he commanded that the Decree of the Apostles against eating that which was strangled, and blood, and offered to Idols, should be observed. Again, that is generally urged of S. Paul, (7) 1. Tim. 4.1.2.3. In the last times certain shall departed from the faith attending to spirits of Error and Doctrine of Devils &c. forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats which God created to receive with thansgiving for the faithful. Answer. The Apostle condemneth all Heretics, who forbidden meats as of themselves unclean; and for that very cause (as S. Chrisostome, (8) Chrysost. & Ambr. in hunc locum. Hier. l. 2. cont. jovin. c. 11. & l. 1. c. 1, 2, 3. Aug. l. cont. Adimant. c. 14. & l. 3. cont. Faust. Man. c. 5. 6. S. Ambrose, S. Hierome, and S. Austin teach) the Marcionistes, Eucratites, and Manichees. In so much, that S. Austin purposely answereth this Objection saying, (9) Cont. Faust. Manich l. 30. c. 4. See I beseech you, if this be not greatest madness, to think that Paul said, that all abstinence of meats, and forbidding to marry, is the Doctrine of Devils. And, (10) Ib. c. 6. He forbiddeth, who saith this is evil, not he who preferreth to this good, another thing better. And again, There is great difference between those who Abstain from meats for some holy representation, or for punishing of the Body; and those who Abstain from meats which God hath created, saying, that God did not created them. Therefore that is the Doctrine of Prophets and Apostles, this of lying Devils. And, (11) Cont. Adimant. c. 14. The Apostle most plainly signifieth the (Manichees) when he saith, In the last days there shallbe some forbidding to marry, abstaining from meats which God hath created. These he properly designeth, who do not therefore Abstain from such meats, that they may bridle their Concupiscence, or yield to the Infirmity of another, but because they think flesh unclean, and deny God to be the Creator of them. Which Error of the Manichees the Catholic Church hath condemned in (12) Conc. Tolet. 1. in assertione fidei. Bracar. 1. Can. 14. several Counsels. But not only S. Austin, but even Prot. themselves answer this. M. Hooker saith, (13) Eccl. Pol. l. 5 sect. 72. Against those Heretics which have urged perpetual Abstinence from certain meats, as being in their very nature unclean, the Church hath still bend herself as an Enemy: S. Paul giving charge to take heed of them, which under any such opinion, should utterly forbidden the use of meate●, or drinks. The Apostles themselves forbade some etc. but the cause of their so doing we all know. And the like Answer in our behalf is given by jacob (14) Defence of the Church and Minist. of Engl. p. 59 65. the Puritan, saying, The place of Paul 1. Tim. 4.3. is understood of Martion and Tatianus; who did absolutely condemn Marriage and certain meats: and so are in no comparison with the Papists, if they erred in nothing else. Neither do these words, In the last times, prove that they are to be understood of some Heretics which shall come long after the Apostles times: for by last times, the Apostle understandeth the whole time from the coming of Christ until the end of the world, which time he calleth (15) 1. Cor. 10 11. The ends of the world. And S. Peter expoundeth of his own time, that which the Prophet joel foretold should be (16) Act. 2.17 joel. 2.28. in the last days. And he affirmeth of Christ, that he was (17) 1. Pet. 1.20. Foreknown indeed before the Constitution of the world, but manifested in the last times for you. Finally S. john said, (18) 1. Io. 2. 1●. Sons, it is the last hour. D. Fulke and other Prot. do commonly urge that, (19) Against Rhem. Test. in Mat. 15. fol. 2●. Aretius' loc. come. p. 272. Montanus the Heretic was the first that appointed laws of fasting. But M. Hooker their Brother doth answer them, that the Mantanistes were reprehended only, for that they (20) Eccl. Pol. l. 5. sect. 72. brought in sundry unaccustomed days of fasting, continued their fasts a great deal longer, and made them more rigorous etc. Whereupon Tertulian maintaining Montanisme, wrote a Book in Defence of the New fast etc. And another Prot. explaining this, affirmeth that Montanus (21) Quaerimonis Ecclesiae. p. 11●. abrogating the fasts of the Church, introduceth a new manner of fasting etc. So weak and impertinent are the objections made by Prot. against prescribed days of fasting, and abstinence from certain meats. CHAP. XXVIII. The true State of the Question concerning Concupiscence. Whether Concupiscence remaining after Baptism, is truly and properly sin, though not imputed to the faithful: or only, that it is an Effect of Original Sin; And a corruption of Nature inclining men to Sinne. SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. THE Error of Concupiscence being properly Sin; being a sink from whence many others are derived, the Council of Trent therefore hath Decreed that, (1) Conc. Trid. Sess. 5. Decret. de peccato orig. The Catholic Church never understood (Concupiscence) to be called Sin, as though truly and properly it were sin in the regenerate but because it is (or ariseth) from sin, and inclineth to Sinne. If any shall think the contrary, Anathema. In the Council of Moguntia it is Decreed, that, (2) Cap. 11. Concupiscence wh●ch is left in us after Baptism, for our Combat, not for fault, is not now sin in the true nature of sin, but therefore called Sin because it was caused by Sin, and still inclineth to Sinne. In the Council Senonense this Article was condemned, (3) In Annot. post Decret. fidei. Concupiscence, although there be no actual sin, doth hinder a soul from entering into heaven: But this it could not do, except it were original sin itself. Agreably to these Counsels, all (4) Bellar. de amiss. Gra. & statu pe●. l. 5 c 7. etc. Rhem. Test. in Rom. 6.12. Catholics believe, that the Corruption of nature, or Concupiscence which remaineth after Baptism, is not original sin; not only because it is not imputed, but because it cannot be imputed, being of itself, and its own nature, no sin at all: but only an effect, occasion, and matter of Sin, and as it were an Infirmity inclining to Sin, but not sinne itself without Consent. Points Disputable. Some (5) Lombar. 2. Sent. Dist. 31. ●. 2. 3. Henriq. quodlib 2. q. ●2 Greg Arimin. 2. Dist. 30. q. 1. teach, that Concupiscence is a positive quality in the Soul ever stirring up wicked desires: But (6) Bellar. de pec. l. 5. c 15. others better, that it only proceedeth from the want of Original justice, which did 'cause the sensuality to be perfectly subject to reason. Protestant Doctrine. The English Protestant Church Decreeth, that, (7) Articles of Relig. art. 9 Roger's Art 9 p. 46. Although there is no condemnation for them that believe, and are baptised: yet the Apostle doth confess that Concupiscence & lust hath of itself the nature of sin: And so by other (8) Luther in Assert. Art 2. Calu. Inst. l. 2. c. 1. §. 8. Calu. Inst l. 4. c. 15. sect. 10. Willet Synopsis. p. 558. Prot. it is most generally holden to be truly sin. Protestants agreed with Ancient Heretics. S. Epiphanius (9) Haer. 64. condemneth the Heretic Proclu● for teaching, that sin did always remain in the Regenerate, and that Concupiscence was truly sin, not taken away by Baptism, but brought a sleep by faith. And the same Error was afterwards condemned in the Messalians, by (10) L. 4 de baer. Fab. Theodoret. SECT. II. It is proved by Scriptures, that Concupiscence remaining after Baptism, is not truly and properly Sinne. TO examine this by the sacred Scriptures, first, all such (11) Se● chap. 20. texts as prove that not only debt of punishment is pardoned, but even the fault or spots of sin are washed, purged, and taken away by Baptism, do convince that Concupiscence remaining after Baptism is not sin properly taken; But of this I have spoken heretofore. Secondly, the same is clearly taught in these words of S. james, (12) C. 1. 14. 15. Every one is tempted of his own Concupiscence, abstracted, and alured; Afterwards Concupiscence when it hath conceived bringeth forth Sin; but sin when it is consummate engendereth Death. Hear 4. things are distinguished, Concupiscence, that is a power of coveting prove to evil, and her 3. motions, Suggestion, Delectation, and Consent. Concupiscence and her first motion S. james doth not call Sin, but a Temptation to sin. Delight, but not fully deliberate, he calleth sin, but not mortal: which only full Consent causeth. Thirdly, Concupiscence is the effect and Punishment of Original sin. Ergo it cannot be the Original sin itself; for although one and the same thing may be sin, and the punishment of sin, yea & the cause also, yet this is ever in diverse respects; for it cannot be conceived that one thing may be sin, and the punishment and effect of the same sin, because it should be punishment and effect of itself, and, by this, be before, and after itself. Now that Concupiscence is the punishment and effect of sin original, appeareth by S. Paul, saying, (13) Rom. 5.12. By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin Death; and so unto all men Death did pass in which all sinned. Here Death is said to be the punishment and effect of original Sin: now Death is part of the corruption of Man's nature, the other part of the same corruption is Concupiscence, with Ignorance, and other wounds infl●cted upon our nature: so that the same reason is of Concupiscence, and Death: whereas Death is a Punishment and effect of Original sin, so likewise is Concupiscence. And so in express words S. Austin saith, (14) L. 5. in julian. c. 3. Concupiscence is the punishment of Sinne. Fourthly, if Concupiscence be taken for the involuntary act, that is, for the first motions of Concupiscence to which the mind resisteth, it is no sin, as is clear in Children, Madmen, and Sleepers, in whose power it is not, not to have the Acts of Concupiscence. Ergo much less it is sin if it be taken for the proneness & inclination to sin. But neither is it in the power of wise and aged men not to have the first motions of Concupiscence: Ergo, neither is it sin in them. Besides God's law is not only possible, but easy to those who are endued with God's grace: but it is impossible, without particular Privilege from God, for even the Just not to have the first motions of Concupiscence resisting the law of their mind, as experience teacheth, and S. Paul himself proved, when he said, (15) Rom. 7.22.23. 2. Cor. 12.7.8. I am delighted with the law of God, according to the inward man: but I see another law in my members, repugning to the law of my mind, and captiving me in the law of sin, that is in my members. The same also is confirmed by those words of S. Paul, (16) Rom. 7.17.18. But now, not I work it any more, but the sin that dwelleth in me, for I know that there dwelleth not in me, that is to say in my flesh, good. These words are spoken of S. Paul himself, or any other just person, in whom Concupiscence cannot properly be sin, because here it is said that the motion of Concupiscence is not his work, & therefore cannot be imputed to him to sin, seeing it is not his. Again, he affirmeth that this evil is not in him, but in his flesh, whereas it is certain that the flesh is not capable of sin properly taken. Neither will it suffice to answer with Caluin, (17) Inst. l. 2. c. 1. §. 9 that by flesh, is understood here the whole man, as he is according to Nature corrupted. For if it were so to be understood, then S. Paul had not truly said, not I work it, for how did not he work that, which the whole man, body, and soul worketh? But if reason resisting, which is the chiefest part of man, the only inferior part doth work, than it may be truly said, not I work it. Secondly, to what end should he have said, as it were by way of Correction, I know that there dwelleth not in me, that is in my flesh good, if that evil were in the whole man? Thirdly, S. Paul distinguisheth in express words, the flesh from the mind, saying. I see (18) Rom. 7.23. another law in my members, repugning to the law of my mind, therefore (19) Ib. ver. 25. I myself with the mind serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. All this is yet further established by these other words of the Apostle (20) Rom. 8.1. There is now therefore no damnation to them that are in Christ jesus; for having in the former Chapters spoken much of Concupiscence, he at length concludeth, that the just in Christ need not to fear, though they feel in their flesh that Concupiscence, resisting the law of their mind. But Luther, Caluin, and others do reply, that the Apostle said, There was no damnation to the regenerate for Concupiscence, not that it did not deserve damnation, but because God forgave the guilt thereof by Baptism. If this answer were solid, than these Prot. affirming the guilt or fault to be forgiven in Baptism, must needs consequently confess, that there is nothing in the regenerate, which is truly and properly sin; (21) Calu. Inst. l. 3. c. 3. §. 11. themselves teaching the guilt or fault to be that which is properly sin: according to that of S. Austin, (22) L. 1. de Nupt. & concup. c. 26. This is not to have sin, but to be guilty of sin. SECT. III. That the Fathers do expound the Scriptures, in proof, that Concupiscence remaining after Baptism, is not properly sin. SAint Cyril expounding the words of S. james, affirmeth, that, (1) Cyr. l. 4 in joan. c. 51. A certain pleasure goeth before all sin, and a burning Concupiscence useth to entice to sin, which is before the act of sinning, and it draweth the consent of mind, persuading that this way we may easily come whither we desire: which to be true the Disciple of Christ showeth saying, No man who is tempted, let him say, that he is tempted from God, for God tempteth no man: But every one is tempted of his own Concupiscence, abstracted, and alured: Than Concupiscence after it hath conceived, bringeth forth sin, but the Consummation engendereth death. S. Austin alleging the same words of S. james saith, (2) Lib. 5. cont. jul. c. 5. Truly in these words the brood is distinguished from that which breedeth. For Concupiscence is that which breedeth, the brood is sin: But Concupiscence begetteth not, unless it conceive; it conceiveth not unless it induce, that is, gaineth the assent of the will to commit evil. When therefore it is striven against, this cometh to pass, that it may not conceive or travail with sin. I will omit other Fathers, seeing Caluin confesseth that, (3) Inst. l. 3. c. 3. §. 20. Neither it is needful to labour much in searching what old writers have thought therein, seeing only Austin may be sufficient for it, who hath faithfully and with great diligence gathered all their opinions. Therefore let the Readers gather out of him, if they will have any certainty of the judgement of Antiquity. But between him and us there seemeth to be this difference, that he when he granteth that the faithful, so long as they devil in a mortal body, are so holden bound with Concupiscences, that they cannot but covet (or lust) yet dareth he not call that disease Sin: but being content to express it by the name of weakness, he teacheth, that then only it becometh Sin, when either deed, or Consent is added to conceiving or apprehension; that is, when the will yieldeth to the first desire. But we accounted the very same for sin, that man is tickled with any desire at all against the Law of God: yea that pravity itself which begetteth those desires in us, we affirm to be Sinne. Therefore we teach that there is always Sin in the holy (or just) until they have put off the mortal body, because in their flesh that pravity of desiring resideth, which fighteth with that which is right. So directly (though most impudently) doth Caluin oppose his Prot. Doctrine of Concupiscence, to the Catholic Doctrine of S. Austin, and all Antiquity. Agreably saith Chemnitius, (4) Loc. come. part. 3. in his theses thereto annexed. fol. 18. Austin began to dispute that it was not properly Sin, but so called by a figure etc. which (if we will believe Chemnitius) was spoken incommodiously. But by this it appeareth, that S. Austin, and Antiquity did hold Concupiscence without consent, not to be Sinne. SECT. iv That Protestant writers do teach, that Concupiscence without Consent is not properly Sinne. SZegedine affirmeth that, (5) Loc. come p. 229. And see p. 223. 224. Sin riseth, and is perfitted by 3 degrees, Suggestion, Delight, and full Consent etc. He that doth not Consent, but resisteth delight, and temptation, yea refuseth delight, is not infected with the impurity of Sinne. SECT. V Objections taken from Scripture, in proof that Concupiscence is properly sin, answered. SOme object these words of S. Paul, (6) Rom 6.12. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal Body, that you obey the Concupiscences thereof. The Apostle doth not say, let not sin be in your mortal Body, but let it not reign, therefore sin is always in us, though it doth not always reign, and this sin he nameth Concupiscence. Answ. The word Sin in Scripture is taken in divers senses, sometimes properly for the fault sometimes for the (7) Deut. 9.21. Zach. 14.19. Thren. 4.22. punishment, which is the effect of the fault, sometimes for the (8) Rom. 7.7. cause of sin, and sometimes for Sacrifice (9) 2. Cor. 5.21 Ose. ●. 8. of sin. Again it is evident by the Scriptures, (10) Esa. 44.22. Io. 1.29. Act. 3.19. that sin properly taken, is taken away in our justification. And it is no less clear by the Scriptures, (11) Rom. 7.22. that Concupiscence is not taken away in justification. Ergo, according to the Scriptures, Concupiscence is not properly sin. But S. Austin shall give the Answer, saying, (12) L. 1. Retract. c. 15. This sin whereof the Apostle so speaketh, is therefore called sin, because it is made by sin, and is the punishment of sin: for it is spoken of the Concupiscence of the flesh. Again, (13) L. 1 cont. duas Ep. Pelag. c. 1●. Though Concupiscence be termed sin, yet it is not so called because it is sin, but because it is caused by sin, even as a writing is said to be a man's hand, because the hand made it. Moreover sin properly taken cannot be said to be, or reign in the Body, but in the mind, for sin being Injustice, it must needs have the same place that true justice hath: but no man ever placed justice in the Body or flesh, but in the soul or mind. Others urge that of S. Paul, (14) Rom. 7.7. Sin I did not know but by the law: for Concupiscence I knew not, unless the law did say, Thou shalt not covet. Hear S. Paul affirmeth, that he knew Sin by the law, and that, that sin was Concupiscence, & that the law by which he knew it, was the Commandment, Thou shall not covet. Answer, Sin is here taken properly for the Transgression of the law, but Concupiscence is not here taken for only proneness to sin, but for the voluntary act of Coveting, which is forbidden by the law, Thou shalt not Covet. And this appeareth in that, when the Apostle had said, the law was not sin, that is the cause of sin, but the cause of knowing sin, he thereby proved it, in that men did not know the interior Acts of desiring other men's goods, or wines to be sin, unless the law had said, Thou shalt not Covet. And so accordingly Christ himself said, (15) Mat. 5.28. You have heard that it was said to them of old, Thou shalt not commit adultery; but I say to you, that whosoever shall see a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his hart. This he spoke against the Pharisees, who still thought internal evil thoughts not to be sin: and the same was (16) Antiquit. l. 12. c. 13. David Kimhi in ps. 66.17. taught by josephus & David Kimhi; of this Ignorance S. Paul speaketh when he said, (17) Rom. 7.7. Concupiscence I knew not, unless the law did say, Thou shalt not Covet. So that Concupiscence here is taken for actual Sin consented unto, & so nothing helpeth the cause of our Adversaries. Many (18) Chem. Exam. p. 506. P●t. Mart. in Comment. ep. ad Rom. urge that, whatsoever is not conformable to the law of God, but differreth from it, is sin, according to that of S. john, (19) 1. Io. 3.4. Sin is iniquity: but the depravation of man's nature is not conformable to the law of God, but differeth from it; Ergo, it is Sinne. Answer. If Sin and iniquity be taken improperly or materially, then as every fault, not only in manners, but in nature, or are may be called Sin, so likewise may Concupiscence: but if Snne be taken properly, as S. john doth, for the transgression of God's law, than Concupiscence is not Sin or iniquity. Neither is every thing that differeth from the rule of the law, or that fighteth with it, properly Sin & iniquity; for the Devil tempting, man sinning, the will consenting, the action performing, do all of them differ from the rule of the law, and fight with it, and yet none of them are sin itself, which properly consisteth in the deviation or departing from the rule of the law. Now though Concupiscence doth resist the law of the mind, yet it is not the formal resistance, nor the action departing from the rule of the law, nor as a power, or person which is bound to follow the law, but as a tempter, or inciter to break the law, as I said of the Devil. CHAP. XXIX. The true State of the Question, concerning the distinction of Sin into Mortal, and Venial. Whether all Sins be of their own nature mortal & damnable; and only venial in the Elect by Gods not imputation: Or rather that there be some mortal, others venial, which of their own nature do not deserve eternal punishment, even in the wicked, and reprobate. SECT. 1. Catholic Doctrine. AS in the former Chapter we have seen the endeavour of Prot. to make the involuntary Motions of Concupiscence to be sin: so in this we shall see their like labouring to make all sins, even the lest idle word, to be mortal and damnable. Against which the Church declaring, that, (1) Cont. Trid. Sess. 14. c. 5. All mortal sins aught to be recited in Confession by Penitents etc. And that, Venial sins though they may be rightly and profitably spoken in Confession, yet without sin they may be concealed, doth hereby clearly distinguish the different natures of sin Mortal, and Venial. In the Council Senonense this Article was condemned for heretical: (2) In Annot. pos● Decreta fidei. Those who teach venial sins, to be distinct from mortal, do wretchedly endeavour to draw men's Consciences to Madness. The (3) Bellar. de amiss. gra. & statu pec. l. 1 c 9 Rhem. Test. in Rom. 1.12. general belief of the Church now is, that Venial sin of its own nature is distinguished from Mortal; and this without any relation to Predestination, or God's mercy, or the state of the Regenerate, or the like: And that the said venial Sin doth deserve punishment, but not eternal: And doth offend God, but not to the loss of his favour and grace. Points Disputable. Some (4) S. Tho. q. 72. art. 5. teach that Sin Mortal and Venial, if they be formally considered, as they do in different manner offend God, and 'cause different guilt of punishment, that then their difference is not essential, but accidental, as of the subject into accidents. (5) Navar. in Manual. Praiud. 9 n. 6. Others think, that the division of sin into Mortal and Venial, is a division of Sin into diverse species, or kinds of sin, and so a small Venial theft to differ specie, from Mortal theft: but this Opinion is less probable. Protestants Untruths. Rogers affirmeth that, (6) Def. o● the Art art. 12. p. 53. Allowed was both whoredom and unclean pollutions by the Carpocratians &c. and is of the jesuites and Papists. But this is a manifest untruth forged by Rogers. Protestant Doctrine. Protestants teach, that, (7) Fulke ag. Rhem. Test. in Mat. 5 sect. 6. fol. 9 All sins of their own nature are Mortal: and yet (8) Ibid. & in 1. Ep. 10. sect. 5. fol. 447. all sins are pardonable (or venial) to the faithful: for (9) Ibid. sect. 5. They are not imputed to the Elect. Caluin explaineth this Doctrine thus. (10) Instit. l. de poen. c. 5. p. 178. We affirm the sins of the faithful to be venial, not for that they do not deserve death, but because that by the mercy of God, there is no Condemnation to them that are in Christ jesus. Beza. (11) In. 1. lo. ●. 16. Hereof it followeth, no sins to the Elect to be mortal, nor venial to the reprobate. And so according to these men, the difference of sins is not in their own natures any, but only in regard of the Persons sinning, according to their Predestination, or reprobation. Protestants agreed with Ancient Heretics. Cicero reporteth that with the Stoics, (12) In Paradoxis. All sins are alike. And (13) Cont. Pelagianos Dial. 1. & 2. S. Hierome and S. Austin (14) Haer. 58. reprove Pelagius for teaching that by every sin justice is lost, and so every sin to be Mortal. (15) Hier. count. jovin. l. 2. c. 15. 16. Aug. Hae●. 82. They likewise impugn jovinian, for affirming, All sins to be alike. And the same Error was afterwards condemned in (16) Tho. Waldens. Tom 2. de Sacram. c. 54. Wiccliffe. Protestant Errors. David (according (17) In the Tower's Disp. 2 days Confer. to Fulke) when he committed Adultery, was, and remained the Child of God: And as Beza (18) Ad acta Colloq. Montisbelg. p. 44. thinketh, By his Adultery and murder did not lose his faith, or the holy Ghost. Luther teacheth that, (19) Loc. come. class 5. c. 27. p. 68 And see Act. Mon. p. 1337. As nothing justifieth but faith, so nothing sinneth but unbelief. And that, (20) L. de Captivit. Babyl. Treatise ag. the Defence of the Censure. p. 198. & in Whitak. count. Dut. l. 8. p. 639. A Christian or baptised man is so rich, that although he would he cannot lose his Salvation by any sins how great soever unless he will not believe. Wotton, (21) Answ. to the Papists Artic. p. 92. Sin is forthwith remitted when it is committed, or rather before it is committed, full remission of all sins present and to come being obtained by a man once justified. Paraeus. (22) De justif. l. 4. c. 1. p. 935. Where faith is, no sin can hurt, what more true? Paraeus denieth that either David by Adultery and murder, or Solomon by Idolatry, or Peter by denying of Christ, De justif. l. 3. c. 14. p. 871. fell from justification. Luther, (24) Tom. 5. in Cap. 3. Gal. fol. 335. A Christian is at the same time Just & a Sinner, a Friend and Enemy of God. Not Sophisters admit these contraries, because they do not understand the true reason of justification. Caluin speaking also of the same thing saith, (25) Cont. Franciscan. libert. p. 471. Behold how contraries may be in the same subject. For life is begun, and somewhat of death remaineth. Luther, (26) Tom. 5. in Gal. 4. fol. 404. True knowledge of Christ, or faith doth not dispute whether thou d●st good works to justice, or evil to Damnation, but plainly so decreeth. Whether thou dost good works, thou art not therefore justified. Whether thou lost evil, thou art not therefore condemned. And (27) Tom. 1. Epist. fol. 345. Be a si●ner and sin strongly Sin will not take us away from Christ, although we should commit fornication, or murder a thousand times in one day. Whitaker, (28) Controu. 2. quaest. 5. c. 7. p. 514. We say if any man have an Act of faith, sins do not hurt him, Luther affirmed this, and the same we all say. And therein you s●y m●●t impiously, that murder, adultery etc. do not hurt a man, if he only believe. SECT. II. It is proved by Scriptures, that all sins are not of their own nature Mortal, but some Mortal, some Venial. THat Sins of their own natures are some Mortal, others Venial, our Saviour teacheth saying; (1) Mat. 5.23. Whosoever is angry with his Brother shallbe in danger of judgement, whosoever shall say to his Brother, Raca, shallbe in danger of a Council: And whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shallbe guilty of the hell fire. Here are set down 3. degrees of Anger, the first is internal, when it doth not burst forth, which ordinarily is less; the second when it is uttered, but without reproach: the third when it tendeth to infamy: of the first it is said, that he is in danger of judgement, that is, (according to S. Austin) (2) L. 1. de ser. Dom. in Monte c. 9 to be called in question or trial, whether he have offended or not: of the second, that he is in danger of a Council; that is, his fault being certain, but yet it being doubtful what punishment it deserveth, the judges therefore are to meet in Council to determine the same: of the last, whose fault and punishment is certain, and known, it is said, that he is guilty of Hell fire, Now this last being known to deserve Hell fire, and th' other only making the offender guilty of Council, that is, to be tried, whether he deserve Hell or lesser punishment; it hence followeth, that some sins there are which deserve not hell, and so not mortal. Christ also compareth great and little sins to Camels and gnats, saying, (3) Mat. 23.24. Blind guides that strain a gnat, and swallow a Camel. Between which, of their own natures there is scarce any proportion. Also to a moat and a beam; (4) Luc. 6.42. Hypocrite cast forth the beam out of thy own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to take forth the moat out of thy Brother's eye. A moat may easily be carried, but the beam being importable would not only destroy the eye, but even depress the whole body, if it were laid upon it. Also Venial Sin is compared to a mite or farthing, (5) Luc. 12.59. Thou shalt not go out thence until thou pay the last mite, or (6) Mat. 5.27. the last farthing. S. Paul compareth Venial Sin to wood, hay, stubble: (7) 1. Cor. 3.12.14.15. If any man build upon this foundation Gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble, the work of every one shallbe manifest. Here by gold, silver, precious stones, are understood (according to S. Austin (8) L 21 de Ciu. Dei. c. 26. Ambr ser. 20. & in ps. 118. Hieron. l. 2. cont. jovin. Greg l. 4. Dial. c. 39 and other Fathers) perfect and commendable works, which examined in God's judgement, shall receive reward: By wood, hay etc. are understood unprofitable works, for which the offender shall suffer detriment, but yet shall be saved: which cannot be meant of mortal sins, which bring Damnation, and which were more fitly compared to iron, brass etc. as S. Gregory (9) Ibid. thinketh. Christ our Saviour compareth cleansing of venial sin to the washing of the feet, (10) Io. 13.10. He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet, but is clean wholly: here by foulness of the feet, when all the rest is clean, is signified manifestly, not our grievous sins, but imperfections of less importance. S. james exemplifyeth this in Concupiscence, (11) C. 1.14.15. Every one is tempted of his own Concupiscence, abstracted and alured: Afterward Concupiscence when it hath conceived, bringeth forth Sin, but Sin when it is consummate, engendereth Death. Hear 3. motions of Concupiscence are set down, the first involuntary, when one is incited to Sin, but without all consent, & this is not Sin, but the cause of Sin, when Consent followeth. The second is imperfectly voluntary, and sin, but yet but venial, as being not fully deliberate, and for such distinguished here from the last, which being with full Consent, is said to be consummate, and to engender death, and so mortal. And whereas D. Fulke replieth that, (12) Ag. Rhem Test. in jac. 1. sect. 6. fol. 426. Our Saviour condemneth lust of the eye for Adultery, and Anger for murder, Matt. 5. I have showed before, that our Saviour expressed there the several degrees of Anger, making only the last Degree guilty of Hell fire. And as for the lust of the eye, the words of the Text do only concern the sight of the eye, & the lust of the hart, for the words are, (13) Mat. 5.39. Whosoever shall see a woman to lust after, hath already committed adultery with her in his hart; for though the Body were free from act, yet was the hart defiled with Consent, and this Consent we affirm to be mortal. Some (14) Ezech. 18.24. 1. Cor. 6.9.10. Eph. 5.5. Sins are such, as do not stand with sanctity and justice, but do deprive a man of Grace, and exclude him from heaven: other sins there are which are found even in the just, and therefore such as may stand with Grace and salvation, (15) Prou. 24.16. The just man falleth seven times in the day, and riseth again: our Saviour hath taught all to say, even the most just, forgive us our trespasses: and Saint james, and Saint john, who doubtless were just men, affirm of themselves and others that, (16) jac. 3.2. In many things we offend all, and that, (17) 1. Ep. Io. 1.8. If we shall say that we have no sin, we seduce ourselves, and the truth is not in us. These texts cannot be understood of mortal Sins which deprive men of God's Grace and favour, and deserve eternal punishment: for S. james and Saint john, were doubtless men just, and who lived in the favour of God, and not in the state of Damnation. Some would evade all this, by teaching, that to the Predestinate all sins are Venial by reason of Gods not imputing them unto them, and to reprobate all mortal. But it cannot be denied, but that Adam, David, Peter, Paul, & sundry others were Predestinate, and yet that they committed heinous deadly sins, it is most manifest. And I would demand, whether these sins of theirs could stand, or remain in them with justifying faith? If not, than they are mortal, seeing according to their own grounds, such sins are mortal which deprive a man of justifying faith; but if the said sins may stand with justifying faith, than a man once justified may freely commit murder, Adultery, deny Christ with perjury, and the like without offence to God, or damnation to himself, seeing God doth not impute any sin to those that are once justified: All which is Doctrine most absurd and pernicious. Besides it further also followeth, that a man Predestinate, and once justified, needeth not to pray for remission of his sins, or of any pain due unto them, seeing the same are never imputed by God, but at the same time are forgiven in which they are committed. SECT. III. That the Fathers do expound the Scriptures in proof of the difference between Mortal and Venial sins. SAint chrysostom expounding these words of Christ, (1) Ho. 24. in Math. What dost thou see a moat in thy Brother's eye? saith: Hear, as it appeareth, he doth not generally forbidden all sins to be judged, neither doth he take from all the power thereof: but only from these who when they abound with many Crymes, rashly condemn others of every little Sinne. He seemeth also to me, to note the jews, who being most bitter accusers of their Neighbours for little Sins, themselves nevertheless do not refrain the greatest crimes. Which also our Lord in the end of the Gospel upbraided (unto them;) They bind heavy burdens and importable, and put them upon men's shoulders, but with a finger of their own, they will not move them. S. Hierome alleging the same words, why seest thou a moat etc. saith, (2) Ad. c. 7. Math. He speaketh of those who being guilty themselves of mortal Crime, do not permit lesser Sins in their Brethrens, straining the gnat, and swallowing the Camel: these therefore by counterfeiting of justice are rightly called Hypocrites who through the beam of their own eye, do behold the moat in their Brother's eye. Cassianus having spoken of Capital sins, adviseth that (3) Collat. 20. c. 11. From those little sins into which the just man falleth seven times, as it is written, and riseth again, let repentance never be wanting. Concerning the former different degrees of Anger made by Christ our Saviour, S. Hierome saith to jovinian, (4) Cont. jovin. l. 2. c. 17. And see. c. 16. In that thou endeavourest to prove that reproach, and murder, Raca, and Adultery, and idle words and impiety, are to be repaid with one punishment; it is formerly answered, and now I will briefly answer. Either thou wilt deny thyself to be a sinner, that thou mayest not be guilty of Hell, or if thou be a sinner, even for a little fault thou art taken to Hell. (5) Sap. 1.11. The mouth, saith he, which lieth killeth the Soul: I imagine that being a man thou hast sometimes lied, for every man is a liar etc. Therefore either thou art no man jest thou be a liar, or if thou be a liar because thou art a man, thou shalt be punished with Parricides & Adulterer, for there is no difference amongst Sins; & they will not thank thee so much whom from below thou liftest on high, as they willbe angry, whom for light and daily Sins thou thrustest into utter darkness. The same S. Hierome writing upon these words of Christ, Thou shalt not go out thence until thou pay the last farthing, expoundeth them thus, (6) In Ma●h. 5.26. Cyp. l. 4. ep. 2. post med. Ambr. in Comment. ad c. 12. Lucae. This is that which he saith, thou shalt not go forth of Prison, until thou shalt pay the lest Sins: and the same Exposition is given by S. Cyprian, and S. Ambrose. The former words of S. Paul are thus expounded by S. Austin, (7) Ser. 41. de Sanctis. With that transitory fire (whereof the Apostle said, he shallbe saved, yet so as by fire) not capital (or deadly) bu● little sins are purged &c. by which sins though we do not think the Soul to be killed, yet they make it deformed etc. To the same purpose writeth S. Gregory, (8) Dial. l. 4. c. 39 seing Paul affirmeth Christ to be the foundation, and addeth, if any shall build etc. he shallbe saved, yet so as by fire: Although this may be understood of Tribulation given us in this life, yet if any understand it of the fire of the purging to come, i● is carefully to be considered, that he whom he affirmeth to be saved by fire, is not he who upon this foundation buildeth Iron, brass, or lead that is, greater Sins, and therefore harder, and then unsatiable: but wood, hay, chaff, that is, little and lightest Sins, which the fire may easily consume. Agreably hereto saith Origen, (9) Ho. 14 in Levit. & ho. 15 in Num. & ho. 2. in Ps. 38. & ho. 6 in Exod. Basil. in c. 9 Isaiae. we may yet further add, that the nature of Sin is like to a matter combustible; which S. Paul affirmeth to be built by sinners, who upon the foundation of Christ, do build wood, hay, stubble, wherein is manifestly discovered, that there are some sins so light, that they are compared to stubble, to which indeed as soon as fire is brought, it cannot long continued: and other sins are like to hay, the which are with no great difficulty consumed by fire; yet in these the fire abideth longer than in stubble: and lastly there are other sins which are compared to wood, in which according to the quality of the offences, the fire may find long and store of food. So therefore every sin according to the quality and quantity thereof, shall pay due punishment. S. Austin teacheth us how to satisfy in this life for these little sins, saying, (10) Enchyr. c 71. And Concil. Tolet. 4. Can 9 For daily, short, and light sins, without which this life is not passed, the daily prayer of the faithful doth satisfy: for it belongeth to them to say, Our Father which art in heaven etc. This prayer doth wholly blot out the lest, and daily Sins. Yea he instanceth some of these little sins, saying, Enchyr. c. 22. Sometimes we lie for the good of others, a sin therefore is it, but venial. Also he calleth, (12) Ser. 41. de Sanct. & Enchyr. c. 78. 79. Minuta peccata, little sins, as often as a man eateth and drinketh more than is necessary, or speaketh more than is meet, or is more silent than is expedient: with many more such like. In so much that Peter Martyr acknowledgeth that, (13) Com. plac. part. 3. c. 4. sect. 81. S. Austin in his books de Spir. & Lit. c. 28. saith, Even as there are certain venial Sins, without which every just man cannot live, and yet they hinder us not from Salvation: So are there etc. Lastly, by the foulness of the feet whereof our Saviour spoke, he understandeth, (14) In Io. Tract 56 and see him ep. 29. ad Hieron. The humane affections without which in this mortality we live not. But the Fathers confessed Doctrine hereof, is more plainly seen in their Doctrine of Purgatory. SECT. iv That Protestants teach the true difference of Mortal, and Venial Sins. BVllinger confesseth, that when our Saviour spoke, as before, of the several degrees of Anger, that he thereby expressed, (1) Dec. 3. Ser. ●0. p. 508. The difference of Sins: he also by foulness of the feet, understandeth, (2) Dec. 4. Ser. 10. p. 771. The infirmity and imperfection which remaineth after Regeneration. (3) Concil. Theol p. 546. We add (saith Melancthon) the difference of Sin, mortal, or reigning, by which Grace is lost; & of Sin, not reigning, or venial. (4) Acta Council Regensp. p. 151. The Princes & Prot. Estates (in their Answer to the Emperor penned by Melancthon) affirm that, (5) Ib. p. 165. Because in the Saints in this life there abide sins, there must be put the difference of those Sins, for the which Grace is not left, and of other Sins, which do clean cast out Grace, and exclude the Holy Ghost. The Protestant Divines of Saxony in their public Confession teach in like manner, that, (6) Harmony of Confess. p. 80. seeing it is said, that Sins remain in the Regenerate, it is necessary to have a difference of sin delivered etc. And it is manifest, that some who are regenerate do grieve, and shake of the holy Ghost, and are again rejected of God, and made subject to the wrath of God, and eternal Punishment etc. Therefore it is necessary that those Sins which remain in holy men in this mortal life, and yet do not shake of the holy Ghost, be distinguished from other Sins, for the which man is again made subject to the wrath of God, and to eternal punishments. Again, (7) Ib. p. 81, 82, 290. Melancth loc. come. de discrim. pec. mort. ac ven. p. 108. 169. There be also other Sins in the regenerate, who keep faith, and a good Conscience, which do not corrupt the foundation etc. but are the relics of Original Sins, as darkness, doubting, carnal security etc. Again, when we do after this sort withstand that corruption, which as yet remaineth in the Regenerate, these evils are covered, and it is called Sin that doth not reign, or venial Sin, and the holy Ghost is not shaken of. It is evident, that this doctrine concerning the difference of Sins, is true, plain, and necessary for the Church. If now there be such difference of Snnes, that in one and the same regenerate person, some sins do shake of the holy Ghost, and some not; what else then is this, but to affirm, that in one and the same man, some sins be mortal, and some venial? Others expressly teach that, (8) Adamus Francisci in Mar●ar. Theol. p. 469. 1●1. Some Sin of the just is mortal, other venial: it is mortal, whereby faith is lost, that so they cease to be just: it is venial, wherewith the Holy Ghost and faith can continued: and the same is taught by (9) Centur. Exercit. Theol Cent. 3. p. 663. 6●4. Bachmanus, who in proof thereof allegeth S. Austin in Enchyr. c. 71. produced in the last Section. jacobus Andraeas avoucheth that, (10) Resp. Bezae ad Act. Colloq Montisb part. alt. p. 63. 69. Venial Sins are the falls of humane infirmity; whereas saith he, it is said, (11) Prou. 14.16. The Just man falleth seven times in the day by these the holy Ghost is not lost; but mortal sins are abominations committed against the law of G●d. Wherein, and sundry other his sayings, his m●aning is so manifest, that Beza doth therefore reprove him saying thereof, (12) Resp. Bezae. p. 71. and see part. 1 p. 15. ●3. 24. This difference which Andrae●s makes between venial and mortal sins, is vain. hus also acknowledgeth, as Fox confesseth, that some sins be (13) Act. M●n. p. 220. deadly, others (14) Ib. Venial, which do not utterly expel, or put away the habit of virtue. hus his own words are, john the Evangelist sometimes speaketh of grievous or mortal sin, as 1. Io. 3. You know that he appeared, that he might take away sins, and sin is not in him. Every one who abideth in him, (15) Admetus ps. 118. sinneth not, and every one that sinneth, seethe him not. Behold here he speaketh of grievous Mortal sin, or of Crime. But there, 1. Io. 1. If we shall say, that we have not sin, we seduce ourselves, & the truth is not in us, he speaketh of light sin, which is called by us venial. Lastly M. jacob a great Precisian, though in words he will not grant venial sin, yet doth he in sequel of Doctrine clearly acknowledge the same, saying, (16) Defence of the Church and Ministry of Engl. p. 88 There are sins against the foundation, and there are sins that stand with the foundation, wherein men living and dying ignorantly, without particular repentance may be saved. But what is this else but to say, some sins are Mortal, and others Venial? SECT. V Objections from Scripture against the difference of Mortal and Venial sin, are answered. SOme object that, (17) Ezech. 28 10. The soul that sinneth shall die: And ●h●t, (18) Rom. 6.23 The reward of sin is Death: And that, (19) Mat. 3.20. He that shall break one of these lea●t Commandments etc. shallbe called the lest ●n the kingdom of heaven. And, (20) jac. 2.10. He that offendeth in one, is made guilty of all. But the former Scriptures which prove the diversity of sins, do sufficiently explain these and such like, to be understood, not of that degree of sin, which is but conceived, but of sin consummate, which bringeth forth death: neither of such foresaid sin, as maketh us in danger but of judgement, or Council, but of that which makes us guilty of Hell fire. Ezechiel speaketh of enormous ●innes which he there reciteth: S. Paul (21) Rom. 6.12 13.16, 19.21.22. speaketh of such sins as will not stand with Grace and justice, and the true service of God; Our Saviour speaketh not of such as in any regard break the Commandment of God, but of the Scribes and Pharisees who by false Interpretation depraved the same; so commending love of our Neighbours, as withal comm●nding hatred of our Enemies; so condemning Adultery, as allowing Concupiscence only in hart consented unto. N●●ther are they here called the lest, because the Transgression thereof is indeed little sin, but because in respect of the other, they are little, it being a less sin to desire, then to commit Adultery, and to say, Thou fool, then to murder. S. james explicateth himself to speak of great sins, for immediately he saith, for he that said. Thou shalt not commit Adultery, said also, Thou shalt not kill etc. Now the reason why he saith, He that offendeth in one is made guilty of all, is given by (22) E●. ●9, ad Hieron. S. Au●tine to be this, Because all Commandments are reduced to this one of Charity, as S. Paul (23) Rom. 3●. ●. teacheth, from whence it followeth, that who transgresseth any one Commandment, violateth Charity, and thereby the whole law. In which (24) Aut●. oper. imperf. in Mat. ●0 33. he is not unlike to that man who leaving one part or member of his Body unarmed, receiveth therein a deadly wound, though the rest be armed and fenced. Lastly as S. james said, he that offendeth in one is made guilty of all, so likewise he said of himself and other just men, (25) C. ●. 2.3. In many things we offend all, which doubtless cannot be understood of damnable sins. CHAP. XXX. The true State of the Question, concerning the Author, and Cause of Sinne. Whether God doth Will, Decree, Predestinate, Counsel, or Compel men to sin, or to be damned, or only permitteth the same; and that man himself is cause of his own Sin, and Damnation: And whether Christ died for all men, or only for the Predestinate? SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. SO blasphemous and abominable is the Doctrine of sundry Protestants making God the Author and Cause of all sins that men commit, that for an Eternal Condemnation thereof the Catholic Church hath Decreed, that, (1) Concil. Trid. Sess. 6. Can. 6. If any shall say, that it is not in man's power to make his ways evil, but that God worketh aswell evil deeds as good, not only by permission, but properly and by himself, in so much that the treason of judas is no less his proper work, than the calling of Paul, Anathema. And, (2) Can. 17. If any shall say, that the grace of justification doth not happen but to those who are Predestinate to life: and that all others who are called, are indeed called, but do not receive grace, as by God's power being Predestinate to evil, Anathema. In the second Council Arausicanum it is defined that, (3) Conc. Araufi●an. 2. cap. 23. Men do their own will, not Gods, when they do that which displeaseth God. And, (4) Cap. 25. Any to be Predestinate to evil by God's power, we do not only not believe, but if there be any that will believe so great an Evil with all detestation we denounce Anathema against them. In the Council of Valence it is taught that, (5) Conc. Valent. sub Leone P. 4. Cap. 2. God's foreknowledge doth not impose necessity to any that he cannot do otherwise: but that which he was to be of his own will, he, as God, who knoweth all things before they be done, forknoweth by his own Omnipotency and immutable Majesty etc. Neither do therefore evil men perish, because they could not be good, but because they would not be good, and remained through their own fault, in the mass of damnation, either by Original desert, or also actual. And, (6) Cap. 3. we confidently confess the Predestination of the elect to life, and the Predestination of the wicked to death: but in the Election of those that are to be saved, the mercy of God did go before the good desert, but in the damnation of those that perish, the evil desert goeth before the just judgement of God etc. But any by God's power to be Predestinate to evil, as though they could not do otherwise, we do not only not believe, but if there be any who will believe so great an evil, with all detestation according to the Council of Arausicanum, we denounce Anathema against them. According to these Counsels the Catholic (7) Bellar. de ami●●. Gra. & statu Pe●. l. 2 c. 8. Rhem. Test. in Mat. 13.15. Church still reacheth, that God doth not Predestinate, Command, Counsel, o● Compel men to Sin, but only permitteth Sin: the true Causes whereof are the Devil, and Man himself. Points Disputable. Some (8) S. Tho. q. 6. de veritate art. 1. Alex. Halens in 1. p. Summae. q. 28. num 2. art. 1.2. Schoolmen teach, that Predestination formally consisteth in the act of God's understanding, whereby the Predestinate are efficaciously ordained to a supernatural end by supernatural means. (9) Scotus in, 1. Dist. 40. q unica. S. Bonavent. ead Dist. art. 1. q. 2. Others place it essentially in the act of the Will, whereby the Predestinate are chosen by God. Some (10) Durand. 1. Dist 41. q. 1 n. 10. teach, that the effect of Predestination is only the means whereby the Predestinate attain to beatitude, but not the attaining of the end itself. (11) Occam. 1. Dist. 41. q. unica Gabr. 1 Dist. 40. q. unica. art 1. Others teach the direct contrary: And (12) Communis Theologorum. others most probably make both the means, and the attaining of the end, the effect. Some (13) Tho. de Argent. in. 1. Dist. 41. q. unica. ad. 2. though very untruly, make the meritorious Cause of Predestination according to all the effects thereof, such good moral works as go before the Grace of justification. (14) Apud Durand. 1. Dist. 41 q. 2. Others deny this of those moral Works, but grant it of such as follow justification. (15) Heuric. Gandau. quod lib. 4. q. 19 & quodl. 8. q. 5. Others deny it of works following justification, if they be considered as proceeding from the freewill of man, but not as they proceed from the grace of God. (16) S. Th. 1. p. q. 13. art. 5. Ale. Halens. p. 1. q. 28. mem. 3 art. 3. and others. But the most probable opinion is, that it Predestination be considered, according to all the effects thereof, there is no meritorious cause at all in him that is Predestinate, but all is to be referred to the mere Will and Grace of God, though also it is most true that God ordinarily doth Predestinate only those of years of discretion, whom he forknoweth from all eternity to cooperate with his divine grace, even to the end. Some (17) Magist. 1. Dist. 40. Durand. ib. q. 2. teach, that in the reprobate, there is not any meritorious cause of his reprobation, in regard of all the effects thereof, to wit, God's permission of his Sins, and his eternal Punishment. (18) S. Bonau. 1. Dist. 41. art. 1 q. 1. Heruaeus 1. Dist. 40. q. unica art. 2. Others affirm those sins wherewith a Reprobate departeth out of this life, to be the meritorious cause thereof. Protestant untruths. D. White demandeth, (19) Way to the true Church Pref. to the Reader n 12 Who will believe that any can be so impious that holdeth there is a God, as to make him the Author of Sin, and yet they shame not to say we do it: Nor it seemeth that M. White shameth to deny it, but he shall see it plainly in the next Paragraph of Protestant Doctrine. M. Rogers writeth (20) Def. of the Art art. 21. p 183. The Saviour of men is jesus Christ a man, and came into the world to save no women but men, say some Papists: And redeemed the superior world only, which is man, said Postellus the jesuit: and yet not all men neither, for S. Francis hath redeemed so many as are saved since his days, say the Franciscan Friars. The Saviour of women, from her time till the end of the world, is S. Clare, affirm some other Papists: as Postellus saith, It is one Mother jane. The Saviour of men and women is S. Mary through her Virginitity, say some; is S. Christina by her Passion, say other Papists etc. Christ hath satisfied, and was offered only for Original Sin, an error of Thomas Aquinas. Thus loudly lieth Rogers: for in this one Sentence, there is not one Proposition, which is not a pure lie, framed by himself, in hatred of Catholics and their Religion, Protestant Doctrine. Caluin teacheth, that, (21) justit. l. 3. c. 23. §. 6. God doth by his Decree ordain that among men some be borne devoted from their mother's womb, to certain perdition, who by their destruction may glorify God. (22) Ad acta Collo. Mont. part. alt. p. 212. 215. 216. Beza endeavoureth to answer such clear Scriptures as teach that Christ died for the Sins of the whole world. And as concerning our Sins, Swinglius teacheth that, (23) Tom. 1. de Provide. Dei. fol. 365. When we commit Adultery or murder, it is the work of God: God being the mover, the author, and the incyter. Caluin and Beza maintain that, our sins are not by God's permission only, but also by his Decree and william. (24) Inst. l. 1. c. 4. sect. 3. 4. etc. c. 18. sect. 1. Beza in the Display of Popish Practices. p. 76. Fulk ag Rh. Test. in c. 6. Mat. sect. 6. & in. 3. ad Ro. sect. 4. & in. ●. ad Ro. sect. 2. & in Art 28. sect. 2. I have now (saith Caluin) shown clearly enough, God to be called the Author of all those things, which those censurers will have only to happen by his idle permission, which are Sins: And, (25) 1. Instit. c. 14. §. 3. I do acknowledge this to be my Doctrine; Adam to have fallen, not only by God's permission, but also by his secret Counsel etc. (26) De Prou. p. 73●. Though Adam destroyed himself and others, yet it is necessary to ascribe the corruption and guilt to the secret judgement of God (27) Ib. p. 738 I confess I have written, the fall of Adam to have been ordained by the hidden Decree of God. Zanchius granteth that, (28) De Praedest. c. 3. ●o. 7. Col. 1●3. There are not vulgar (Prot.) nor unlearned men, which do easily grant this, that some are Predestinate by the Lord to Sinne. And (29) abide. c 4. Col. 318. It cannot be denied, but that some are Predestinated to induration and execration. This (30) Part. 2. Th●ss p 167. Doctrine of Predestination (as Polanus thinketh) is the foundation, and chiefest part of the Gospel, to wit, of Protestants. Caluin (31) Inst. l 1. c. 17. §. 11. etc. 18 §. de Pro. p 739 746. Beza in abst. Calu. Hethu●i● p 317. 324. 382. and Beza do in sundry places expressly teach that, God doth not only permit, but command Satan to lie & deceive men. And hereof Beza saith, (32) Ib. p. 318. In this Doctrine is placed the Sum of our Salvation, and comfort. Caluin, (33) Inst. l. 1. c. 18. § 4. & de Praed. p. 717. Beza de Praedest cont. Cast p 401. Pe●. Mart. in c. 9 Rom p. 363. & in c. 1. p. 37. Beza, and Peter Martyr, do in several places defend that, God doth enforce, and compel men to sin, and the Devil to tempt them. And of this Doctrine Peter Martyr saith, (34) In loc. class. 1. c 15 §. 9 That we can less understand, how it doth not fight with God's justice to punish sins, and yet by tempting to enforce them to them, it is no marvel, for God can do more than we understand. Caluin, Beza, and other Prot. teach, that, (35) Inst. l. 3. c. 23 §. 9 Beza de Praed. p. 391. Swingl. de Provide. c. 6. fol. 366. God doth necessitate and compel men to sin: and yet, that men so necessitated shallbe damned for the same. Yea (saith Caluin) (36) Inst. l. 3. c. 23. §. 3. that I may a hundred times confess God to be the Author (of damnation) which is most true. And, (37) In Rom. 7.14. that God electeth some, reprobateth others, the cause is not elsewhere to be sought for, then in his intention. Beza avoucheth that, (38) De Pred. vol. 3. Theol. p. 438. God of his mere will, and therefore no respect had of worth or indignity, hath predestinated to hatred and destruction those whom he thought good etc. This he calleth (39) Ib p. 406 The foundation of our faith. Grinaeus and other Prot. teach that, (40) Apud Schlusselb. l 4. Theol. Calu. Art 8. p. 76. Sinnes are not the Cause that men are damned. In regard of the premises Beza is enforced to say, (41) De Praedest. count. Castal. p. 340. We think it a question inexplicable to man's sense, how God is not in fault, if he ordain the Causes of Damnation. And let all Prot. who believe this Doctrine, tremble to think in what miserable case they are, seeing D. Whitaker saith, (42) Cont. Camp. rat. 8. p 215. If Caluin, Peter Martyr, Melancthon, or Luther, or any of ours affirm God to be the Author of sin. I will not deny, but that we are all guilty of horrible blasphemy and wickedness. A large and desperate offer. Protestants agreed with Ancient Heretics. Vincentius writing against this Error, saith, (43) L Cont. Haer post med. Who before Simon Magus etc. dared affirm God the Creator, to be the author of our wicked deeds etc. And who before Novatianus, that God would rather the death of him that dyeth, then that he should return & live? Hereof also saith S. Austin, (44) Ad Articulos sibi falsò impositos, art. 10. It is an hateful & abominable opinion to believe, that God is the author of any evil will, or action. And the same Error (45) Haer. 66. he condemneth in Florinus. And the like doth (46) L. 1. c. 29. Tertul. count. Martion. l. 1. c. 2. S. Irenaeus, & Tertullian in Martion. There were also certain (47) Prateolus, verbo Praedestinati. Genebrar● in Sozimo. Sigebert Anno 415. Baron. Anno 490. n. 17. Heretics called Predestinates, who taught that neither good deeds would profit the good, nor evil deeds hurt the wicked, but that all things depended only of Gods absolute Predestination, or Reprobation; whereupon they averted the good from doing good deeds, and incited the bad to do worse. Yea it is related amongst the (48) Sand. haer. 125. ex Cedreno in Heraclio. Errors of Mahomet, that he taught God to be the Author of all evil. Protestant Errors. No Error can be more gross and impious, than the Protestant Doctrine related before; only add herunto the great crime that Danaeus imputeth to Bellarmine, saying, (49) Controu. 1. quaest. 14. p. 30. Bellarmine saith, Christ is predestinate the Son of God, which is Arrianisme. And the same is taught by (50) L. 1. de Praedest. §. 70. Affelmannus. SECT. II. It is proved by Scriptures, that God doth not Predestinate, will, Decree, Counsel, or compel men to sin, or to be damned, but only permitteth the same: And that Christ died not only for the Predestinate, but for all men whatsoever. TO confute these blasphemies by the sacred Scriptures, they teach us that god willeth not sin, or the death of a sinner, but that he convert and live; as also that he hateth and forbiddeth sin. (1) Ezech 18.32. I will not the death of him that dyeth, saith our Lord, return ye and live. (2) Ib c. 33. 11. I will not the death of the impious, but that the impious convert from his way, and live. Convert convert ye from your most evil ways. And, why will you die o house of Israel? (3) Isa. 5.3.4. judge between me and my vineyard, what is there that I aught to do more to my vineyard & have not done to it? whether that I looked it should yield grapes, and it hath yielded wild grapes? Thou (4) Ps. 5.3. art not a God that willeth iniquity. Because these words, (5) Ps. 5.5. Thou art not a God that wilt iniquity, do prove that God doth not will sin, therefore the (6) Anno 1568. Genevians instead hereof do translate, Thou dost not love iniquity. And, Thou (7) Anno 1588. 1610. dost not delight in iniquity, that so they may defend their Error, that God willeth iniquity for some end; although he neither love it, nor delight in it. And the same corruption is made by (8) In sua versione lat. Anno 1603. Tremellius and (9) Apud Vorstium in Parasceve. c. 3. Piscator. (*) Ps 5.7. Thou hatest all them that work iniquity (10) Sap. 14.9. The wicked man and his wickedness are hateful to God. (11) Eccles. 15.21. And see jerem. 19.5. He hath commanded no man to do . (12) jac. 1.13. Eccl. 15.11.12. Let no man when he is tempted say, that he is tempted of God; for God is not a tempter of evils, and he tempteth not man. These texts are most clear to prove, that God doth not will, command, or tempt men to sin, but wisheth their Conversion and hateth sin. Because these words of Ezechiel, (13) Ezech. 33.11. I will not the death of a sinner, but that he convert from his way and live, do prove that God willeth not the death of a sinner, Musculus instead thereof translateth thus, (14) In loc. tit. de veritate Dei. p. 452. I do not delight in the death of a sinner; and the same is used by (15) In hunc locum. Tremellius and Piscator, (16) In Thess. l. 2. p. 187. that so God may be thought to will the death of a Sinner, though he do not delight therein. Other places attribute sin and damnation to ourselves, and all our goodness to God, (17) Ose. 13.8. Ezech. 24.19. Isa 65.12. Prou. 1.24. Mat. 23.37. Perdition is thine o Israel, only in me is thy help. (18) Io. 8.44. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, because he is a liar and the Father thereof. (19) 1. Io. 3.8. He that committeth sin is of the Devil etc. For this appeared the son of God, that he might dissolve the works of the Devil. So that by these places it appeareth that sin proceedeth not from God, but from the Devil & the sinner himself. All such places as convince that Christ would have all saved, and died for all, confirm the same, (20) 1. Tim. 2.4.6. God will all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth, who gave himself a Redemption for all; (21) 1. Io. 1.29. who took away the sins of the world. Who was (22) 1. Io. 2.2. the reconciliation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world, and sundry (23) 2. Cor. 5.15. Rom. 8.32. Heb. 2. ●. Io. 4.42. 2. Pet 3.9. Apoc. 3.10. Isa. 5.3.4. Ezech. 18.32.33.11. such like. To these places Prot. answer, That they are only understood of the Elect, and not of all in general. Beza, (24) In Colloq. Montisbel. p. 442. & part. 2. resp. ad acta illius colloq. p. 231. It is clear that Peter speaketh only to the faithful Zanchius, (25) L. 5 de Nat. Dei. c. 2. col. 564. It is only understood of the Elect. (26) In Mat. 6. p. 169. Bucer, It is understood of them o●ly whom he hath chosen to this purpose, that they may be converted and live: so restraining universal Propositions to particular; which herein they do so unjustly, that jacobus Andraeas (27) In Mat. 6. p. 1●9. (27) In colloq. Montisbel p. 422. in dislike thereof saith, This sentence of Peter is so plain, that it can by no means admit this false Interpretation. Yea, (28) In Colloq Montisbel. p. 419. it is manifest impiety and abominable doctrine, against the express letter of a Promise' universal, to make a particular. And, (29) P. 411. It is horrible to be heard, so plain and universal vocation, to device ●o be particular. Agreeable also saith Gerlachius, (30) Tom. 2. Disp. 24. Whensoever in Scripture there is an universal proposition, it is to be limited by no distinction, uhles the same be grounded upon certain and clear words of Scripture otherwise every doctrine may be shifted of with the subtili y of distinstions. So little helpeth this Evasion, even in the judgement of Protestants. Yea the Scriptures teach that Christ died even for the reprobate, & those that are damned: (31) 1. Tim. 4 10. We hope in the living God, which is the Saviour of all men, especially of the faithful. (32) 2. Pet. 2.1. In you there shallbe lying Masters, which shall &c. deny him that hath bought them, the Lord; bringing upon themselves speedy perdition: (33) 1. Cor. 8.11 Rom. ●4. 15. through thy knowledge shall thy weak brother perish for whom Christ hath died? (34) Heb. 10.29. How much more think you doth he deserve worse punishment which hath trodden the Son of God under foot, and esteemed the Blood of the Testament polluted, wherein he is sanctified. Here the wicked man, who, as Prot. affirm, (35) See the Marg. notes of the Engl. Bible of Anno 1576. in Heb. 10.29. committeth sin against the holy Ghost, being therefore a reprobate, is yet said to be j,: ncls: jyed in thehlrud of Christ, which could not be, unless it had been shed for him. Here Prot. are enforced to corrupt the Scriptures: for because these words, (36) 1. Tim. 4.10. Who is the Saviour of all men especially the faithful, do show Christ to have redeemed all men, Beza (37) Ibid. instead of Saviour, placeth a Preserver. sa●ing, Because the name of Saviour hath troubled some, in regard that it somewhat favoureth life eternal to be gained in Christ, therefore that I might eschew the doubtful signification of the word I rather call him, Preserver. Wherein Tremellius also followeth him. Beza (38) Display of Popish Practices. p. 186. 190. 191. & in colloq. Montiab p. 1. p. 182. 183. & part. 1. p. 173. Danaeus Isagog. part. 4. l. 3. c. 38. p. 204. Kinnedoncius in his redempt. of mank. p 170. 162. Willet. Synop. p. 7●6. Luther de ser. Arb. Tom. 2. f. 450. and sundry other Prot. in answer to all the former places do affirm and teach. A double will in God; the one secret, fearful, and unsearchable; the other, the revealed will of God in his word. Affirming herupon that, he will not the death of a Sinner in his will revealed in his word, but willeth it by his unsearchable william. But if God would not the death of a sinner by his will revealed in his word, why then do Prot. urge from his said word, that he willeth the death of a Sinner, as of Esau, Pharaoh etc. And if that other unknown will be not revealed in the Scriptures, from whence then have they knowledge of such a will in God, unless it be from their own vain Imaginations? Besides, if God by his foresaid revealed will, would seriously and in truth the Conversion and Salvation of a sinner, and yet by his foresaid secret will, would it not; then he doth plainly will contraries, which to think, were absurd. And if to avoid this contrariety in God, Protestants only mean, that by his said revealed will, he would not seriously & indeed the salvation of the said sinner, but only maketh outward show by promise in word, as though he willed the same: this than were his revealed dissimulation, rather than his revealed will, which to say were blasphemous: so insufficient every way is this answer, either to satisfy the former plainest texts of Scripture, or to uphould this so impious doctrine of the Caluinistes. But because some (39) Kinnedon. in his redempt. of mank. p. 161. demand, why all are not saved, if God would have them so indeed, seeing, (40) Ps 113.3. He doth whatsoever he will? I answer with sundry (41) Hiper. Meth. Theol. l. 1. p. 156. Muscul. loc. come. de volunt. Dei. p. 415. Piscat. Vol. Thes. Theol. p. 174. Heming. de univers. great. p. 16. A mandus Polanus partition. Theol. l. 1 p. 10. 12. Prot. that God willeth some things absolutely, and those do evermore accordingly come to pass; other things he willeth both seriously and truly, and yet but conditionally, if we ourselves will, as our Conversion, Repentance, and the like: so it is said, (42) Ezech. 18.21.23. & 33.11.19. The wicked man shall live, if he will turn from his ways And (43) Apoc. 3.20. If any man will hear my voice, and open the gate, I will come into him In these things God doth not enforce our wills, but giveth us condition of (44) Deut. 30.19. Eccles. 15.17. Choice, as (45) 1. Cor. 10.23. not suffering us to be tempted above our power: And therefore though these things come not always to pass answerably to God's foresaid will, the cause thereof yet is through want, not of God's will, but of our own will not assenting to his: which our default, contrary to God's foresaid Conditional will, himself plainly yet further signifieth, as where it is said, (46) Ezech. 24.13. I would cleanse thee, and thou art not cleansed from thy filthiness but (47) Marg. notes of the Eng. Bibles, in Ezech. 24.13. wouldst not (48) Prou. 1.24. I called & you refused. (49) Isa 65.12. I called & you have not answered: I spoke, & you have not heard etc. and you have chosen the things that I would not. And to Jerusalem, (50) Ma●. 23.37. How often would I &c. and you would not. And hence it is, that the wicked are said to (51) Act. 7.51. resist the holy Ghost: So clearly are we taught by the sacred Scriptures, that God doth not decree or will the Sin or damnation of men, but that he desireth their Salvation, and died for all men. SECT. III. That the Fathers expound the Scriptures in proof that God doth not will or command Sin: And that Christ died for all. THe Ancient Fathers were so careful and zealous in clearing God from being the Cause or Author of sin, that S. (1) Euseb. l. 5. hist c. 19 Irenaeus writ a whole work against that Heresy; S. Basill a whole Oration; Theodoret (2) Ser. 5. ad Graecos. confirmeth the same at large with the testimonies of Plato, and other Philosophers; S. Austin writ three books of freewill, chief to prove, that God is not the cause of Sin: and S. (3) L. 1. ad Mominum. Fulgentius in a whole book disputeth this questions, whether sins be done by God's Predestination, which is the selfsame we argue now with Prot. and he concludeth with us negatively. S. Cyprian affirmeth that, (4) L. 4. Ep. 2. Seeing it is written, (5) Sap. 1.13. God made not Death, neither doth he rejoice in the perdition of the living, that he that would have no man perish, desireth sinners to do Penance etc. evil deeds come not from the holy Ghost but from the instinct of the Adversary etc. (6) Haer. 66. quae est Manich. propè init. It is absurd (saith S. Epiphanius) to ascribe malice to God, and the Character of divine and Ecclesiastical Scripture doth confess, that God is fare etc. from Evil. For God made nothing evil, but all things very good as being good by nature etc. neither therefore was evil always, nor was it made by God. S. Ambrose demandeth, (7) L. 1. Examer●n. c. 8. how God can beget malice, seeing the Prophet crieth, Cease from your malice? and especially S. David saith, Cease from evil, and do good: How therefore do we make our Lord the beginner thereof? But this brutish opinion is theirs, who would have the Church troubled. S. Hierome expounding those words of the Apostle, Who made all things according to the Counsel of his will, saith, (8) Comment. in c. 1. ad Ephes. Not that all things which are done in the world, are done by his will & Counsel, for then evils (or sins) should be imputed to him; but that all things which he doth, he doth by Counsel, and will. In like sort upon those words, God created man right, he (9) Comment. in Eccl. c. 7. writeth, Jest he should seem to make God the Author of Evil, he wisely forewarned, and affirmeth, that we are created good by God, but because we are left with freewill, by our own fault we slide to worse. S. Austin avoucheth that, (10) De spir. & lit c. 31. We no where read there is no will (or desire) but from God, and it is well not to be written, because it is not true; for otherwise God is the Author of sins, which God forbidden. And in another place, (11) De lib. arb. l. 3. c. 16. I do not find at all neither that it can be found, nor indeed is, I do confirm, how our Sins can be ascribed to our God, when as in them I find him praysworthy, not only because he punisheth them, but also, that they are then done, when his truth is left. Yea yet further, (12) Ad Art. sibi falsò impoes. Art 10. It is a hateful and abominable opinion to believe, that God is the Author of any ill will, or Action. Of the Father's belief in this point Caluin saith: (13) Instit. l. 2. c. 4 sect. 3. The Ancient Fathers were sometimes over religiously fearful to confess the truth in this matter etc. not Austin was free sometimes from that superstition, as where he saith, That induration and execration pertain not to the working of God, but to his foreknowledge. If Prot. had that religious fear which they reprove in the Fathers, they would not so execrably blaspheme, making God the Author of sin. SECT. iv That Protestant writers do teach the same doctrine with Catholics, against God being the author of sin, or Damnation. MAny of the learnedst Prot. both Lutherans and Caluinistes do join with us in this Doctrine against Caluin and Beza; A thing so evident, that Perkins wrote a special Treatise, (1) De Praedestinationis modo & ordine Ep. ad Lect. criminationes etc. that he might do away the blame imposed upon the truth: or saith he, as they call it, the Caluinian Doctrine and appease the displeased minds of certain brethren. Willet also confesseth and disliketh that, (2) Synop. p. 784. 808. Universality of Grace seemeth to be much approved even of some of our own Country men, and hath already gotten some Patron in our Church: the Doctrine whereof was preached by D. Harsnet at Paul's. Covell teacheth that, (3) Def. of Hook. p. 81. God hath a general inclination to save all. And that (4) Ibid. p. 62. 63. with a Conditional will, he willeth all men to be saved, who therefore that they are not, is not his Decree, but their own fault. Sutcliffe chargeth Cartwright (5) Examinat. of Cartwright. Apol. fol. 19 with blasphemy, for that he said, that God doth blast men's pens with a lying spirit, attributing the wicked action to God. Nappier teacheth that, (6) Upon Revel. c. 15. p. 190. Temptation and evil is only from the permission of God. Fox saith, (7) In Apoc. p. 473. Seeing the benefit of Redemption, which taketh away the sins of the world, is an universal thing; it is demanded whether the Grace of this Redemption do appertain equally to all the Posterity of Adam, or be restrained to a certain number? I answer saith he, that the incredulity of men, and no default of the Lamb maketh this restraint: which restraint, saith he, cometh to pass, not through any defect of the Redeemer but through the fault of men, who receive not the Grace of Redemption. Yea this Doctrine of Reprobation taught by some Prot. is according to Kinnedoncius, (8) Redempt. of mank. l. 1. c. 11. p. 31. Satanical Frantic; to Melancthon, (9) Loc. come. de causa pec. & conting. Hurtful to manners; to Christmanus (10) Di●g●aphe Electi nis p. 94. wicked; to Rungius (11) Disp. 15. ex Ep. Pauli etc. disp. 14. Thes. 10. Blasphemous; to And●aeas (12) Epit. Colloq. Mon●t●b p. 54. a horrible doctrine. Beza is for his contrary Doctrine publicly reprehended by Andraeas, (13) In resp. Bezae ad acta Colleq. Montisb p. 251. & Haffenrefferus: And Caluin, Beza and Z●nchius are reproved by (14) Theol. Calu. l. 1. art. 12. fol. 39 40. 41. Schlusselburge. And Caluin by Gesnerus, (15) Disp. pro sancto. lib. concor. disp. 3. c. 3. p. 60. 61. 62. Lobechius, (16) Disp. Theol. disp. 1. p. 14. & disp. 21. p. 507. 508 509. and Haffenrefferus. (17) Loc. Theol. l 3. p. 112. 188. Also Hemingius, (18) Enchir. etc. class. 3. p. 220. 221. 222. Hiperius, (19) Meth. Theol. l. 2. p. 431. 435. 436. 438. Manlius, (20) Loc. come. p. 104. Chemnitius, En●hyrid p. 158. and Brachmanus (22) Cent. exercit. Theo. q. 223 p 316. q. 14. p. 319. do allege many Scriptures to prove, that God doth not ordain any man to damnation, but that he would all men saved, and that he died for all. Paraeus affirmeth, that, (23) In Colloq. T●●ol. 1. disp. 13. The Cause of positive reprobation is the wickedness of the reprobate, because as God doth punish no man in time but only for sins, so also he hath decreed from eternity to punish no man. Snecanus (though otherwise a great (25) Ib. p. 182. 525. 649. admirer and follower of Caluin and Beza) is nevertheless so full and (25) Ib. p. 182. 525. 649. evident, that Willet reprehendeth him, calling him therefore, (26) Synop. pa. 18●. 80●. A Patron of universal Grace, Bullinger teacheth in like manner that, (27) Upon the Apoc. ser. 28 f. 7●. The Lord hath died for all, but that all men are not made partakers of this Redemption, is through their own fault, for the Lord excludeth no man. And of the like judgement is (28) M●rg●rita Theol. pag. 277. 285. 283. 296. 298. Adamus Francisci alleging many Scriptures in proof of his opinion. M. Hooker is so plain in affirming that, (29) Eccl. Pol. p. 104. God's general inclination is, that all men might be saved, that he is therefore specially reproved by the (30) Christian letter to Hook. p. 16. Puritans. M. Gibbens makes a special discourse hereof, affirming that (31) Questions upon Gen q ●. p 103. Surely there was no cause in God either in his will, or in his knowledge or Decree, that man should fall. And that, (32) Ib. pag. 109. 100 God willeth or decreeth things that are evil, not to do, or 'cause them to be done, or will them, but permit, or suffer them etc. God only willing to permit them. And the same is taught by Amandus (33) Partit. Theol. l. 1. p. 75. 76. & 10. 11. 11. Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. Col. 348. Polanus, and the Centurists. Melancthon and others do allege Scriptures to prove (24) Meth. discript. p. 410. that, (34) Lo●. come. de causa pec. & conting. & in Consil. Theol. part. 2 p. 111. 112. Keckerman. in System. Thiol. p. 102. Brach. Cent Exer●. p. 319. 320. God willeth not our Sin: and that pharao's hart was hardened by God's permission, not by his william. And Melancthon saith concerning Saul, (35) Loc. come. c. de causa peccati. God foresaw the sins of Saul, but he willed them not, neither doth he force his will, but permitteth, that the will of Saul may so rage's, and he doth not force that he do otherwise. And many texts of Scripture are alleged to the same end by (36) Loc. come. Tom. 1. de Praedest. f 31. 32. 79. 80. Snecan. Meth. descript. p. 621. etc. Bulling. in Dec. in Engl p. 492. Sarcerius, Snecanus, and Bullinger. Yea Willet himself affirmeth that, (37) Synop p. 789. 799. God decreeth not, but only foreseeth sinful works: and that (38) Ib. p. 800. God foreseeth, but willeth not Sinne. Christmanus hath published a whole (39) Diagraphe Electionis etc. Book of this matter directly against Caluin, and other Prot. that join with him; wherein the title of the eight Chapter is, De Caluinianorum absoluto decreto. Of the ninth Chapter, De obiectionum pro absoluto Decreto refutatione. And of the tenth, Rationes immotae contra Caluinianorum absolutum Decretum, & quòd Deus vult omnes homines saluos fieri. Hemingius hath written a special (40) De gratia universal etc. Treatise of this Argument, for which Willet (41) Synep. p. 784. reprehendeth him, for that therein he teacheth that it is in man's power to give assent to grace offered, and to believe. And himself avoucheth that, Caluins' (42) De Grat. univers p. 111. opinion fighteth with the word of God, calling and inviting all to repentance etc. And, that many are brought into despair, whilst with that opinion the Doctrine of universal grace is overthrown. Yea Ib p. 77. he chargeth his Brethrens with ten several Errors in this matter, all which he doth there particularly set down. Marbachius also hath written a Treatise, the title whereof is, Disputatio Theologica de universali Dei voluntate erga totum genus humanum, adversus eos qui ad solos Electos & Credentes eam restringere conantur. Conra●us Schl●sselburg affirmeth that, (44) Theol. Calu. l. 1. c. 6. de redempt. Christi. The Divinity of Caluinistes teacheth Chr●st to have died only for the Elect: Yea, he affirmeth that the merit of Christ cannot be opposed to the judgement of God etc. Are not these Revelations upon the Revelation, as D. Luther was accustomed to say of new and obscure worms, and trifles of Fanatical men etc. The words of john the Apostle are clear enough, for he hath said Christ to have died not only for the sins of the Apostles, and the Elect, but he addeth, to have satisfied for the sins of the whole world. In brief, Castalio (45) L. ad Caluin. de Praedest. writeth herein against Caluin, and Andraeas (46) Epitome. Colloq. Montisb. p. 49. 53. against Beza: and after many Scriptures alleged against Bez ' as foresaid doctrine, he concludeth that it is, (47) Ib p. 47. Horrendum auditu, fearful to be heard. Yea the Prot (48) See the letters Senatus Bern●nsis ad Ministros &c. Anno 1555. Magistrates of Berna made it penal for any of their Territory to preach Caluins' foresaid doctrine, or for the people to read any of his Books containing the foresaid doctrine. And yet such is the inconstancy of Caluin, as that sometimes he affirmeth, that, (49) In. 1. joan. c. 2. This common opinion of the Schools is true, Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficaciously for the Elect alone. SECT. V Reasons to prove that God doth not will, command, or enforce men to Sin, or to be damned, but that he only permitteth the same. 1. Whosoever doth Command or enforce a man to do any thing, is the Principal Author of the same thing, and is so reputed by all, neither doth the natural light of reason suffer us to deny it. Besides the wicked man when he sinneth (according to Prot.) is the Instrument of God, but he that useth the Instrument is the Principal author of that work, which is wrought by the Instrument. Ergo. Some answer heerto, that though God command or enforce men to sin, yet the said sins, are not sins, as they proceed from God so enforcing, but as they proceed from the wicked mind and wicked intention of man: In so much that God in those actions doth propose to himself a good (1) Calu. Inst. l 1. c. 17. §. 5. Swing. loc. de Provide c. 6. end, to wit, the manifestation of his mercy and justice, by showing mercy to some, and condemning others, whereas man doth propose his own lust or pleasure. But this doth not satisfy, for first it is not lawful to (2) Rom. 3.8. do evil, that there may come good; as to steal, for to give Alms, or to commit fornication, to beget Children. Besides I would know, whether the evil intention of man, which causeth it to be sin in man, is commanded and forcibly caused by God or no. If it be, then is God plainly the author of sin, that evil Intention being it, which causeth the action to be evil, and to be sin. And that he is this Author, according to them it is evident, for sin is not sin (as they teach) but by reason of the evil Intention, wherefore if he force them to sin, he forceth them to the evil Intention. And if God to show his mercy and justice decreed from all Eternity, that man should sinne, and sin is not sin except it be done with evil Intention, it followeth clearly, that God decreed that man should work with evil intention. And because the Decree of God cannot be uncertain, not depending of the freewill of man, it further followeth; that God did forcibly procure, that man should work with evil intention, and so be no less Author of the Evil Intention, then of the work itself. Others seek to evade by affirming, that, God doth not will sin in that formal respect as it is Sin, but for some other end: But so neither the Devils themselves do will sin, for as so, it is a mere privation of Good, whereas the reason or object of willing, must needs be in some respect good. Aretius' further replieth saying, (3) Loc. Com. p. 130. & Zwingl. loc. de Provide. c. ●. We answer, God having no Superior, can have no law prescribed him, and sin hath only place, where there is a law; and that hence it followeth, that in the Actions of God there is no sin: And so in the same work the will of man transgresseth the law, and is evil, and the will of God transgresseth not the law, and is not evil. But though God hath no law imposed upon him by any Superior, yet his wisdom and nature is as a law unto him, wherefore no less is he bond not to impugn his own wisdom, than man God's law: And so if God should force men to commit those things which are contrary to his Eternal law, and so to his divine wisdom, as to commit adultery etc. then should his will be evil, being contrary to the right rule of his divine wisdom, which were God to deny himself, which is impossible. Again, if God command a man to sin, man is bound to obey his Command, and so a man committing Adultery, sinneth against one of his Commandments, & sinneth not in executing Gods will and Decree, and so God enforcing him, will have him to sin, and will not have him to sin. Lastly, though God having no Superior can have no law imposed upon him, other than his own wisdom, and so thereby cleared from sin in himself, yet this availeth nothing to clear him from being the author and cause of sin in us, which is the only point here in question. Add yet herunto, what an impiety it is to teach, that God damneth men for doing those things, which himself commandeth and compelleth them to do. 2. If God doth intent, decree, command, and compel men to sin, it further followeth, that he is not only the Author and cause of sin in us, but that he himself truly sinneth, which is extreme blasphemy to avouch: for therefore are men said to sin, because they are free and particular causes of such actions, as are contrary to reason, & the Eternal law of God: But according to Prot. God concurreth to the foresaid actions, not only as an universal cause (as Catholics teach) but even according to Caluin, (4) Instit. l. 2. c. 4. §. 2. as a particular Cause, willing, & commanding them as they are such in particular, which is nothing else but truly and properly to sin. Yea (5) In Aphorism. 22. Beza teacheth, that God doth not only move and compel his Instruments to such actions, which in regard of the Instruments are sin, but also that he createth the said Instruments, that is, men to that end, that they should perform those actions which he intended and decreed from all Eternity: whereof it necessary followeth, that the said evil actions, as they are such in particular, were intended by God, and so to be attributed to him as the principal cause, and so consequently, that he truly and properly sinneth: This necessary Consequence enforced Beza to say, (6) De Praedest. ont. Castal. p. 3●0. We think it a question inexplicable to man's senses, how God is not in fault, if he ordain the Cause of damnation. Caluin (7) Instit. l. 1. c. 17. §. 3. would evade by affirming, that as the sun doth cause in a dead Carcase noisome smells, and yet the beams thereof contract no impurity, so may God be cause of sin in us, & yet not sin himself. But this is many ways impertinent; for first before all concourse of the sun, it is supposed, that the Body is already dead & disposed to corruption, for in a sound body the sun beams cannot produce any such effect: but according to Prot. God moved Adam & Satan to sin, when they were in perfect and innocent state. Secondly the sun is only an universal cause, which intendeth not corruption, but heat, which heat of itself is indifferent to produce different Effects, and is limited and determined by secondary and particular causes to produce rather one effect then another, as might be exemplifyed in an Apple, or perfume, and a dead Carcase, whereas according to them, God concurreth particularly, intending, commanding, & forcibly procuring such actions as are sin. Thirdly, the Sun concurreth necessarily not having free choice or will, and that by an action not immanent, or remaining in itself, but passing from itself into that wherein it worketh: whereas God concurreth freely, and at his own will, and with such a will and desire as still remaineth in himself, and therefore cannot corrupt another with sin, but must needs remain corrupted himself, seeing that will wherewith he willeth another to Sin, is in himself, and not in another. Thirdly, it yet further followeth of this foresaid doctrine of Prot. that God alone doth only sin and not man: for it is most clear and certain, that no man can sinne in that which he cannot possibly eschew, but of necessity is forced to do: But according to (8) De Provide. c. 6. Calu. Instit. l. 3. c. 23. §. 7. 9 & de Praedest. p. 906. Zwinglius and Caluin, our first Parents even in their Innocency could not eschew Sin, but of necessity committed the same. Fourthly, from all the Premises we may gather, that if it be intolerable blasphemy to affirm God to be author of sin, or him only truly to Sin, that seeing man doth but that which God Commandeth and enforceth him to do, and God himself being the chiefest goodness, can do no evil; that, therefore there neither is, nor ever was any sin at all, and so by necessary sequel, no judgement, no hell, & in vain C●rists Incarnation & death for the Redemption of Mankind: into such Atheistical blasphemies do Prot. fall. SECT. VI Objections from Scripture, in proof that God is the Author of Sin, and decreeth the sin or damnation of man, answered. Such places are objected as seem to affirm that God caused sin, (1) Isa. 45.6.7. I the Lord, and there is none other, that form light and created darkness, make peace and created evil. (2) Michae. 1.12. Evil is descended from our Lord, into the gate of Jerusalem. (3) Amos. 3.6. Shall there be evil in the City which our Lord hath not done? and such like. But this is purposely answered and explained by sundry Fathers, amongst which writeth Tertullian, (4) Cont. Martion. l. 2. c. 14. At all occasions God is ready, he striking and curing, killing and reviving, humbling & exalting, creating evil and making peace, that I also may here answer the heretics: for behold, they say, he professeth himself the Creator of evil, saying, I am he that creates evil etc. But we using a distinction of both kinds, separating the evil of sin, and the evils of punishment, the evils of fault and the evils of pain, do allot, to every part their own author, the Devil the maker of the evils of sin and fault, God the maker of the evils of Punishment and pain, that, that part may be deputed to malice, this to justice, creating evil judgmentes against the evils of sin. And the like Answer is made by Origen (5) L. c. cont. Celsum. and by S. Basill in his (6) Hom. 9 Homily, that God is not the author of Evils; as also by S. john Damascene (7) Orthod. fidei. l. 4. c. 20. Cass. Collatine. 6. c. 5. and Cassian. But S. Austin explaineth this more fully in his Dialogue with Euodius, saying: (8) De lib. Arb. l. 1. c. 1. Euod. Tell me I pray thee, whether God is not the Author of Evil? Aug. I will, If thou wilt make known of what evil thou demandest. For two several ways we use to call evil: one when we affirm any man to have done evil, another when he hath suffered evil. Euod. I desire to know of both. Aug. But if thou knowest and believest God to be good (neither is it otherwise lawful) he doth not evil. Again, if we confess God to be just (and to deny this, it is sacrilegious) as he giveth rewards to the good, so he giveth punishment to the evil, which punishments are evils to the sufferers; Wherhfore, if no man is punished unjustly, which is necessary that we believe, seeing we believe the whole world to be governed by divine providence, of that first kind of evils (to wit Sins) God by no means is the Author, but of the second (to wit punishment.) Thus clearly S. Austin. Agreably to this (9) Engl. Bible of Anno 1576. in Esay 45.7. our own English Bybles in their marginal notes do expound this place of Esay, of the evil of punishment, as namely of war and adversity; which also appeareth, more plainly by opposition of the word Peace, there next precedent. And Nappier (10) Upon Revel. c. 15. p. 190. answereth that of Amos 3.6. and Mat. 6.13. (11) Pet. Mar. in loc. come. in Engl. part. 1. p. 210. Fulke ag. Rhem. Test. fol. 12. sect. 6. commonly objected by Caluins' followers. Piscator answereth that these sayings are to be understood, (12) Vol. 1. Thes. Theol. p. 175. 176. 202. De malo non culpae, sed poenae, of the evil not of sin, but of punishment. And the like answer is made out of S. Austin by (13) Meth. Theol. p. 435. Bulling Dec. p. 493. Hiperius, and Bullinger. Other places also are objected which seem to affirm that God decreed from all eternity that Sins should be. (14) Act. 4.27.28. And see act. 2.23. There assembled in this City against thy holy Child jesus, Herod and Pontius Pilate etc. to do what thy Hand, and thy Council decreed to be done. But this forceth nothing, for in evil deeds it often happeneth, that the action is evil and the passion good, as in the death of our Saviour, his betraying and crucifying were damnable Sins in the jews, and his patiented and charitable suffering was meritorious and good in him. God therefore when he decreed the death of Christ, decreed those virtuous actions which shined in his Passion, the wickedness of the jews he decreed not, but only foresaw and permitted it, which foresight and permission were sufficient to make God's decree of Christ's death infallible. To this purpose writeth S. Epiphanius, (15) Cont. Caianos haer. 38. Euseb. Caesar. de Praepar. Euang. l. 6. c. 9 Although the Scriptures say that Christ would be crucified, or that absurdities are to be committed by us in the last days, yet none of us who do evil, shall found excuse producing the Testimony of Scripture foretelling these things to be hereafter; for we do them not because the Scripture hath said it, but because we were to do them, the Scripture fortelled by the forknowledge of God etc. So also of the Cross, not because divine Scr pture said it, the jews crucified and judas betrayed our Saviour, but because judas was to betray him and the jews to crucify him, therefore the Scripture fortould in the old Testament, and our Lord in the Gospel. The Prot. Sitzlinus also answereth this saying, (16) In Disp. Theol. de Provide Dei. sect 244. The worde● Hand, and Council, signify the good and healthful end, for whic● God permitted that wicked facts of the jews, which he did neither assist nor allow: Even as joseph said to his Brethrens, (17) Gen. 50.20. Ye● thought evil against me, God disposed it to good, that he might & save much people. Such texts also are urged, as seem to teach that Go● created the wicked to that end, that in their punishment h● might manifest his power and justice; (18) Prou. 16.4. Our Lord ha●● wrought all things for himself, the impious also to the evil day. (19) Rom. 9.21. Hath not the Potter of Clay, power, of the same mass, to make o● vessel unto honour, and another unto Contumely? (20) Rom. 9.17. The Scripture saith to Pharaoh, that to this purpose have I raised thee, that in thee may show my power, and that my name may be renowned in the whe● Earth. Answ. God createth not the wicked but only materially, that is, he createth those, whom he foreseeth through their own default, willbe wicked, that so he may use thei● iniquity, which he caused not or decreed, but only forsa● to the manifestation of his justice and power. And so by that of the Proverbs is understood, that God who worke●● all things to his glory, hath created those whom he foresaw would be wicked, if they were created; that so in their deserved punishment he might manifest his justice. In like sort (as S. Austin (21) Ep. 105. ad Sixtum. & Ep. 106. ad Paulin. observeth) God made not of matter, which was good or indifferent, vessels unto contumely, but of matter which was naught, contumelious, and damnable, he made some vessels, such as the said matter required, that was to contumely, and others of his own will and mercy to honour: Even as the Potter, of clay, being a base matter, may make some vessels for base uses and others for noble: so that the vessels made to contumely, have of God, that they be vessels, but of the matter, that they be to reproach, and the other made to honour, have both of God. And indeed, if God of matter good or indifferent, that is, if God from all Eternity should have decreed some to damnation not overseeing their sins, it is plain, that he could not be excused from iniquity and greatest cruelty. And as to the last place, I say with Rupertus, (22) In Rom. 9.17. that God overseeing pharao's obstinacy, whereas he might have prevented him both of life and Kingdom, did notwithstanding give him both, that so he might use his malice to the exercise of his people, and manifestation of his own power in his punishments. Lastly, these objections are so little forcing, that they are all of them explained and answered by Bullinger, (23) Dec. 3. Ser. 10. p. 493. 494. Hiper. Meth. Theol. l. 2. p. 435. 438. Snecan. Meth. descri. de Praedest. c. 6. p. 514. 515. 520. 525. 701. Pisc. vol. 1. Thes. Theol. 7. p. 202. 176. Hiperius, Snecanus, and Piscator, all of them Caluinistes. Add yet, that the long patience mentioned in the text, wherewith God suffered the vessels of wrath, argueth, that, as Hiperius saith, (24) M●th. Th. l. 2. p. 438. They were created good, and afterwards became evil of their proper will, being made vessels of wrath, because that voluntarily they were to become evil. Otherwise if God had willed and decreed their destruction without respect of their sin, how could it be said that he suffered them in long patience? Yea the same Apostle speaking elsewhere, (25) 2. Tim. 2.20.21. Of vessels unto contumely, saith, that if any man shall cleanse himself from these, he shallbe a vessel unto honour. Others further object such places as seem to affirm that God moveth, compelleth, or commandeth men to sin, or useth them as his Instruments of sin. (26) 2. Reg. 24.1. The fury of our Lord added to be angry against Israel, and stirred up David among them saying, Go number Israel and juda. (27) 2. Reg. 16.10. And see the like. 3. Reg. 22.11. Ps. 43.18. & 118.36. Mat. ●. 12. Our Lord hath commanded him to curse David. Answ. The true meaning of these and such like places is, that God permitteth the will to sin: and so accordingly do other Scriptures explain them, as where it is said, (28) Mat. 19.7.8. And see Deut. 24 1.2. Why then did Moses command to give a bill of Divorce, and to dismiss her? He saith to them, because Moses for the hardness of your hart permitted you to dismiss your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. So also David's numbering of the people, is attributed to the Devil. (29) 1. Paral. 21 1. And Satan rose against Israel, and moved David to number Israel. Wherefore God is only said to move David thereto, because he permitted the Devil to do it, without which permission he had not done it. And this understanding of these and such like places is made by S. Austin, (30) Tract. 52. in joan. & de Gra. & lib. Arb. c. 20. & l. 2 ad Simpl. q. 2. & ep. 89. q. 2. and S. john Damascene (31) Orthod. fidei. l. 4. c. 20. . Yea S. Austin speaking of those words of S. Paul (32) 2. Th●ss. 2.11. God will sand them the operation of Error to believe lying, expoundeth them thus, (33) De civet. l. 20. c. 19 God will sand, because he will permit the Devil to do these things. Agreably saith (34) Ag. the Adu. of God's Praed. p. 374. Knox, Neither to Pharaoh, neither to Semei, nor yet to any other Reprobate, doth God give either wicked Commandment, or evil thought etc. Yea God himself mentioning the sinful action of the people, explaineth this point, saying, (35) Higher, 19.5. I commanded it not, nor spoke it, neither came it into my mind. Others yet object, that God hardeneth the hearts of Sinners. (36) Ex. 7.3. I will indurate his hart, with sundry such like in (37) Ios. 11.20. job. 12.24. Isa. 63.17. Io. 12.40. Rom. 1.28.9.18. other places. Answ. The same Scriptures do explain this saying, (38) Exod. 8.15. & 9.34.1. Reg. 6.6. Pharaoh seeing that rest was given, he hardened his own hart, and heard them not, as our Lord had Commanded. S. Austin also expoundeth it, that God hardened pharao's hart, (39) Ep 105. ad Sixtum. & l. 1. ad Simpl. q. 2. cir. med. & in Io. tra. 53. not by giving him malice, but by not giving him mercy. And for this exposition are the Fathers rejected by (40) Inst. l. 2. sect. 4. c. 3. Caluin. And that by Gods hardening of his hart is understood his suffering it to be hardened; it is further taught by the Prot. writers (41) Dec. p. 492. 493. Hiper. Meth. Theol p. 438. Vrsin. Catech. p. 331. 332. Abeitz. Rudiment. art. Dial. p. 540. Marbach. Disp. Theol. de Provide. sect 164. etc. Harm. of Confess. p. 61. Bullinger, Hiperius, Vrsinus, Paulus Abeitzen, Marbachius, and the Confession of Helvetia: In so much that Conradus Sclusselburge answereth directly heerto in these words: (42) Theol. Calu. l. 1. c. de Praedest. God is not by any means the cause of Sin, neither doth he will sinne, or approve sin. As concerning the phrases of Scripture, I will harden the hart of Pharaoh, He hath given them into a Reprobate mind etc. it appeareth by the word of God, that those sayings are to be understood of God's permission, whereby he suffereth man to rage in Sin, by the just judgement of God, wherewith he punisheth sins with sins, yet doth he not 'cause them nor approve them. Melancthon also giveth the like answer saying (43) Loc. come. c. de cause. pec. & conting. Neither do those figures of words offend, I will harden the hart of Pharaoh, and the like: for it is certain that in the Hebrew phrase they signify permission, not an efficacious william. Another Prot. agreably writeth, (44) Corpus Doctr. Chris. p. 618. Let the studious know, the Hebrew phrase in those words, I will harden the hart of Pharaoh, to signify permission etc. And examples every where concur, which testify by this Hebrew Phrase very often, Permission to be signified. Anthony Maxey chaplain to the late King's Majesty saith, (45) In his 2. Sermon printed. 1607. It is well known unto the learned, that where it is said, God hardeneth, the Hebrew Dialect doth signify, a permission, not an action. So that God hardeneth not the hart of a sinner positively, but only negatively, that is, by permitting, forsaking, and not taking pity: wherein is no injustice, seeing God forsaketh not but being first forsaken, and it is but just, that those who forsake, be forsaken. And according to this as S. Paul said (46) Rom. 1.24. God hath delivered them up unto the desires of their hart into uncleanness: so elsewhere he explicateth this saying, (47) Eph 4.19. Who despairing have given up themselves to impudicity, unto the operation of all uncleanness. And so where God is said, (48) job. 1.11. & 2.3.4. to have afflicted job, it is evident by the story, that he only (49) job 1.11. & 2.5. at the instance of Satan, permitted him to afflict job. Esay also saith (50) C. 6.9. make the hart of this people fat, and shut their eyes: which S. john alleging saith, (51) Io. 12.40. He hath blinded their eyes and indurated their hart: B●t this our Saviour himself and S. Paul explain, saying, (52) Mat. 13.15. Act. 28.27. their eyes they have shut. And K. David most plainly saying, (53) Ps. 81.11.12. My people would not hear my voice, and Israel would none of me, so I gave them up to the hardness of their hart. Others greatly insist upon these words of S. Paul, (54) Ro. 9.11. When they were not yet borne, nor had done any good or evil (that the purpose of God according to Election might stand) not of works, but of the caller, it was said to her, That the Elder shall serve the younger, as it is written, jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. Answ. This saying of the Apostle being taken, the first part thereof from (55) Gen. 25.23. Moses, the later from (56) Mal. 1. ● 3. Malachi, is (as the Protestants Christmanus (57) Diagraph. p. 76. Kinned. in his Redempt. of mankind. p. 294. and Kinnedoncius do acknowledge) spoken of the several posterities of jacob & Esau: which also is plainly signified by the whole context of Malachi; for whereas Esau was called (58) Gen. 25.30. & 36.1. Edom, Malachi understandeth Esau's Posterity, (59) Cap. 1.4. If Idumea shall say, we are destroyed etc. as also by these other evident words of Moses, (60) Gen. 25.23. Two Nations are in thy womb, and two peoples shallbe divided out of thy womb, and etc. the Elder shall serve the younger. And like as by God's foresaid love to jacob is signified the temporal felicity of his Posterity (61) Gen. 15.23. above the other; so likewise by God's foresaid hating of Esau, is in like manner understood the temporal infelicity of his Posterity and Nation, as Malachy convinceth saying, (62) Mal. 1.2.3. I loved jacob, but hated Esau, and I laid his mountains into a wilderness, and his Inheritance unto the Dragons of the Desert. And though it appear by this Epistle of S. Paul, that the jews having indeed some (63) Rom. 3.1.2. Pre-eminence above the Gentiles, because the words of God were (first) committed to them, did thereupon over much extol themselves above the other, as being (64) Rom. 3.29. & 9.8. persuaded, that the Promises of Grace were peculiar to themselves and their carnal succession. In further Confutation whereof, though also the Apostle in the place objected, do by application thereof, transfer the foresaid Example of jacob and Esau being twins; and so under the resemblance or type of them, doth show, that like as jacob being the younger Brother, was nevertheless by God loved, and preferred to the promised land of Canaan, before his elder Brother Esau; that so likewise in the promises of Grace and the Gospel, the jews foresaid external Prerogative doth not so prevail, but that the Gentiles, being in regard thereof, but as it were the younger Brother to them, are nevertheless in the Grace and riches of the Gospel (65) Rom. 9.24. equalled, if not preferred (66) See Rom. 9.30.31. before them: God's Election and mercy so showed, depending upon his own purpose & determination, and not restrained to any Nation, family, or people: yet all this availeth nothing to establish Gods absolute Decree of eternal hatred and reprobation; for if the foresaid words, I have loved jacob, and hated Esau (being heretofore proved to be spoken not of their persons, but of their posterity and Nations) should be urged in this sense; then as Christmanus (67) Diagrapha. p. 78. answereth, it would follow, that all the posterity of jacob were Elect, and none of them reprobate, and all the posterity of Esau reprobate, and none of them Elect, which were absurd to hold. Secondly I further answer, that though the foresaid words of Gods hating Esau, should concern the person of Esau, and withal wer● not to be understood of his temporal infelicity, but otherwise; yet this hatred of God is not to be taken positively, but as Christmanus (68) Vbi sup. Snecan. Meth. de scrip. p. 517. and Snecanus do explain the same, negatively, that is to say, for, not to love, or nor to have mercy, according to other like examples hereof in the (69) Io. 12.25. Luc. 14.26. Scriptures. Thirdly, though it were to be taken positively, yet should it be so referred, not to his Creature Esau, Which he made, for, (70) Gen. 1.31. All that be made was very good, and, (71) Sap. 11.25. Thou lovest all things that are, and hatest nothing of those which thou hast made: for thou didst not ordain or make any thing hating it: but to the sin of Esau, which he foresaw, and never made. And agreably to this saith Beza; (72) Display of Popish practices. p. 17. We confess God hateth nothing in man but sin. Now that God's foresight and hatred of Esau's sin, doth not of necessity impugn free will in Esau, or prove his real reprobation, appeareth most evidently by the example of Adam, whose sin before his fall, God both forsaw and (73) Ps. 45.7. Zachar. 8. ●7. hated; and yet as Prot. (74) Bulling. Dec. 3. Ser. 10. p. 490 Hip. Meth. Theol. l. 1 p. 214. 219. Sne●an. M●th. descript. p. 123. 126. 778. confess, the same notwithstanding, Adam before his fall had free will, & was also one of the Elect, as S. Austin (75) L. de haeras. haer. 25. proveth against the Tacianistes. Fourthly, whereas S. Peter forwarned us that in S. Paul's (76) 2. Pet. 3.16. Epistles there are certain things hard to be understood, amongst the rest this his foresaid discourse upon jacob and Esau, hath ever been taken for one of the Principal, wherefore it is altogether unequal, that this so obscure saying or discourse should be alleged against so many and so clear texts, as I have formerly produced. Lastly this very Objection is at large answered by (77) Meth. descrip. 1. p. 55. p. 537. Heming. de Grat. univer. p. 34. 37. Christm. Diagr. p. 73. etc. Gesn. Disp. pro lib. concord. p. 620. Snecanus, Hemingius, Christmanus & Gesnerus, all of them Protestant writers. Others yet object that, (78) 1. Pet. 2.8. Christ is to those that believe, honour; but to them that believe not etc. a stone of offence etc. to them that stumble at the word, neither do believe, wherein also they are put: whereupon it is inferred, that they were ordained by God not to believe. Which sequel if it hold, how then is God excused from being author of their not believing, and so of their sin? I answer therefore, that the sense hereof (is most directly against Protestants) that they were put or ordained to believe, but did not; which sense is acknowledged by Snecanus, (79) Meth. descrip. p. 701 Cast. Defence. Transl p. 152. 153 &c Illic. G●ost. in 1. Pet. 1.8. Luth. in 1. Pet. 1.8. Castalio, Illiricus, and Luther. Fulke urgeth those words of Christ, (80) Mat. 6.15. Led us not into temptation: whereby (saith he) is proved, not only a permission, but an action of God: and that, He not only permitteth, but also leadeth into temptation: Yea, saith Peter Martyr, (82) Com. pla●. in Engl part. 1. c. 18. p. 210. God tempteth, (81) Ag. Rh. Test. in Mat. 6.13. sect. 6, and (83) Ibid. p. 211. driveth men unto sin by temptation: But though this be sufficiently answered in the Objection of Induration: yet in further clearing thereof, I say, 1. that the Scriptures themselves do explain this. Let (84) jac. 1.13.14. no man (saith S. james) when he is tempted, say that he is tempted of God, for God is not a tempter of evils, and he tempteth no man: but every one is tempted of his own Concupiscence etc. S. Paul teacheth that God is so fare from leading us into temptation, that to the contrary he delivereth us from temptation: (85) 1. Cor. 10.13. God is faithful who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able, but will make also with temptation issue, that you may be able to sustain. 2. S. Austin saith, (86) Ep. 89. q. 2. And do not lead us into temptation, it is understood do not permit us to be led, by forsaking. S. Cyprian readeth, Do not suffer us to beled. 3. The Prot. Nappier answereth this saying, (88) Upon Revel. in c. 15. p. 190. It is said in the Lord's prayer, lead us not into temptation etc. not that the Lord tempteth us etc. but only that the temptation and evil doth flow from the permission, and sufferance of his Majesty etc. And agreably saith Bullinger (89) Decad. p. 949. Suffer us not to be led by a Devilish and wicked temptation. And the same Exposition is made by (90) Loc. come. cap. de Causa pec. etc. Melancthon, and (91) Catechesis. p. 105. the Divines of Wittemberge. So insufficient are all objections made by Prot. in proof of their blasphemous Doctrine. CHAP. XXXI. The true State of the Question concerning Freewill. Whether man after Adam's fall hath freewill with God's grace, to do such things as belong to Salvation, and not to do them: or whether the Will concurreth only as a natural Instrument of God, and not as a free Cause. SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. FReewill (according to S. Gregory (1) In Ecclesiast. ho. 2. & ho. 4. Cant. Nissen) being of all things that are in man the best and the most excellent; and a thing so manifest that whosoever denyeth it, is not a Catholic, saith (2) L. de Gra. & lib. Arb. c. 2. S. Austin: In defence therefore thereof against Heretics, the Catholic Church decreeth that, (3) Conc. Trid. Sess. 6. Can. 4. If any shall say, the Freewill of man moved and stirred by God to cooperate nothing by assenting to God moving and calling, whereby he may dispose, and prepare himself to obtain the grace of justification, neither that he can descent if he will, but as a thing without life to do nothing at all, and to bear himself merely passively, Anathema. And, (4) Can. 5. If any shall affirm man's freewill to have been lost and extinguished after Adam's sin etc. Anathema. In the fourth Toletane Council it is decreed that, (5) Conc. Tolet. 4. Cap. 57 de judaeis. As man by his freewill obeying the Serpent perished; so the grace of God calling, by conversion of his own mind, every man by believing is saved: Therefore not by force, but by the freewill of the mind, they are to be persuaded, not enforced to be converted. In the Council Senonense it is thus defined, (6) Cap. 15. de lib. Arb. This heresy wholly taking away the liberty of the will, we do not so much condemn, being already long since condemned by the Church and sacred Counsels, as we do declare it to be contrary to the common Counsel of men, and to the plain Testimonies of Scripture. All Catholics (7) Bellar. de Grat. & lib. Arb. l. 6. c. 10. Rhem. Test. in Io. 1.12. & in 1. Cor. 3 5. believe, that the Will of Man concurreth with God's Grace actively, and freely to the works of Piety; in such sort, that it is in man's free Choice to cooperate with God's Grace, or to resist the same: And that this freedom is not only from Coaction, but from Necessity. Points Disputable. All Schoolmen granting Freewill, (8) Pet. Lombar. in 2. sent. Dist. 24. lit. E. Some place the same in the conjunction of 2. Acts, to wit, of the judgement of Reason, and Election of the Will: But (9) S. Tho. 1. p. q. 83. art. 3. ad 2. others better, place it only in the William. Some (10) Heruaeus quodlibet. 1. q. 1. make it consist in Act. (11) S. Bonau. 2. Dist. 25. art. 1. q. 2.3.4. Others in a certain natural habit arising from Reason & the William (12) Alex. Halens. 2. p. Sum. q. 72. Man 1. art. 3. Others make it a particular faculty distinct from the reason and the will. (13) Durand. 2. Sent. dist. 24. q 3. Others, to be the very faculties of reason and william. Others (14) S. Tho. 1. p. Sum q. 83. Art 1.2.3. & in 1.2. q. 13. most probably teach, that it is one particular faculty, to wit, the Will itself. Some (15) Palud. 4. Sent. dist. 49. q. 3. Caiet. 1 p. q. 80. art. 2. teach, that the will of Man is partly active, partly passive. Others (16) Scotus 2. dist. 15. Henric. quodlib. 10. q. 9 better, that it is absolutely active. Some (17) Lombar. l. 2. Sent. dist. 35. Occam. & Gabr. 1. Sent. dist. 38. think, that the will is not free in regard of actions present. (18) Greg. Arimin. 1. Sent. Dist. 39 Others think the beginning of the action to be free, but the continuation necessary. But (19) Scotus. 1. Sent. dist. 2. Capreol. 2. dist. 25. others best, make not only actions future free, but also present, & that either in regard of their beginning or continuation. Some (20) Caiet. 1. p. q. 22. art. 4. think it inexplicable in this life to accord Freewill with God's Providence. (21) Almainus in Mor. c. 1.2. Others teach that God with his concourse doth determine the actions of man's will, and that put, the Will cannot but work, yet absolutely is free in several respects. (22) G●eg. Ar●min. Scotus, Gabr. in 2. Sent. Dist. 37. Others more probably, accord than, in that God's concourse doth not determine the Will, or work any thing in it, but immediately floweth into the effect, and produceth in the same moment wherein it is produced by the William (23) S. Tho. 1. p q. 100L. art. 5. & l. 3. cont. Gent. c. 70. Others most probably, do acknowledge, that God's cooperation doth so concur with the will, that it doth not only give, and preserve in it the power of working, but also doth move, and apply it to work: which divine influx or virtue, wherewith the will is moved and applied, is received in the second causes, according to their disposition. Sundry other such like differences there are, not defined by the Church. Protestant Untruths. Luther teacheth that, (24) In Colloq. Latinis. cap. de lib. Arb. The name of Freewill was most hateful to all the Fathers, although we ourselves grant, God to have given to Man freewill. But this willbe proved to be false by the third Section following. If you will believe Swinglius, (25) Tom. 1. de Provide. c. 6. fol. 371. Freewill or merit cannot indeed be affirmed, although no man denyeth their names and mention to be found in the Scriptures, but truly no otherwise, then that they be names of those things, which are proper only to God. But I refer the reader to the next Section, wherein he shall see, that the Scriptures do abundantly ascribe Freewill also to man. Protestant Doctrine. Luther, (26) De serve Arb. Ca●uin. l. 2. Inst. c. 3 §. 7. Willet. Synop. p. 808. 810. Caluin, and other Prot. teach that, the forknowledge and omnipotency of God do directly fight with our freewill. And that, (27) Luth in Assert. art. 36. Freewill is but a fiction in things, or a title without Substance: because (say they) it is in no man's power to think any thing evil or good, but all things &c happen by absolute necessity. According to Whitaker, (28) L. 2. de pec. orig. c. 3. p. 6●5. In our conversion to God which is made by grace, our freewill hath no strength in it, but we carry ourselves in this business merely passively. Perkins saith, (29) Tom. 8. in Apoc. 3. col. 114. Hence I gather the Papists to dote, in that they affirm, in Regeneration man to have freewill, and the use thereof, and that he can dispose himself in justification. Protestants agreed with Ancient Heretics. S. Hierome avoucheth that, (30) Proo●m. l. count. Pelag. fin. It is proper to the Manichees to condemn man's nature, and to take away Freewill, and the Assistance of God. The Manichees (saith S. (31) De file cont. Manich. c 9 & Chrisost. ho. 45. in joan. Austin) bark against these with wont blindness, and when they are convinced that nature is not an evil thing, and that it is in the power of man to do well or evil, they say that the soul hath not freewill, and they see not their blindness. Herupon it is, that Hemingius (32) De universali Gratia p. 109. chargeth his other Prot. Brethrens denying Freewill, with the Doctrine of the Manichees and the Stoics. For the same Heresy of denying freewill, Simon Magus is condemned by S. Clement, (33) L. 3. Recognit. the Bardasanes by S. (34) L. de haer. c. 35. Austin, the Priscillianists by S. Austin, (35) Ib. c. 70. S. Leo Ep. 91. ad Turbium. Conc. Bracar. 1. Can. 10. S. Leo, and the Council Bracarense. Protestant Errors. Abaylardus (36) Tho. Waldens l. 1. Doctrinalis fidei, c. 10. taught that God cannot make any other but those things which he maketh. (37) Luther in Assert. Art 36. Wicclews in Trialogo. c. 10. 11. Luther thinketh Wicliffes' opinion good, which is, that all things happen of absolute Necessity. And Bucer (38) L. de concordia Doct c. de lib. Arb. See Caluin. Inst. l. 1. c. 10. §. 3. avoucheth that, whatsoever God doth, he doth necessarily, and cannot do otherwise. Luther is of opinion that, (39) Postil in die Nat. fol. 62. Not otherwise than if God should convert some dry stock, into a new, green, & flourishing tree, doth the Grace of God renew man: so making man a mere stock. And others believe, that we concur no more to our Conversion, then to our (40) Rivellus in Controls. tract. 3 sect. 27. Creation, and (41) L. Concordiae c. de lib. Arb. p. 680. Resurrection. Some Prot. further teach, that man hath not freewill so much as to sin. Caluin, (42) Instic. l. 2. c. 3. §. 5. It is strange, if it seem to any a hard speech, that I say, the Will being without liberty, is necessarily either drawn or moved to evil. And, (43) Ib. The sensual man doth necessarily yield himself obedient to every motion of Satan. And therefore Caluin (44) Instit. l. 2. c. 1. §. 4. wisheth that the Name of Freewill might be quite taken away. Danaeus, (45) Controu, 6. p. 1224. This is false, sins to be the acts of freewill. They are indeed the acts of spontane (or not compelled) not of freewill. Paraeus thinketh, that Every (46) Colloq. Theol. 1. Disp. 3. sin is not voluntary. So that according to these Prot. whatsoever God doth, he doth necessarily: and that all things happen of absolute necessity: Man concurring to his own Conversion to God, no more than a stock: and that he hath not so much as freewill to sin. Than all which, what more blockish and impious? SECT. II. It is proved by Scriptures, that Man after Adam's fall, hath freewill with God's Grace to do good, and eschew evil. TO examine now the Doctrine by the Sacred Scriptures, (1) Goe 4.6 7. Our Lord said to (Cain) why art thou angry? If thou do well, shalt not thou receive again: but if thou dost ill, shall not thy sin forthwith be present at the door? But the lust thereof shallbe under thee, and thou shalt have Dominion over it. This text is so clear for freewill, that some Prot. (22) Bible of Anno 1576. And see the Marginal Notes thereof upon Gen. 4.7. See Cal. in Gen. 4.7. & Inst. l. 2. c. 5 n. 16. for their best evasion, do Translate, not over it, but over him, to wit, over his Brother Abel: but this satisfyeth nothing, for by congruity of construction, the word Sin, being the Antecedent next before mentioned, the Relative illius, must be referred unto it: the coherence also of sense argueth the same, for to read Sin lieth at the door (to torment thy Conscience as (3) Ibidem. Prot. do expound) and thou shalt have rule over him, thy Brother, is in sense dissolute and inconsequent: whereas on the contrary to read. Sin lieth at the door, and thou shalt have rule over it, is direct plain & consequent: yea the former Translation is so corrupt, & absurd, that other Prot. in their Translations (4) The great Engl. Bible of Anno 1577. & in 4. of Anno 1584. and see the mark notes there, Castalio in his Bible. and (5) Hip. Meth Th. l. 2. p. 478 Luth. Tom. 6. Wittemb. f. 62. Wigandus in syntag. col. 489. writings, do follow our vulgar, rejecting this other. Freewill is also proved by such places as teach that it is in man's free choice to do good or evil. So Moses appointed by God said unto the Children of Israel, (6) Deut. 30.11.14.15.16.17.18.19. See also jos 14.15. Eccl. 15.12.16.17. And 31.11. And. 1. Cor 7.36.37. 2. Cor. 9 7. Dan. 13.20. 2. Reg. 24.12.3. Reg. 3 5. Ps. 83 11. & 118.30.173. Prou. 8.10. Isa 66.4. Dan 13.22. Mat. 11.14. Mar. 10.36.51. Luc. 10.42. Io. 6.67. Heb 12.24. This Commandment that I command thee this day is not above thee etc. But t●e word is very near thee in thy mouth, and thy hart to do it etc. Consider that I have set before thee this day life and good, and contrariwise death and evil, that thou mayest love our Lord thy God, and walk in his ways, and keep his Commandments &c But if thy hart be averted, and thou wilt not hear etc. thou shall perish etc. I call for witnesses this day heaven and earth that I have proposed to you life & death, blessing and cursing: Choose therefore life that th●● mayest live. Here God giveth free choice to men to do good or evil. But D. Fulke answereth, that this is understood (7) Defence. of the Engl. Transl. p. 326. of the knowledge of the law, and not of the strength that men have to keep it: but the words of the text are directly against this, to do it, to walk in his ways, keep his Commandments, choose life: In so much, that Hiperius acknowledgeth this saying of Deutronomy to be understood (8) Meth. Theol. l. 2. p. 479. 480. Of the fulfilling of the Commandments, as some words next before (saith he) seem to import. And then himself would further evade by affirming, that it was spoken, To men regenerate: whereas it is evident to the contrary by the circumstances (9) Ver. 1.17.18.19. of the same place, that it was spoken to the promiscuous multitude in general, containing in it both good and evil. Such places also confirm Freewill, as show that it is man's fault why he doth not good, and eschew evil: so God complaineth by his Prophet Isay, (10) C. 5.3 4. judge between me and my vineyard: what is there that I aught to do more to my vineyard, & have not done to it? whether that I looked it should yield grapes, and it hath yielded wild grapes? So likewise Christ reproveth Jerusalem, saying. (11) Mat. 25.37. How often would I gather together thy Children &c & thou wouldst not. And S. Stephen to the jews, (12) Act. 7.51. You always resist the holy Ghost. And the like might be produced from sundry (13) Num. 14.43 Isa. 65.12. Hier. 7.13.13 24.26.27.28. Ezech. 18.31. Io. 6.67. Apoc. 3.20. Prou. 1.24. other texts: from which it may be argued, that either he who sinneth, hath it in his power to sin, or hath it not: if the first, than freewill; if the second, then in vain should God complain of man for sinning, seeing he could not do otherwise. But Caluin answereth to these last words of S. Stephen, (14) In hunc locum. They are said to resist the Holy Ghost, who obstinately reject him speak●● 〈◊〉 ●he Prophets, for it is not here treated of secret Revelations whi●● 〈◊〉 inwardly inspireth to every one, but of the external Ministry 〈◊〉 they did obstinately reject him speaking in the Prop●●● 〈◊〉 ●en it proveth, that they had power and will to reject him so speaking: And no reason can be imagined, why man may not aswell resist internal inspirations, as external Ministry. Neither will it suffice to answer, that God may well complain, though man cannot but sin, because that his weakness proceeded first from his own fault and hereditary m●lice: for original sin being remitted, that hereditary malice and weakness is not a fault, but a punishment of the fault. And therefore as none ●ight rightly reprehend a man borne blind for stumbling, though the said blindness proceed from from original sin; so neither aught sinners to be blamed, if without free consent, by the only corruption of nature, which remaineth in them through Adam's sin, they at any time transgress the Commandments of God. Christ saith, (15) Mat. ●1. 33. Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or make the tree evil, and his fruit evil: This showeth, that it is in man's freewill to be a good tree, or an ill tree, to bring forth good fruit, or bad. Free will also is further taught by all such texts wherein something is promised by God with Condition, that he will coopera●● so says God himself. (16) Isa. 1 19, 20. if you be willing & will hear me, you shall eat the good things of the Earth; but if you will not, and will provoke me to wrath, the sword shall devour you: So also Christ our Saviour, (17) Mat. 19.17. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the Commandments; with sundry such like. Now if it be in our power to perform or fulfil the condition offered, then have we Freewill, if it be not, then is it not any true conditional Promise, but only a plain irrision, which were impious to affirm of God. The Scriptures also testify that, (18) 1. Cor. 10.13. God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able, but will make also with temptation issue that you may be able to sustain. And S. john speaking of Christ faith (19) Io. 1.12. As many as received him, he gave them power to be made the Sons of God: where the word power, is so convincing for freewill, that (20) In Nou. Test. Londini. Anno 1587. Beza translateth i● dignity: but he is therefore forsaken by other (21) Pulk. ●g. Rhem. Test. in. 1 Io. 12. And the Engl. Bible of Anno 1576. Prot. who translate with us, power: and reproved for the same by Castalio, saying: (22) In Defence. Transl●t. p. 18●. In the 1. Chapter of john and the 12 verse, be depraveth a most excellent place, and of greatest moment thus translating. But as many as received him, he gave them this dignity, that they might be made the sons of God. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is Power, in ●o place, Dignity, or let him cite the place; but in behalf of his own opinion, he expounded it falsely: for he would not that Christians have this power from Christ which is nothing else but to envy Christ's benefit to Christians &c For it is a greater benefit of Christ, and more worthy the sons of God, to have fr●● power then otherwise: even as it is a greater benefit of God towards men, that they can freely speak or be silent, then if without free power they should speak as Balaams' Ass. And whereas in common sense and reason, sin must be voluntary, not necessary; Protestant's yet answer her to, that sin must be voluntary or free from coaction, but not from necessity, even as the Devils do necessarily do evil, & yet truly sin, and the blessed Angels do necessarily do well, and yet their works are truly good. But yet this nothing availeth, for if liberty from coaction would suffice, than had beasts, Children, and madmen liberty to sin, seeing of their own accord without compulsion they work. And though the good and evil Angels in respect of the last end have only freewill from coaction, yet in regard of the means, they have freewill from necessity, because they do many things which are in their power not to do, and of the contrary; And in these do the one truly sin, and the other do well. Freewill also is proved by such places as teach, that in our actions we are free not only from coaction, but also from necessity, having in ourselves powe● and liberty. He (23) 1. Cor. 7.37. that hath determined in his hart, being setl●d, not having necessity, but having power of his own will, and hath judged this in his hart, to keep his Virgin, doth well. Again, (24) 2. Cor. 9.7. Every one as he hath determined in his hart, not of sadness, or of necessity for God loveth a cheerful giver. And to Philemon, (25) Ver. 14. without thy counsel I would do nothing, that thy good m●ght not be as it were of necessity, but voluntary. But because the words do prove good works to be voluntary, and free from necessity; the Protestants of Geneva in their (26) Anno 1605. 1610. Bible's do add the particle (quasi) and make the Apostle to say, but as it were voluntary, which is a gross corruption. Peter also said to Ananias, (27) Act. 5.4. Remaining, did it not remain to thee, and being sold, was it not in thy power? why hast thou put this thing in thy hart? And S. Paul most expressly of himself said, (28) 1 Cor. 9.1. Am I not free? &c (29) 1. Cor. 9.3. Have we not power to eat and drink? So clear it is, that man hath freewill from necessity. Lastly, by the denial of freewill all these absurdities follow. 1. That there remaineth no place for punishment or reward. 2. That all should either be good, or all evil: and if all good, not one better than another, and if all evil, not one worse than another, but all equally either good or evil. 3. That all Exhortations, reprehensions, praise, dispraise, Commands, Counsels, threats, promises of reward, and the like, were in vain: then all which, what more absurd? In regard hereof S. Austin saith, (30) De fide cont. Manich. c. 10. Who will not cry out, that it is a foolish thing to give Commandments to him who hath not freedom to do what is commanded, and that it is injury to condemn him who had not power to fulfil the Commandments? Agreably saith S. Irenaeus, (31) L. 4. c. 72. If therefore it were not in us, to do these things, or not to do them, what cause had the Apostle, & long before our Lord himself, to counsel to do certain things, and to abstain from others, but because man had freewill from the beginning? Add yet hereunto, that most certain, infallible and experimental Lecture, written with legible letters in the book of every man's Conscience, learned and unlearned, wherein we plainly read, & by experience know for true, that our Soul doth sometimes struggle against temptation, and happily overcome the same, from whence followeth comfort and peace of Conscience; but other times it yieldeth, when it might have withstood, from whence followeth, fear, shame, and repentance: none of which would follow, if we had not freewill. SECT. III. That the Fathers do expound the Scriptures agreably with Catholics in proof of Freewill. THe former words of God to Cain, S. Austin expoundeth thus, (1) De ciu. Dei. l 15 c. 7. Thou shalt rule, over what, over thy brother? not so: over what then, but sin? S. (2) Ambr l. 2 de Cam. c. 7. Ambrose directly confuteth the applying thereof to Abel, saying. His brother is not given up to him, but his fault is imputed, of which he was causer to himself. The fault, saith he, is turned upon thee, which began from thee. S. Hierome writeth, (3) Quaest, in Gen & G●eg l. 4. Mor. c. 22. Prosper. lib. 2 de vocat. Gent. c. 13. Because thou hast freewill, I warn thee that sin have no dominion over thee, but thou over Sinne. Saint chrysostom saith, (4) In Gen. Home 19 c. 4. The Lord of all things hath made our nature to have freewill etc. he suffereth all to lie in the will of him that is sick, this therefore is now also done in Cain. Aben Ezra in his Hebrew Commentaries upon Genesir, affirmeth it a mere (5) In c. 4.7. forgery to refer the Relative otherwise then to the word Sinne. And herein the Rabins are so clear, that D. Fulke answering thereto, saith, (6) D●f of the E●gl. Transl. p. 320. The jewish Rabins err in this place. etc. And Caluin acknowledgeth that (7) In Gen. 4.7. There is scarce any expositor who doth not refer this to Sinne. In like sort the place of Deutronomy is expounded for freewill, by ancient (8) Lib. quòd D●us sit immutabilis. Philo, saying, God created (man) free, that being left to his proper will, he might do whatsoever he pleased etc. that knowing what was good, what evil, and the difference between etc. virtue and vice, he might choose the better and fly the worse: To which sentence is extant the Oracle in Deutronomy; Behold I have placed before thee life and death, good and evil, choose life. S. Cyprian also saith, (9) Lib. 3. ad Qui●in. c 52. And Ambr. in ps. 40. the freedom of believing or not believing to be placed in the will (is to be seen) in Deutronomy; behold I have placed before thee life and death, good and evil, choose life, that thou mayest live. Also in Isaias. If ye will and will hear me, you shall eat the good things of the earth, but if you will not, and will not hear me, the sword shall consume you. Also in the Gospel according to Luke, the Kingdom of God is within you. S. Basil writing upon those former words of Isay, If you will, and will hear me, saith: (10) In. c. 1. Isaiae. In this place especially he setteth as it were before our eyes, the liberty of the will to be given to man's nature. And according to Epiphanius, (11) Haer. 16. ad Hier. in c. 5. ad Gal. It is manifest and clear to all, and not to be doubted, that God hath given freewill unto us, speaking by himself, If you will, and will not etc. Wherhfore in man it is, to work good things, or to desire evil things. And the same Exposition is given by S. Hierome. S. Chrisostome alleging those words of Isay, (12) Isa. 1.10. If you will, & will hear me etc. saith: (13) Ho. 61. ad Pop. Ant. quae est. 8. de fato & Prou. God hath said, If you will, & if you will not, placing in our power virtue & vice, & putting it in our will. And a little after, God saith, (14) Eccl. 15.7. I have placed before thee fire and water, life and death, put thy hand whither thou wilt. The Devil saith, is is not placed in thee to stretch out thy hand, but this is done by certain necessity and force. And the self same with the Devil do Prot. still say. God, saith S. (15) De Grat. & lib. Arb. c. 2. & Tertul. l. 2. cont. Martion. c. 5. Austin, hath revealed unto us by his holy Scriptures, that in man there is freewill: first because God's Commandments themselves would not profit man, unless he had freewill, whereby he doing them, might come to the rewards promised etc. (16) Eccl. 15.14. God from the beginning made man, and left him, in the hand of his own Counsel etc. He hath set before thee water and fire, to which thou wilt stretch forth thy hand. Before man there is life and death, good and evil, what pleaseth him shallbe given him. Behold we see most plainly expressed the free power of man's william. Wherhfore is it, that in so many places God commandeth all his Commandments to be kept and done? How doth he command, if there be not freewill? And then citing to this end, several other places he concludeth, what do infinite such other places in the old Testament show, but the free power of man's will? If it were not in our power (saith (17) L. 4. c. 72. Irenaeus, to do these things, or not to do them, what cause had the Apostles, and much before him our Lord himself, to counsel to do certain things, and to abstain from others, but because from the beginning man hath freewill? Origen citing this Text, And now Israel, what doth thy Lord God require from thee? addeth, (18) Ho. 12. in Numeros. Let them be ashamed of these words, who deny freewill in man. How should God require from man, unless Man had in his power, what he aught to offer to God requiring? And in another place, (19) In Mat. c. 13. the Scriptures impugn this understanding, declaring that there is freewill, both whilst they accuse those that sin, and allow those who do well. But none writeth more plainly then S. Cyprian, saying (20) Ep ad Cornel. ante med. Turning to his Apostles he said, (21) Io. 6.67. What will you also departed? observing indeed the law, whereby man left to his own liberty, and placed in his own will, desireth to himself either deat● or salvation. S. Hierome affirmeth that, (22) In Isa. c. 55. That which is said in th● Gospel (23) Mat. 7.18. A good tree cannot yield evil fruit, is not referred 〈◊〉 the propriety of nature, as heretics would, but to the will of the mind lastly it is inferred, Or make ye a good tree, and the fruit there●● good; whereby it is plain, that every one by his own will doth mak● to his Soul a good or evil tree, whose fruits are different. Theodoret avoucheth in general that, (24) De curatione Infidelium Graecorum. Ser. 5. de natura hominis. Whosoever will, may easily found many other places of that kind, both in the Ghospels, & in the monuments of the Apostles, by which is plainly shew●● the absolute will, and free power of man. S. Gregory reconcileth the concourse of God's Grace & man's freewill in these words, (25) Mor. l. 16. c. 11. Piety from above doth fir●● work something in us, without us, that our freewill also following be may work with us the good that we desire, which yet, by Grace bestowed, at the last judgement he doth so reward in us, as if it had proceeded from us alone: because God's goodness doth prevent us to mak● us Innocents'. Paul saith, (26) 1. Cor. 15.10. By the Grace of God, I am that whi●● I am. And because our freewill followeth that Grace, he addeth, An● his Grace in me hath not been void, but I have laboured more abundantly than all they: who when he saw that he was nothing of himself, he saith, but not 1. And yet because he found that he was something with Grace, he annexed, but the Grace of God with me. For he would not say, with me, if with prevenient Grace he had not freewill following. That therefore he might show himself to be nothing without Grace, he saith, not I, but that he might show that by freewill he works with Grace, he added, But the Grace of God with me. Finally, the Fathers are so clear for free will, that Caluin (27) Instit. l. 2. c. 2. sect. 4. & l. 3. c. 3. sect 11 And see. Whiteg. Def. p. 472. reprehendeth for the same the Greek and Latin Fathers in General. And other Prot. say that, (28) Discovery of untruths in D Bancroftes Sermon p. 23. The Error of freewill derived from justine Martyr and Irenaeus, was at the time of the Nycene Council in some ripeness etc. We know that ever since the Apostles times in a manner it flourished every where, till Martin Luther took in hand the sword against it. The Centurists think that, (29) Cent 2. c. 4. Col 58. Scarcely there is any point of Doctrine which began so soon to be darkened as this of freewill: And (30) Ib. col. 59 After the same manner Clemens every where affirmeth freewill, that it may appear, that not only all the Doctors of that age were in such darkness, but also that the same increased afterwards in the later ages. And the like is confessed by (31) Def. p. 472. 473. Whiteguift. By all which we see, that the Fathers did not only believe Freewill, but also proved the same from several clear Texts of the sacred Scriptures. SECT. iv That sundry Protestant writers do teach, and defend our Catholic Doctrine of Freewill. IOhn Husse teacheth that, (1) I●. 1. Cor. c. 7. Though grace, which maketh a man grateful, is had by the gift of God, yet efficiently it is had from freewill consenting; for S. Austin saith, He that created thee without thee, will not justify thee without thee. This grace is, (or proceedeth) from 3. Causes, from God as principally working, from Grace freely given stirring up the freewill, and from Freewill as consenting. Bullinger affirmeth that, (2) Decades English. p. 481. God appointeth us laws, and layeth before us rewards and punishments, he commandeth us to embrace the good and eschew the evil to the performing whereof he doth neither deny us his Grace etc. nor despise our good william. And, (3) Ib. p. 646. The Lord requireth our endeavour, which notwithstanding is not without his assistance and grace. Willet having reproved Heminglus a Lutheran, and Sneca●u● a Caluinist, for their Doctrine of freewill, affirmeth of them and their followers that, (4) Synop p. 8 8. 810. They are more erroneous concerning Freewill then are the Papists. And whereas S. (5) De fide cont. Manich. c. 9.10.24. & in Acts cum Felice Manich. l. 2. c. 4. Austin and S. (6) In Io. ho. 45. Chrisostome do condemn the Manichees for denying freewill, Hemingius coupleth his Prot. Brethrens with the said Manichees, saying, (7) De univers. Great p. 209. 107. Certain Divines of great name and otherwise excellently deserving of the Church of Christ, whom as Brethrens in Christ I love, drawing most near to the Manichees and Stoics, do from the same principle build their opinion of freewill, and other events. Hence some are not afraid to infer, that God ordained the Adultery of David. Other Prot. charge Melancthon with teaching freewill, (8) See Morgenst. tract. de Ecclesia. p. 6. Schlusse●b. in Theol. Calu. l. 2. f. 86. and, making our assent cooperating with the word and holy Ghost. And Melancthon himself saith, (9) Loc. come. cap. de lib. Arb. Three causes of a good action concur, the word of God, the holy Ghost, & man's will assenting or resisting the word of God etc. The furies of the Manichees are not to be admitted. The Conversion in David is not made, as if a stone should be changed into a fig, but the freewill in David doth something, when he heard the chiding and promise, willing then, and freely he confesseth his sin, and his will doth something. Fox reporteth how that one (10) Act. & Mon. p. 1533. 1605. Trew, and sundry other Protestant Professors of those times taught freewill, and were as then by their other Brethrens, (11) Ib. p. 1605. called the men. And though M. Parkins in words impugneth freewill, yet in consequence of truth he acknowedgeth the Doctrine, teaching that, (12) Reform. Cath p. 26. Because God gives men Commandment to repent and believe, therefore they have power to repent and believe: (13) Ib. p. 52. God with the Commandment giving Grace, that the thing prescribed may be done. Caluin writing upon these words of joshua (14) Ios. 24.14. Fear our Lord and serve him, etc. but if it like you not to serve our Lord, choice is given you choose this day that which pleaseth you etc. expoundeth them thus: (15) In Ios. 24.15. Edit. Gal. Not without cause gave he them liberty of choice, that being tied by their own consent, they could not pretend, that, that which they did, shey did of necessity, and could not but do it. So plentiful are our Prot. in teaching from the Scriptures, the Doctrine of Freewill. SECT. V Objections from Scripture against Freewill answered. SOme (1) Roger's Def. of the Art art. 10. p. 48. object that, (2) 2. Cor. 3.5. we are not sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God. And again (3) Io. 6 44. No man can come to me, unless the Father that sent me draw him. Answ. We do not defend freedom or sufficiency of our will by nature, but by assistance of Grace, which as I have proved before, God offereth to all men: which supposed, the former texts m●ke directly for us, affirming our sufficiency, and only withal teaching, that this sufficiency is not of ourselves, that is, no● by force of nature, but of God, that is, through Grace, which is the very doctrine we teach. This same answer will also serve for the second text, only I will add, what S. Chrisostome saith to the Manichees objecting the sam● text, (5) In. Io. ho. 45. No man can come to me, except my Father that sen● me draw him. Here the Manichees rise up contending by testimony of this text, that we can do nothing of ourselves; But this taketh not away our freewill, but showeth that it needeth God's help. And afterwards, (6) Ibid. ho. 4●. Wherefore it is evident, that it is in our choice, whether we will be saved or damned. It is also objected (7) Roger's Def of the Art art. 10. p. 50. that, (8) Philip. 2.13. It is God that worketh in you both to will and to accomplish. Answ. True it is, that God doth work, but we also do by his Grace cooperate, accordingly as immediately before it is said, (9) Philip. 2.12. With fear ●●d trembling work your Salvation: And so M. Perkins confesseth that, (10) Ref. Cath. p. 14. Man's freewill concurs with Grace as a Co-worker. And that, (11) Ib. p. 16. being moved by Grace, it acteth and moveth itself. And thus doth S. Austin answer this very objection, saying, (12) Tom 7. de Grat. & lib. Arb. c. 9 For not because he said, It is God that worketh in you, both to will, and to accomplish according to his good will therefore is he to be thought to have taken away freewill: for if it were so he would not have said before with fear and trembling wo●ke your salvation; for when there is command that they work, their freewill is called upon. It is also further urged that we are said to be (13) Eph. 2.5. Dead by sin, and so no power in our Will, to will to spiritual actions: But the same place likewise affirmeth, that we are quickened in Christ, by whose grace (we) are saved. And therefore although not of our se●u●s, yet by his quickening and preventing grace, we are sufficiently helped and enabled to work. Some object those words of Christ. (14) Mat. 18.7. It is necessary that scandals do come. And, (15) Luc. 17.1. It is impossible that scandals should not come, and the like. Answ. S. Chrisostome answereth to these very places saying, (16) Ho 60. in Math & ho. 27. in 1. Cor. See S. Aug. de Ciu. Dei l. 5. c. 10. When he calleth is so necessity, he saith it not, because the Will may take away liberty, and power of Freewill, nor because it may subject man's life to the necessity of things; but because it is certainly to come to pass, he fortelleth it Which Luke expresseth in other words. It is impossible that scandals should not come etc. not the fortelling therefore thereof is to be thought to bring scandals; for they do not therefore come, because he foretold scandals would be, but because they were certainly to come, therefore he fortould them. Others urge those worde● of the Parable, (17) Luc. 14.23. The Lord said to the Servants, Go forth into the ways and hedges, and compel them to enter. Answ. The vehement persuasion that God useth both externally by words and miracles, and internally by his grace, to bring us unto him, is called compelling, not that he forceth any against their own wills, but that he mollifyeth a hard hart, making him willing, that before would not. S. Austin (18) Ep. 50. & 204 & l. 2 cont. Ep. Gaud. c. 25. referreth this compelling to the penal laws, which Catholic Princes do justly use against Heretics and Schismatics: And so in this sense, by the two former parts of the Parable, the jews first, and secondly the Gentiles, that never believed before in Christ, were invited by fair sweet means only: but by the third, such are invited, as the Church of God hath power over, because they promised in Baptism. CHAP. XXXII. The true State of the Question, concerning the possibility of keeping Gods Commandments. Whether the Commandments of Godt, hrough his holy Grace, though not by the only power of Freewill, are possible to be kept by just men in this life: or rather that they are so impossible, that in every work that men do, they transgress them. SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. SAINT Austin said exceeding well that, (1) De Temp. Ser. 61. God who is just cannot command any thing impossible, nor he that is holy, will damn man for that which he cannot eschew: Yea, (2) De Temp. Ser. 191. We accurse (saith he) the blaspemy of them who affirm any thing impossible to be commanded by God: According to which the Catholic Church decreeth, that (3) Concil. Trid. Sess. 6. c. 11. No man though justified aught to think himself free from the keeping of the Commandments No man aught to use that temerarious speech, and forbidden by the Fathers under Anathema the Commandments of God to be impossible to be kep by a man justified: for God doth not command impossible things, but by commanding doth admonish to do what thou canst and to ask what thou canst not, and he helpeth that thou mayest &c. And although the most holy and just in this mortal life do sometimes fall, at lest into light and daily Sins, which also are called venial, yet they do not therefore cease to be just. And therefore, (4) Sess. 6. Can. 18. If any shall say, that the Commandments of God are impossible to be kept by a man justified, and in the state of Gr●ce &c o● 〈◊〉. (5) Can. 1●. Nothing is commanded in the Gospel but faith, ot●e● things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited but free; or that the ten Commandments do not pertain to Christians, Anathema. In the second Council Arausicanum it is ordained, that, (6) Cap. 25. According to Catholic Faith we believe, that Grace received by Baptism, all such as are baptised. Christ helping & cooperating may, and aught to fulfil, if they will labour faithfully, those things that belong to Salvation. In the second Milevitane Council it is defined, that, (7) Cap. 4. Whosoever shall say, that the Grace of God, doth in this only help us not to sin, because by it the understanding of the Commandments is revealed and opened unto us, that so we may know what we aught to desire or eschew, but that by it is not given us that, what we know to be done, we may love, and be able to do, Anathema. All (8) Bellar. de justif l. 4. c. 10 Rhem. Test. in 1. Io. 5.3. Catholics with one consent teach, that the Commandments of God are possible to be kept by just men, not by the only power and strength of Freewill, as heretics do calumniate; but by the help of God's grace, and the spirit of Faith and Charity infused in their justification. Points Disputable. Some (9) Dom à Soto. l. 2. de Iust. & jur. q. 5. art. 4. Schoolmen think, that Christians are not only freed from the Ceremonial law, and from the guilt & terror of the moral law, but also from all the law written in the books of Moses, not that we are not bound to keep the law of Moses, as it is natural, and as it is renewed in the Gospel, in the Epistles of the Apostles, but as it is written by Moses' himself: yet (10) Bellar. de justif. l. 4. c. 6. others think that the moral law even as it was given by Moses & the Prophets, & and so as it is written in the Books of the Old Testament, truly to oblige Christians. Protestant untruths. If you will believe Luther, (11) Ad lib. Ducis Georgij script. Anno 1533. The Papists teach that man by his own force of nature, without Grace, may keep the Commandments of God. My master Occam writteth, that the sacred Scriptures do no where testify, that for the keeping of God's commandments the singular gift of God is necessary. Melancthon demandeth, (12) In Apol. c. de Tradit. humanis. What difference between the Pelagians, and our Adversaries? Seeing both think, that men without the holy Ghost may love God & keep God's commandments according to the Substance of the actions, merit grace and justification by works, which things reason itself doth without the holy Ghost. How many absurdities follow of these Pelagian opinions, which are taught in Schools with a loud voice. But these are mere fictions of Luther, and Melancthon. Protestant Doctrine. Luther teacheth, that (13) In Confut. Rationis Latonianae. So many Testimonies of Scripture prove the Commandments to be impossible to us, that nothing is more manifest. And, (14) Luth. in Resp. ad Dial. Siluestri Prieratis. Thou dost most badly, denying our Saviour to Command things impossible: but thou dost worse than most badly, in that thou darest call this a falsehood, We cannot in this life fulfil the Commandments of God. Yea saith Melancthon, (15) Ad c. 4. Ep. ad Rom. Calu. Instit. l. 2. c. 7. When the Law commandeth God to be loved, it commandeth a thing as impossible, as if it should command us to fly over Caucasus. Whitaker affirmeth, that it is the foundation of Christian Religion, that (16) Controu. 2. q. 6. c. 3. p. 563. The law of God cannot be performed, and fulfiled by us. Perkins (17) Tom. 1. of Bap. fol. 833. The Papists think that men in this life may keep, & fulfil the law. Danaeus, (18) Controu. 5. p. 947. Bellarmine answereth, It is easy for him who hath Charity to fulfil the law. I answer, yea it is impossible for him. Adamus Francisci: (19) Margarit. Theol. loc. 5. p. 52. Although men regenerate be helped and guided by the holy Ghost yet by ●he relics of sin they are hindered, that they cannot satisfy the law. Caluin. (20) In Rom. 13.8. No man fulfilleth the law, nor ever hath fulfilled it. (21) Instit. l. 3. c. 17. § 13. They cannot produce any one who hath fulfiled the law, and the same is taught by sundry others. Luther, (22) Luther, Tom. 5 in Gal. 3. fol. 343. Confess S●ot. art 15. God requireth that we love him with all our hart, which thing no mortal man can do. Caluin, Instit. l. 2 c. 7. § 5. Brentius ho. 1. in Dom. 13. post Trin. p 777. Danaeus Controu. 5 p. 973. Paraeus de iustif. l. 4. c. 11 p. 1●75. I say, there was no Saint, who compassed with the body of Death, attained to that end (or height) of love, that he loved God from his whole soul, from his whole hart, from his whole power. And the same is taught by sundry others. Wherhfore according to Prot. Not man hath ever kept the Commandments, nor possibly can. Protestants agreed with Ancient Heretics. This dangerous Doctrine of the impossibility of keeping Gods Commandments, was condemned in certain Heretics by S. Hierome, saying, We (24) In Expl●n Symb. add Damas'. accurse the Blasphemy of them who say, that any thing impossible is commanded by God to man. And the same words useth S. (25) De Temp. Se●. 191. Austin. In so much that Hoffman in great discontent hereof saith, (26) Comment. de Po ●a l. 1 fol. 55. Hierome writes, Let him be accursed who hath said. God to have Commanded impossible things: but why is not Hierome rather accursed, who so audaciously thinketh against God? And the like dislike of this Censure of S. Hierome, is showed by (27) Tom. 2. Wittemb. fol 210. Cent. 4 Col. 1●48. Calu. Inst. l. 2. c. 7. § 5. Luther, the Centuristes, and Caluin. For the same error S. (28) Haer. 33. Epiphanius taxeth Ptolomaeus. Protestant Errors. We (29) In Antid. Concil. Trident. Sess. 6. Can. 21. p. 2●1. deny (saith Caluin) Christ to be a Lawgiver, who gave any new laws to the world. (30) In Mat. 5.41. Christ bringeth not new laws. And the selfsame is taught by sundry other (31) Beza in Mat. 19.19. & in 2 Cor. 3.6. & in. 1. joan. 2.7. Pet. Mart. in Rom. 3. Powel. in Ep. Dedic. of things indifferent. Protestants. Luther writeth that, (32) In Comment ad c. 2. ad Gal. When it is thus taught, Faith in Christ iustifyeth, but withal the Commandments of God aught to be kept, because it is written; If thou wilt enter into life keep the Commandments; there forthwith Christ is denied, and faith abolished, because that is ascribed to the Commandments, or the law, which belongeth to God alone. Again (33) Ibid. Only faith is necessary, that we may be just, all other things are most free, neither commanded more nor forbidden etc. If thy Conscience tell thee thou hast sinned, answer, I have sinned: Therefore God will punish, and damn thee? Not, But the law saith so. But I have nothing to do with the law, Wherhfore? Because I have liberty. And, (34) Tom. 5. Ger. Wit. in Comment. Exod. 20. fol. It is altogether manifest that the ten Commandments were given only to the jews, not to us. (35) Tom 1. Ger. Wit. in Gal. 5. fol. 273. We neither aught nor will suffer one very law, or one preceept of Moses to be laid upon our necks. (36) In Gal. 4 fol. 215. Be careful that thou be wise, and command Moses with his law to departed a fare off, and to go to the mischief. Be nothing moved with his terror and threats, but always suspect him as the worst Heretic, a man accursed and condemned, and worse than Pope, or the Devil himself. And yet in another place he acknowledgeth that, (37) Tom. 2. Ger. jen. l. de abusu Missae. fol 39 Moses rejected, therewithal Christ also is rejected. Again, (38) In Collo q. sl●b de Panaticis. fol. 369. Let the ten Commandments of God be quite taken away, and all heresies will cease: for the ten Commandments are the fountain, from whence as from the spring all heresies do flow, for the sacred Scripture is the book of all Heretics. Now whereas Luther thus affirmed, that, (39) Serm. de Moyse. The Decalogue pertaineth nothing to Christians, Whitaker saith hereof, (40) Cont. Dur. l. 8 sect. 91. This Article is truly most worthy of Luther for it containeth a greatest truth and comfort. So that the greatest comfort to a Prot. is to quite take away God's Commandments And the good reason hereof is given by Tyndall saying, (41) In Caluino. Turcis. l 4. c 22. Thou owest nothing to God but faith, that thou mayest confess Christ jesus, and believe him to have risen from the dead: For so thou shalt be saved, In all other things God hath made it free to thee, that thou mayest follow thine own will. Though it be to murder, adulterate, steal etc. M. Rogers confesseth of (42) Def. of the Art art. 7. p. 39 joannes Is●ebius and his followers the Antinomies; that they will not have God's law to be preached, nor the Conscience of sinners to be terrified and troubled with the judgements of God. Of Banister, (among ourselves) who held how it is utterly evil for the Elect so much as to think, much less to speak, or hear of the fear of God, which the law preacheth. According to Beza. (43) 2. Par●. Resp. ad Act. Colloq. Montisbelg p. 226. See Calu. in Act. 15.10. God commandeth something, which he would not have done, and promiseth also something which he will not perform. Piscator saith, (44) In thes. lib. 2. p. 200. God sometimes by his word doth signify that himself willeth that which truly he willeth not, or that he willeth not that which truly he willeth. And, from (45) Ib. p 201 hence we may perceive, that there is a certain holy dissimulation, even lawful to men, much more to God the most free agent. And in another place he affirmeth, (46) Loc. 12. p. 172. that Christ dissembled. Not unlike to Luther, who feareth not to give Christ the lie, in these words: (47) Tom. 6. in cap. 20. Gen. f. 244. That which they call an officiously, is also feigned for the profit of our Neighbour: so Christ in Luke feigned himself to go further. And thus Prot. are content to allow of lying, and most blasphemously to ascribe it to Christ himself, but yet according to the tenderness of their Consciences, they cannot endure in any respect Aequivocation in men, though upon just causes. SECT. II. It is proved by Scriptures, that the Commandments of God through his holy Grace, are possible to be kept by man in this life. THe Scriptures teach, that the Commandments are not only possible, but also easy to be kept, (1) Mat. 11.30. My yoke is sweet and my burden light: (2) 1. Io. 5.3. His Commandments are not heavy. To answer that they are not heavy, because God doth not impute them, is all one to affirm, that a man at every foot falling under a heavy burden, yet the said burden is easy, because he hath a Companion to help him up again: which is most absurd, and directly contrary to the Apostle, affirming of the Commandments themselves, that they are not heavy. In which sense king David said, (3) Ps. 118.32. I ran the way of thy Commandments when thou didst dilate my hart. And the same also is forteould by Ezechiel, (4) 36.27. I will put my Spirit in the midst of you, and I will make that you walk in my Precepts, and keep my judgements, and do them. The Scriptures also teach, that in this life we may fulfil the law, do the will of God, and obey Christ, (5) Rom. 8.4. God sending his son etc. that the justification of the law might be fulfilled in us: these words prove, that the Law iustifyeth, and that it may be fulfilled in us, by Christ's Grace. We are also taught to pray that, (6) Mat. 6.20. The will of God may be done in Earth, as it is in heaven Now it is the will of God, that we keep his Commandments. (8) De justif. Controu. 12. p. 191. And Christ (7) Heb. 5.9. is made to all that obey him cause of eternal Salvation. These places are so convincing, that Scharpius is enforced to give this absurdest answer, From these places nothing followeth, but that the faithful fulfil the law of God: but it followeth not, that they fu fill it in this life. As though it were not more than clear, ●a●●●●●o●said texts do speak of our justification, obedience, and fulfilling the law, and will of God in this life. The Commandments ●●e kept by loving God and our Neighbour's, (9) Io. 14. ●● 21.23. If you love me keep my Commandments: And, (10) Rom. 13. 8 Gal. 3.14. He that loveth his Neighbour hath fulfilled the law: But we ●l●ought, and m●y love God and ou● Neighbour, for other ●i●● we ●n●o● be Ch●●stes Disciples and friends, himself saying, (11) Io. 13.35. In this all men shall kno● that you are my Disciples if you have love one to another. (12) Io. 15.14. You are my friends if you do the things that I command you. And, (13) Io. 15.22. This is my Precept, that you love one another. To answer, that none can love as they aught and are bound, is to exclude all from being Christ's friends and Disciples. But beside, God requireth nothing else in love, but that we love with all our hearts, which not only to be possible, but also indeed to be practised in the time of the New Testament, the Scriptures testify, (14) Deut. 30.6. God will circumcise thy hart, and the hart of thy seed, that thou mayest love the Lord thy God, with all thine hart, and with all thy Soul. Y a they further witness, that we may be perfect, and so perfectly love, for Charity is the bond of Perfection, (15) Gen. 6.9. No was a just and perfect man: (16) Gen. 17.1. Walk before me and be perfect, and sundry such like. The Scriptures do exemplify this in diverse who kept the Commandments: of job it is said, (17) Mat. 5.48. & 29.21. Philip. 3.15. that (18) C. 1.18. he was a man simple and right, and fearing God and departing from evil. Of David God saith, (19) 3. Reg. 14.8. & 15.5. Act. 13.22. He kept my Commandments, and followed me in all his hart, doing that which was well liked in my sight. Of josias it is written, (20) 4. Reg. 23.25. Like unto him was there no King before him that returned to our Lord in all his hart, and in all his Soul, & in all his power, according to all the law of Moses. Of joshua we read that, (21) Ios. 11.25 See Eccl. 44 ●o● As our Lord had commanded Moses etc. so did Moses' command joshua, and he accomplished all things: he omitted not of all the Commandments, not so much as one word which our Lord had comm●nded Moses. O Z●charias and S. El zibeth S. Luke te●ti●●yeth that, (22) C. 1.6. They were both just before God, walking in all the Commandments and justifications of our Lord without blame. Caluin in answer to this only saith, (23) In hunc locum. I answer those praises wherewith the servants of God are so higly honoured, are to be taken with exception. But Caluin doth not found in all the Scriptures, that this exception is to be from keeping the Commandments. Because these words, (24) Luc. 20.6. They were both just before God walking in all the Commandments, and justifications of our Lord without blame, do help to prove works to iusti●y ●eza upon the same place though he confess 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which Greeke word S. Luke useth) to be translated according to the word iustificationes, yet he rejecteth this interpretation, that (saith he) I might cut off this occasion of calumniating justification by Faith (alone). And for Iust●fications, he translateth, rites. Him herein the English Protestants follow in the King's Bible. S. Luke relateth, (25) Luc. 18.18. A certain Prince asked our Saviour saying, By doing what shall I possess life everlasting? And jesus said etc. Thou knowest the Commandments: Thou shalt not kill etc. Who said, All these things have I kept from my youth. (26) Mar. 10.21. And jesus beholding him loved him etc. To answer as Protestants do, that this young man dissembled or lied, these last words of S. Mark, Beholding him, loved him, will no ways permit. But Paraeus further answereth, that, (27) Lib. 3. de justif. c. 12. p. 812. The Lord remitteth him to the works of the Law, not that he thinketh this way of Salvation to be possible, but that he might confounded his Hypocrisy: so making Christ to think one thing and speak the contrary. But Brentius proceedeth yet further, affirming that, (28) Apud Paraeum. ibid. l. 4. c. 2. p. 965. Christ answered thus, that he might rather show him the way to eternal damnation. Which answer (saith (29) Ib. p. 967. Paraeus) is no less true, than that sentence of the Apostle: You are made void from Christ, who are justified by the law. So making Christ to direct the young man to Hell, who desired to learn of him the way to heaven. Luther also answering to the same place, saith, (30) Tom. 5. in Gal. 3. fol. 347. I understand this place in general, that this saying of Christ, Do this and thou shalt live, is a certain mocking and scoffing. Hereof also saith Paraeus, (31) De iustif. l. 4. c. 2. p. 967. Luther's scoffing may be defended. And (32) Ib. p. ●69. It was indeed a serious conference, but that nothing hindereth a scoff to be mingled by the Lord. And whereas Christ said, Yet one thing is wanting ●o thee, cell all that thou hast, and give to the poor: Beza (33) In h●●● locum. answereth to the contrary; Yea all things (are wanting) seeing no man can observe one Commandment so, as the law prescribeth. Christ therefore speaketh with a certain holy Ironia, or s●●fing. So impudent are these Heretics to make Christ a scoffer: And so unanswerable is this text for the keeping of the Commandments. Reason also convinceth this truth; for first we may do more than God commandeth, (as is proved (34) See heretofore Chap. 1● heretofore) therefore much more that which he commands. 2. If the Commandments were impossible to be kept, they could not bind, and consequently were not precepts, for it is not imaginable, that any can sinne in that which he cannot eschew. 3. God hereby is made more cruel, and unwise than any tyrant, who should exact such a tribute of his very friends, as they could not possibly pay, and would enact such laws under greatest penalty, as he certainly foresaw were impossible to be kept. 4. Christ teacheth us to pray, (35) Mat. 6.10. Thy will be done as in heaven in earth also: here we desire grace to fulfil the will and Commandments of God, which if it were impossible, the Prayer were fruitless, and idle. SECT. III. The Fathers do expound the Scriptures in proof, that the Commandments are possible to be kept. SAint Basil having alleged these words of S. Paul (1) Eph. 5.1. Be ye therefore followers of God as most dear Children, & walk in love etc. teacheth that, (2) In Regulis breu. Resp. 176. without doubt he who is good and just would not have commanded this, unnes he had given power wherewith we should do it. And upon these words o● Moses; Attend to thyself, he affirmeth that, (3) Hom. in illud Moses, Attend. It is impious to affirm the Commandments of the holy Ghost to be impossible to be kept. S. Hierome writing upon that saying of Christ, Love your Enemies, saith, (4) Ad. c. 5. Mat. Many measuring the Precepts of God by their own weakness not by the strength of holy men, do think those things to be impossible which are commanded etc. But we are to know, that Christ doth not Command things in poss●ble, but perfect, which David did in Saul and Absolom. Steven t e Martyr prayed for his enemy's stoning him: And Paul desired to be accursed for his Persecutors. S. Austin teacheth tha● (5) De N●t. & Gra●● ●9. In that it is firmly believed, that God who is just and good, could not command things impossible, hence we are admonished what to do in easy things, and what to ask in hard things, for all things are easy to Charity to which alone Christ's burden is easy, or that alone is the burden itself which is easy: according to this it is said. His Commandments are not heavy. Again, (6) Ser. 61. de Temp. But some may say, I can by no means love my Enemies. In all the Scriptures God telleth thee, that thou canst. Thou of the contrary answerest, thou canst not. Consider now whether God, or thou art to be believed. And therefore because truth cannot lie, let humane frailty leave of her vain excuses: because he can neither command any thing impossible, who is just; nor damn man for that which he could not eschew, who is good. And, (7) Ser. 191. de Temp. This is the belief of our Fathers, we believe in God the Father Almighty etc. We accurse the blasphemy of them who say, that God hath commanded any thing impossible to man, and that the Commandments of God cannot be kept by every one, but by all in common. This very saying being used by S. Hierome, is therefore reproved by (8) Tom. 2. Wittemb. fol. 216. Calu. Inst. l. 2. c. 7. sect. 5 Cent. 4. c. 10 Col. 1243. Hamel de Tradit. Apost. col. 96. Hof. comment. de poen fol. 55. Luther, Caluin, Centuristes, Hamelmannus, and Hoffman. S. Austin also pondering those words of the Psalm 108. Non dominetur mei omnis iniquitas, having alleged diverse texts of Scripture, he addeth, (99) L. 2. de pec. merchant & remiss c. 6. By these, and other like innumerable testimonies I cannot doubt, neither God to have commanded to man any thing impossible or any thing to be impossible for God to work and help, whereby that which he commandeth may be done; and so hereby man helped by God, may be without sin if he will. But S. Austin is so clear herein, that Melancthon confesseth, and reprehendeth (10) L. 1. Ep. p. 290. Imaginationem Augustini de impletione legis, Austin's imagination of fulfilling the law. S. chrysostom affirmeth that. (11) Admetus ps. 111 Not the nature of the Commandments, but the sloth of many doth use to make difficulty. Therefore if any undertake them with love and alacrity of mind, he shall see that they are light and easy. Wherefore Christ said, (12) Mat. 11.30. My yoke is sweet and my burden light. The Centurists reprove Tertullian saying, (13) Cent. 3. Col. 240. No law would be imposed upon him, saith Tertullian, who had not in his power due obedience to the law: With the same Error he inclineth every where to the possibility of the law. Again, (14) Ibid. Col. ●●5. Origen maintaineth the possibility of the law etc. and saith, that the Baptised may fulfil the law in all things. So clearly do the Fathers expound the Scriptures in proof of the possibility of keeping the Commandments. SECT. IU Protestants teach, that the Commandments of God are possible to be kept. M. Perkins confesseth that, (1) Ref. Cath. p. 51. 52. Whatsoever God commandeth in the Gospel, that a man must, and can perform etc. The Commandments of the law show us what we must do, but minister no power to perform the thing to be done: but the Doctrine and Commandments of the Gospel do otherwise, and therefore they are called spirit and life; God with the Commandment giving Grace that the thing prescribed may be done. M. Hooker affirmeth that, (2) Eccl. Pol. l. 5 p 285. Distributively at the lest, all great and grievous actual offences, as they offer themselves one by one, both may, and aught to be avoided: wherein he is so plain, that he is therefore reprehended by certain (3) Christian letter to M. Hook p 15. W●llet upon the Is 122. p. 91. Puritans, saying, Hear we demand to be informed, that if all offend in many things &c how your saying can be true, that it is possible to avoid all great and grievous sins? Castalio so clearly (4) De perfect obed. leg. Dei. teacheth the same doctrine, that he is therefore namely contradicted by D (5) 2. Conclus annex to his Confer. p 697. Reynolds. Luther in this agreeth with Catholics saying, (6) Defence. contra Ec●●m. The Commandments of God, even the lightest and lest are impossible to man by himself; bu● with the G●ace of God they are most easy: As the Apostle (saith) I can do all things in him that strenghteneth me. Therefore Hierome said w●ll Let h m he accursed who shal● sa● the Commandments of God to be impossible, but he denied not, they were impossible to us, to wit, without God's Grace. Paraeus avoucheth that, The moral law, seeing it is thee ternall Rule of justice, (7) Colloq. Theol. 1. Disp. 8. and summarily requireth the love of God and our Neighbour (which are temporal duties of Man) cannot be said to be abrogated, or ever to be abrogated. And the same is taught by (8) Hom. in Circumcis. c. 67. Brentius. Wherhfore according to these Prot. the Commandments are possible to be kept. SECT. V Objections from Scriptures in proof, that it is impossible to keep God's Commandments, answered. IT is objected, that Saint Paul saith of himself, (1) Rom. 7.18. To will, is present with me, but to accomplish that which is good, I find not. Answ. The Apostle (according to S. (2) Tract. 41. in joan. & l. 6. in julian c. 11 & l. 1. ad Bonif. c. 10. Austin) speaketh of Concupiscence, which often is felt, though it be not consented unto: in which Case though it be not sin, yet is it troublesome to a chaste mind. Others urge those words of S. Peter, (3) Act. 15. ●0. Why tempt you God, to put a yoke upon the necks of the Disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear. Answ. The discourse of the whole Chapter plainly showeth, this to be spoken only of the Ceremonial law of Moses, which yet neither was so importable, as was impossible to be kept, for before we heard of sundry that had kept it, but because it was not kept but with great pain and difficulty. Again it is urged, that, (4) jac. 3.2. & 1. Io. 1.8. In many things we offend all: whereas whosoever fulfileth the Law, sinneth not. Answ. This is spoken of venial Sin, which is (5) S. Tho. 1. 2. q. 88 art. 1. not simply & absolutely Sin, but imperfectly: neither is it altogether against, but besides the law: so that the fullfilling of the law may stand therewith. CHAP. XXXIII. The true State of the Question, concerning the best works of the lust, being Sinne. Whether all the works of the Just, even the best, are in themselves and of their own nature truly sins, and deserving damnation: or rather that they are truly, and properly just and good. SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. SEEING no impediment can be greater to the promoting of virtue, or sput more sharp to incite men to vice, then for men to persuade themselues that notwithstanding all care and diligence to the contrary, yet the very best actions are stained with Sin and those mortal: therefore in Confutation of this so pernicious Error the Catholic Church decreeth that, (1) Council. Tried Sess. 6. Can. 23. If any shall say that in every good work the just doth Sin at lest venially, or which is more intolerable, mortally, and so to deserve eternal punishments; and only therefore not to be damned, because God doth not impute those works to damnation, Anathema. In the Council Senonense it is expressly defined, that, (2) Decret. 16. All works are not sin. And this Article is there condemned. (3) In Annot. post Decreta fidei. The just man sinneth in every good work: Every good work even the best is venial. Answerably herunto all (4) Bellar. de justif. l. 4. c. 15. Catholics believe, that the works of the Just, by the help of God's Grace, are not only not sin, either moral or venial, but truly just, virtuous, and pleasing to God. Points Disputable. Some (5) See Suarez in. 1. 2. Disp. 19 sect. 1. 2. 3. Schoolmen teach that every work we do in particular, is either good or evil. Others think that there are some indifferent, neither good nor evil. Protestant Doctrine. Protestants teach that, (*) Calu. Instit. l. 3. c. 24. §. 9 & l. 3. c. 12. §. 4. No work can come from the just, which doth not deserve just reward of reproach. And, (6) In Antidoto Concilij Sess. 6. c. 11. Good works if they be censured with exact rigour, are rather worthy of eternal Damnation, than the reward of life. (7) Calu. Instruct. count. Libertinos. c. 14. No other thing can we choose desire, or do, but evil. Whitaker, Inherent (8) De pec. orig. l. 2. c. 3. p. 656. Concupiscence causeth, that we sin in every action of ours, even good. And we teach, that the Just, according to the nature of the thing, and their actions, do always sinne mortally. A fearful and desperate opinion. Protestant Errors. Luther (9) Extat Tom. 1. oper. Lutheri. fol. 196. Edit. Wittemb. 1558. wrote a whole Book entitled, Q●òd iustus etiam inter bene operandum, peccet: That the just man sinneth even when he doth well, that is, as he through the whole Book expoundeth himself, in all his actions. In so much, that to use Luther's own words, (10) Argumento. 10. ex 24. All things that he doth are the works of the Devil, the works of sin the works of darkness the works of folly And, (11) Serm. de Ascensione Domini. We constantly affirm, the lust man to sin by praying. Beza proceedeth so far, that he affirmeth virtues to be sins his words are. (12) Tom. 1. oper. p. 665. q. 95. Question. But Philosophical virtues certes are not sins Answer Yes sins, If sin be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, whatsoever declineth but the lest from the law of God. But good God, what times are these, wherein virtues are called sins? What would Aristotle say if he were now living, if he should hear men professing learning and virtue, to avouch, that it is sin to do prudently in our actions: that it is sin to be temperate and sober, in eating and drinking: that it is si●ne to be valiant and courageous in dangers and adversities: that it is sin to be liberal and bountiful in giving our goods dul●: lastly that it is sin to give every man his own, and to embrace justice. But what shall I say against ●hese, but that which is thundered upon their head by the Prophet ●say, (13) C. 5.20.22.23. Woe unto you that call evil good, and good evil, putting darkness light and light darkness; putting bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter etc. woe to you that are mighty to drink wine & stout men in drunkenness; which justify the impious for gifts, and take away the justice of the Just from them: Which certainly none would do, but madmen or drunkards. SECT. II. It is proved by Scriptures, that all the works of the Just are not Sin, nor deserving Damnation. THe Scriptures expressly teach, that some works of the Just are not sin, (1) job. c. 1.22. In all these things job sinned not with his lips. And that he sinned not in hart it is further said, (2) C. 2.3. Hast thou considered my servant job, that there is not the like to him in the Earth, a man simple and right, and fearing God, and departing from evil, and yet retaining Innocency? In like sort King David saith of himself. (3) Ps. 7 9 judge me O Lord according to my justice, & according to my Innocency upon me. (4) Ps. 16.3. By fire thou hast examined me, and there is no Iniquity found in me. (5) Ps. 17.11.22. & 118.101. Our Lord will reward me according to my justice and according to the Purity of my hands he will reward me. Because I have kept the ways of our Lord; neither have I done i●p ously from my God. In these places he avoucheth his works to be justices, Innocency, Purity, and without Iniquity: Yea he confidently hoped that they might stand in the judgement of God; otherwise desiring to be judged according to his justice, instead of pardon, he should ask Damnation. The Scriptures distinguish between good and evil deeds, (6) jac. 2.8. If you fulfil the Royal law according to the Scriptures, (Thou shalt love thy Neighbour as thyself) you do well but if you accept persons you work sin etc. And, whosoever shall keep the ●hole law, but offend in one, is made guilty of all. So also S. Peter. (6) 2. Pet. 1.10. Labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your Vocation and Election. For doing these things you shall not sin at any tyme. These texts prove a distinction of good and evil works, so that all are not sin. According to Caluin, (8) Inst. l. 3. c. 12. §. 1. Nothing is acceptable to God, but what in every part is entire and absolute, and defiled with no impurity: and yet Scriptures teach that, (9) Act. 10.36. He that feareth (God) and worketh justice is acceptable to him. (10) Philip. 4 13. I was filled after I received of Ephaphrodites the things that you sent, an odour of sweetness, an acceptable host pleasing to God. (11) 1. Pet. 2.5. See 1. Io. 3.22. To offer spiritual hosts acceptable to God. Now to say that good wo●kes are not acceptable, but only Christ's imputation, is indeed to affirm, that deadly and enormous Crimes are acceptable and pleasing to God by his imputation, which is most absurd. Again, if in all our best actions we cannot but sin, to what end are we so much dehorted from Sin, (12) Io. 5.14. Sin no more. (13) 1. Cor. 15.34. Awake ye Just, and sinne not. (14) Ps. 4.5. Be angry, and do not sin. And see the like in (15) 2. Pet. 1.10. 1. Io. 2.1. other places. But the works of the just are expressly said to be good, (16) Mat. 5.17. Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works: (17) 1. Tim. 6.17.18. Command the rich of this world &c. to do well, to become rich in good works. (18) Tit. 3.8. They which believe in God be careful to excel in good works. Now seeing that (according to S. (19) De diuin. Nem. c. 4. Dionysius) is said to be evil, which in any thing is wanting, and that only to be good, which is entirely and absolutely good, therefore seeing the holy Ghost calleth the works of the just, good, they are truly and absolutely good, and consequently not sin. If all our best actions be Sins, than all these absurdities follow. 1. That the works of faith, whereby a man is justified, and Charity, were sin, and so we justified by Sinne. 2 When we say, forgive us our Sins, by Sin we seek to obtain remission of Sinne. 3. For sins we should expect a (20) 2. Tim. 4.8. Crown of justice. 4. When we are commanded to pray, fast, give Alms, preach, read the Scriptures, we are commanded to Sinne. 5. Seeing (21) Philip. 2.13. God it is who worketh in us all good deeds, God sinneth. 6. Than Christ did not (22) Tit. 1●. 14. redeem us from all iniquity, and cleanse to himself a people acceptable, a pursuer of good works. 7. All good works are to be done, but according to Protestants, some mortal Sins are good works: Ergo some mortal Sins are to be done. Again no mortal Sin is to be done, but all good works are mortal Sins, Ergo no good work it to be done. Lastly, seeing it is said (23) Prou. 24.16. For the just man shall fall 7. times a day, and shall rise again: I would demand whether the just man sinneth by rising again, or no? If they affirm, then must they needs say, that to rise is the same that to fall, & to fall the same that to rise; and so consequently a man is as much beholding to him that casteth him into a pit, as to him that draweth him out: & on the contrary, as much injured by him that draweth him out, as by him that cast him in: and so for a full contradiction, that both these actions are injurious and beneficial. If they deny the foresaid rising to be sin, than we have our Intent, that all the actions of the just are not Sinne. SECT III. That the Ancient Fathers do expound the Scriptures in proof that the works of the just are truly good, and not sin. SAint Gregory upon the former words concerning job writeth, If we say that job sinned in his words, (1) L. 2. Mor. c. 8. which were wickedness to think, we say that God lost the victory, in that which he proposed. S. Au●tine expounding those words of job, man cannot be justified compared with God, writeth, (2) L. ad Orofi●n count. Priscillian, & O●igeni stas. c. 10. It seemeth to me ●ot an unfit speech, in comparison of God's justice, if the holy Angels in heaven be not said to be just, not that they should be this, are they fallen from ●u●tce, but because they are made, and are not God, neither can they h●ue so m●ch spiritual light, as he hath by whom they are m●de: for there is greatest justice, where greatest wisdom & this is G●● etc. By participation of whom they are just, in comparison of him they are not just. SECT. iv That Protestant writers do teach, that the works of the Just are truly good, and not Sinne. ALl such Protestants as I have (1) See before Chap. 31.32. formerly produced, teaching that Man hath freewill with God's Grace to do good, and eschew evil: and that with the same Grace it is possible to keep God's Commandments, and so not sin; As also such others as I shall (2) See hereafter Chap. 16. afterwards allege, in proof that man is justified by faith and good works: and that the said good works do merit Grace and Glory; all these I say do, and must needs believe, that just men may do works truly good, and not sinful. For to say, that a man by sinful and wicked works doth keep God's Commandments, is justified, and doth merit Grace and Glory, is most absurd and impious. SECT. V Objections from Scripture in proof, that the works of the just are truly Sin, answered. SOme object these words of K. David, (1) Ps. 141. ●. Enter not into judgement with thy servant, because no man living shallbe justified in thy sight. Answ. S. Austin writing upon this place affirmeth, that no man can be justified in God's sight, because he hath no justice of himself, but that which he hath, he hath from God. 2. S. Hierome, (2) Aug l. de Perfect. iustitiae. Greg. in hunc locum. Hieron. Ep. ad Cesiphontem. S. Austin, and S. Gregory do likewise expound this of venial sins, whereof none can justify himself in this world. 3. According to S. Hilary, (3) Hil. Hier. Arnob. Euthym. in hunc locum. Bern Ser. 5. de verbis Isatae. S. Hierome, and others, None can be said to be justified in the Presence of God, not that there is not true justice in holy men, but that the purity and worth of the justice of God is such, that all the justice of Angels and Men compared therewith seemeth Injustice: Even as the stars in themselves most clear, wax yet dark in the presence of the Sun. In which sense job said, (4) C 9.2. Indeed I know it is so, and that man cannot be justified compared with God; whereof see S. Austin here in the third Section. Others object that, (5) Isa. 64 6. All we are become as one unclean, and all our justices as the cloth of a menstrued woman. Answ. The word, all, in Scripture is often (6) Gen. ●9. 12. 1. Cor 1.5. 7 8. & 1. Cor. 32. used only for many. 2. Isay speaketh not here of the just, but of notorious Isa. 64.5 7 sinners, for whose crimes, the City and all the people were to be delivered into the hands of the K. (8) See Isa. 6.5.7. of Babylon. 3. Though he had spoken of all the people, yet spoke he not of all times, and therefore though as then they were wicked when they were given as Captives, yet both before (9) Ver. 11. and after, they might be just. 4 And though he had spoken of all times, yet spoke he not of all their works, but only of those which they thought to be their chiefest Iust●fications, as their Sacrifices, Feasts, New-Moones &c which because they performed not with pure intention, and in such sort as they aught, they were compared to foul , and were hateful to God; and accordingly it was said, (10) Isa. 1.83. Offer Sacrifice no more in vain: Incense is abomination to me. The New-moon, and the Sabbath, and other fest u●ties, I will not abide etc. Some object (11) Eccl. 7.21. Rom. 3.10. That there is not a just m●n upon Earth, who doth good, and not sin. Answ. These words only import, that there is none so just, that he always doth that which is good, but that all men do sometimes sin, either mortally or venially, which we do not deny. And so it is said of (12) job. 1.1.8. Luc. 1.6. job, Zichary, Elizabeth, and such like, that they were just before God, and yet no man denieth, but that they sinned sometimes, at lest venially. CHAP. XXXIV. The True State of the Question, concerning the Infallible knowledge of our Predestination and Salvation. Whether Man in this world, without special Revelation from God, can have infallible knowledge of his present justification, Predestination, and Eternal Salvation: In so much that every one is bound as firmly to believe his own Salvation, as he doth the Articles of his Creed: Or only that in this world a moral certainty can be had thereof. And whether true faith, and justice once had, may be lost. SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. THIS desperate Presumption of being Predestinate, doth so dangerously draw men to the perpetration of all vice: as that in prevention thereof, the Catholic Church hath decreed, that, (1) Concil. Tried Sess. 6. Cap. 9 It is not to be affirmed, that those who are truly justified, aught to determine with themselves without all doubtfulness, that they are justified, and that no man is absolved from sin, and lustifyed, but he who certainly believeth himself to be Absolved and justified and by this only faith, Absolution and justification to be perfected: as if he that doth not believe this, should doubt of the Promises of God, and of the Efficacy of the Death and Resurrection of Christ; for as no Godly man aught to doubt of the mercy of God, of the merit of Christ and of the virtue and Efficacy of the Sacraments: so every one whilst he beholdeth himself, and his own infirmity, and indisposition, may doubt and fear of his own Grace, seeing no man can know with certainty of faith, which is not subject to falsehood, that he hath obtained the Grace of God. It likewise teacheth that, (2) Sess. 6. cap. 12. No man in this life aught so much to presume of the secret Mystery of God's Predestination, as that he should certainly determine himself to be in the number of the Predestinate: as though it were true, that a man justified either can sinne no more, or if he sin, that he aught to promise' to himself assured repentance: for without special Revelation it cannot be known whom God hath chosen. And again, (3) Sess. 6. Can. 13. If any man shall say, that for the obtaining pardon of sins, it is necessary for every man that he certainly believe, and without any doubt of his own Infirmity and Indisposition, that his sins are forgiven him, Anathema. Agreably hereunto all (4) Bellar. de justif. l. 3. c. 3. Rhem Test. in Rom. 8. ●8. Catholics do believe, that without special Revelation from God, no man in this life can be assured with certainty of divine faith, that his sins are forgiven him, that he is truly justified, one of the Predestinate, and certainly to be saved. Points Disputable. Although all agreed that none can be certain of present Grace and future Salvation, with such certainty of faith as is not subject to falsehood; yet (5) Vega. in Concil. Trid. l. 9 c. 46. some think, that some spiritual men have such humane certitude thereof, as is altogether void of all doubt and fear. (6) Barth. Medina. 1.2. q 112 art. 5. Concl. 5. Others teach, that the Just man hath not such moral certainty of Grace, excluding all hesitation or doubt. Some (7) See Them. apud Magistrum. in 3. Dist. 13. teach, that it is not the same numero, or individual faith, joined with Charity and without it. But (8) Tapperus To. 2. art. 8. p. 64. and others. others, more truly, teach the contrary. Protestant Untruths. Caluin (9) In Antidoto Concil. affirmeth, that the Fathers of the Council of Trent do confounded Doubt with Faith: But Chemnitius lasheth further avouching, (10) Exam. ad Sess 6. that they make Doubt the virtue and ornament oh faith, in such sort, that Faith without Doubt should not be true & justifying. Yea he maketh the question between us & Protestant's, to be, whether justifying faith be fiducia, an dubitatio de remissione peccatorum, trust or doubt of remission of sins. But all this is so untrue, that therefore rather the Council rejecteth the special faith of Heretics, & affirmeth it to be, not Faith, but vain confidence, seeing, that Faith cannot be certain, whereas true Faith must be most certain. Protestant Doctrine. Prot. (11) In Confess. August. art. 6 & 20. Melancth. loc. come. de justific. Calu. Instit l. 3. c. 2. Chem. Exam. cap 9 Sess. 6. Whitak. count. Dur. l. 8. p. 635. 637. Perkin● Reform. Cath. p. 38. 54. Willet. Synop. p. 582. teach, that all believers aught no less cercertainly and infallibly to believe, that they are already received into Grace, then that God is one in Essence, & three in Person, or any other Article of Faith to be true. And they think, this assent principally to be that assent of Christian faith, which is required in Scriptures for justification, and without which, the belief of other Articles, is Historical, and Diabolical. Whitaker, (12) Concione vlt. This one thing I say, those who deny that we are certain of salvation with certainty of faith, do leave us no faith. jewel affirmeth that men of his sort, (13) Def of. Apol. part. 2. c. 6 sect. 3. Perkins To. 1. of Bap. Col. 820. Som. ibid. Col. 206. Are as certain of the forgiveness of their sins in the Blood of Christ, as if Christ were present, and should tell it unto them. Bucer, (14) Apud Zanch. Tom. 7 de Persever. c. vlt. There is nothing more profitable then to preach, that it is impossible for the faithful that they ever fall from Grace. Perkins, (15) L. de desertione. col. 1026. This Axiom is to be holden: He that is once in the state of Grace is always to persever in it. And others teach, that (16) Epit. Colloq. Montisb. p. 44. 48. he that doth once truly believe, cannot afterward fall from the Grace of God, or lose his faith by Adultery, or any other like sins. A comfortable Doctrine for Adulterers murderers, drunkards, and the like. Protestants agreed with Ancient Heretics. S. Irenaeus (17) L. 1. c. 1. reproveth the Gnostickes, for that they deemed themselves so perfect & just, that they thought they could not be defiled with Sinne. Protestant Errors. Christ our Saviour (according to Luther) (18) Tom 3. in Ps. 22. fol. 330. suffered the fear and horror of a Conscience troubled, and tasting wrath eternal etc. but what absurdity to attribute to Christ a Conscience fearing for a small time? Yea (19) Ib. fol. 330. Christ at the same time to be exceeding joyful, and exceedingly despairing. According to Melancthon, (20) In Mat. 26. The third, and that the chiefest cause of Christ's fear, was a certain feeling of Gods forsaking and anger, whereby Christ was uncertain between Hell and life. Yea saith Caluin, (21) In Mat. 26.37. A horrible depth of destruction with fear & anxiery did grievously vex him. The like in sundry places teacheth Beza (22) In Heb. 5.7. & in Luc. 22.44. and concludeth, that in this dejection of Christ the sum of our comfort consists. Lastly, Serranus blasphemeth that, (23) Cont. Hayum. part. 2. p. 289. he struggled with the horror of eternal death, and extremely feared the weight of eternal punishments. Hear Prot. make Christ our Saviour to be fearful and doubtful of his own Salvation: and yet every one of them is assured by faith of their own. Caluin, (24) In. Mat. 17.24. Seeing perfect faith is no more extant, it followeth in part that men are incredulous. And, (25) Instit. l. 3. c. 2 S. ●8. Certainty is mingled with doubt. Beza, (26) L. Quaest. p 672. In one and the same subject yet in diverse respects, there are unpurity and uncleanness, light and darkness, faith and incredulity. Peter Martyr, (27) In loc. Closs. 2. c. 15. § 1. It is not absurd, One and the same work to be good and wicked. Paraeus, (28) De Iustif. l 4. c. 17. p. 1239. I answer. It is no absurdity, Faith to have diffidence or incredulity mingled with it, which is sin, and so by accident Faith to be sin. Perkins, (29) Tom. 2. in c. 5. Gal. True faith is always mingled with contrary incredulity, in so much that those who believe, may feel in themselves much incredulity. Yea saith Scarpius (30) De Iust. Controu. 5.5 p. 88 With faith may stand an Act of incredulity, but not with full force. Luther. (31) Postil. in die Natiu. fol. 52. He must first be damned, before he can be damned for whom he gave himself. Caluin, (32) Instit. l. 4. c. 17. §. 2. We dare promise' securely to ourselves life eternal to be ours, neither can the Kingdom of heaven more fall away from us, then from him (to wit) Christ. tindal, (33) Act. Mon. p. 1137. Thou canst not be damned unless Christ be damned, nor Christ saved unless thou be saved. Perkins, (34) Conflict. of Satan. Tom. 1. Col. 1305. I think myself as certain of Salvation, as if my Name were expressly written in the sacred Scriptures. Zanchius, (35) Tom. 2. l. 2. de Nat. Dei. c. 2. Every one is bound by the Commandment of God, to believe, that he is elected, and predestinated in Christ, to eternal Salvation. When we say every man to be bound to believe, we except no man, not the reprobate, who neither will believe, nor can believe in Christ. Who would imagine, that any man professing Christianity, would belch out such blasphemies and absurd impieties? And yet they are the Doctrines of Luther, Caluin, Beza, Zanchius, tindal and Perkins; men renowned amongst Prot. but deservedly infamous and hateful to all others. SECT. II. It is proved by Scripture, that man in this world without special Revelation from God, cannot have infallible knowledge of his present justification, Predestination, and eternal Salvation: And that true faith and justice once had, may be lost. TO examine this by the sacred Scriptures, they expressly teach our Ignorance or uncertain knowledge of our Predestination or Salvation. (1) Prou. 20.9. Who (saith Solomon) can say, My hart is clean, I am pure from sin? And yet it is certain, that some are clean, according to that of S. Paul, (2) 1. Cor. 6.11 Ps. 50.11. Ps. 1●8 1. But you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified etc. Again. (3) Eccl. 9.1. There are just men and wise, and their works are in the hand of God: and yet man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love or hatred: but all things are reserved uncertain for the time to come etc. In like sort prayeth K. David, (4) Ps. 18.13. Sins who understands? from my secret sins cleanse me. And S. Paul affirmeth of himself thus, (5) 1. Cor. 4.3.4.5. To me it is a thing of lest account to be judged of you, or of man's day: but I judge not myself neither, for I am no, guilty in Conscience of any thing, but I am not justified herein, but he that judgeth me is our Lord: therefore judge not before the time until our Lord do come, who also will lighten the hidden things of darkness, and will manifest the Counsels of the hearts etc. These texts expressly teach, that no man can give an infallible judgement of his present justification, or Salvation. Such places also as require certain Conditions of our part for our justification, prove the like uncertainty of knowledge: So Moses saith to the Israelites, (6) Deut. 4.29. Isa. 1.19.20. When thou shalt seek there the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him, yet so if thou seek him with all thy hart. In like sort Ezechiel, (7) C. 28.21. f the impious shall do Penance from all sins etc. And shall keep all my precepts &c. living, he shall live, and not die etc. But if the just man shall turn away himself from his justice, and do iniquity etc. shall he live? All his justices which he had done, shall not be remembered etc. Yea Christ himself saith, (8) Io. 15.10. If you keep my Precepts you shall abide in my love. And, (9) Io 13.14. You are my friends, if you do the things that I command you. But, (10) Io. 15.6. If any abide not in me, he shallbe c●st forth as the branch, and shall whither etc. Now no man knoweth with certainty of faith, that he performeth these Conditions, seeing no Scripture testifieth the same of any man in particular. As also these places convince, that he that is once justified, or in state of Grace, may afterwards fall, and lose the same. But some reply, that these works are not required as a Condition upon which the promise of eternal life dependeth, but because true faith cannot be without good works. But first the words of the text are clear conditional. 2. We do not here inquire why works are necessary, but are content that it be granted that they are necessary, and that without them eternal Salvation cannot be gained. For hence we conclude evidently, that without divine Revelation no man can certainly decree himself to be of the number of the Elect, seeing no man (as Prot. will confess) can assure himself that he doth all those good works which Christ commanded to be done: yea a little before they clearly taught, that in our best actions we break Gods Commandments, and sin. Other places also show, that it is uncertain whether we obtain remission of our sin: so joel saith of God, (11) C. 2.14. who knoweth if he will convert and forgive etc. And S. Peter said to Simon Magus, (12) Act. 8.22. Do penance therefore from this thy wickedness, & pray to God, if perhaps this Cogitation of thy hart may be remitted thee. Though these and the like places do not prove any uncertainty in God's promises to such as truly repent, yet they prove the uncertainty of remission of our sins, in regard of the uncertainty of our Disposition requisite to the same. The same truth also is confirmed by such texts as exhort us to work our Salvation with Fear. (13) Philip. 2.12. Ps. 2.21. With fear and trembling work your Salvation. (14) 1. Pet. 1.17. In fear converse ye the time of your sciourning. (15) Rom. 11.20.21. But thou by faith dost stand; be not too highly wise, but fear: for if God hath not spared the natural boughs, jest perhaps he will not spare thee neither. And therefore, (16) 1. Cor. 10.12. he that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed jest he fall: Yea, (17) Heb 4. ●. Let us fear therefore jest perhaps forsaking the Promise of entering into his rest, some of you be thought to be wanting. Yea S. Paul himself was not assured, but careful, (18) Philip. 3.11. If by any means I may come (saith he) to the Resurrection which is from the dead. And, (19) 1. Cor. 9.27. I chastise my body, and bring it into servitude, jest perhaps when I have preached to others, myself become reprobate. Caluin and Chemnitius answer, that these words are uttered by the holy Ghost, not that there is any danger, that the faithful shall fall from salvation, but only to shake of the sloth and carnal security of men negligent in doing good works. But though it be true, that those who are predestinate shall not fall from Salvation, and that the holy Ghost doth speak these words to stir up the Elect to care and diligence, yet they cannot be understood of those who certainly know and believe their Predestination, but of such as are ignorant thereof: for these who are so certain cannot fear the loss of Salvation, yea they aught not to fear it, if they as certainly believe it, as they believe Christ to be God: and therefore the holy Ghost should exhort them to Infidelity, when he exhorteth them to fear the loss of their Salvation: even as he should do the like, who should exhort a Christian to fear whether Christ were God. Wherhfore seeing by these places we are commanded to fear, we neither aught nor can firmly believe, that we are certainly of the number of the Predestinate, and of those that infallibly are to be saved. And Reason convinceth this truth: for nothing can be certain with certainty of faith, but what is either immediately contained in the word of God, or by evident consequence deduced from thence; but this particular proposition, Luther is predestinate, is neither of the former ways proved from the Scripture: for that which in this point can be deduced from thence is, that such as believe, and repent, and so continued, shall certainly be saved, and so are predestinate. Now that Luther did thus, is no ways deduced certainly from Scripture: But that he did to the contrary, many strong proofs might be produced. The foresaid uncertainty of our Salvation is further proved, by all such texts as convince, that true faith and justice once had, may afterwards be lost. Moses saith to God, (20) Exod. 32.32. Either forgive them this trespass, or if thou do not strike me out of the Book that thou hast written. To whom our Lord answered: he that hath sinned to me, him will I strike out of my book. According to which saith K. David, (21) Ps. 68.29. Let them be put out of the book of the living, and with the just let them not be written. Christ saith, (22) Luc. 8.13. For they upon the rock; such as when they hear with joy receive the word: and these have no roots, because for a time they believe, and in time of tentation they revolt. So likewise S. Paul, (23) Rom. 11.20.21.23. Because of Incredulity the boughs were broken, but thou by faith dost stand etc. see then the goodness and severity of God: upon them surely that are fallen, the severity: but upon thee the goodness of God, if tho● abide in his goodness, otherwise also thou shalt be cut off. But they also, if they do not abide in Incredulity, shallbe grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. (24) 1. Tim. 1.19. Having faith and a good Conscience, which certain repelling have made shipwreck about the faith. (25) 1. Tim. 4.1. & 1. Tim. 6.10. In the last times certain shall departed from the faith. (26) Heb. 6.4.5.6. It is impossible (or rare, and difficult) for them that were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly safety, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost etc. and are fallen, to be renewed again to Penance. And the like might be showed out of (27) Io 15.2.6. 1 Cor. 9 27. Gal. 5.4.2. Pet. 2.21.22. sundry other places of holy writ. But whereas these Scriptures affirm of some, (28) Luc. 8.13. that, for a time they believe, that, (29) 1. Tim. 1 19 They have made shipwreck about faith, that 1. Tim. 4.1. They will departed from faith, and sundry such like; Scharpius answereth (31) De justif. controu. 5. 6. 7. ●o all these, that they are not to be understood of true faith, but only of counterfeit and dead faith. But this Exposition is directly contrary to the express word, & sense o● the texts, as every one may observe by the ba●e reading of them. Sundry examples do also confirm this: for first the damned Angels b●fore th●ir fall, were just, as the Fathers gather from the 14. Chapter of Esay, and the 28. of Ezechiel. Prot. grant our first Parents to have been in dued with faith and grace, and yet their grievous fall we all yet feel. The like might be exemplified in (32) 1. Reg. 9.2. & 15.26.35. Aug l. 2. ad Simpl. q. 1. Cypr. l. ●. ep. 5. Saul, in (33) 1. Reg. 11.4.15. Act. 13.22. David, in (34) 1. Reg. 7.14. & 12.34.25. Cyp. l. 1. ep. 5. Aug. l. 22. cont. Faust. c. 88 Solomon, in (35) Mat. 16.17. Io 13.10. & Mat. 26.74. Peter, in (36) Act. 8.23.20.21. Simon Magus, and judas (37) Io. 17.12. Mat. 26.24. & 27.4 5. the traitor. The Examples of Adam, David and Peter, prove that true justice may be lost, and recovered; the other of Satan and judas convince that such as are truly just, do sometimes fall from the same, & become reprobate. This point is yet made more evident from the Doctrine of Protestants, for whereas they teach that, (38) Fu●k. ag. Rhem. Test. in. 1. Cor. 13 f. ●90. justifying faith cannot be without Charity, no more than fire can be without heat, it hence followeth, that if a man may lose his Charity, he doth also therewithal lose his faith, and so by consequence lose the certain knowledge of his own Salvation, Now that a man may lose his Charity, besides that it was said to the Church of Ephesus, (39) Apoc 2.4. Thou hast left thy fi●st Charity, it may be proved by David, the chosen servant of God, who lost the same, when he, as Bruce confesseth, slept (40) Serm. up. the Sacram. p. 24. Knox. ag. the Adversaries of Gods Pre●. p 219. in sin of Adultery (41) 1. Reg. 11.4.15. and murder: for voluntary intended murder, is a Privation of Charity: to which end S. john saith, (42) 1. Io. 3.10. Every one that is not just is not of God and he that loveth not his brother. (43) 1. Io. 3.14. He that loveth not abideth in death: therefore D●uid in his murder of Urias, and before his repentance was not of God, but for the time abode in death, & so had neither Charity, nor (according to Prot.) Faith. Some answer herunto, that David's faith was not lost, but was for the time, as it were sleeping: but this is no answer, but the begging of the thing in question fully confuted by the premises; for if David's Charity was lost by his Murder, than was his faith also not only sleeping, but likewise lost, seeing according to Prot. faith cannot be without Charity: Also if David during his foresaid sleeping in that Sin, was thereby (44) Io. 8.34. 2. Pet. 2.17. Rom. 6.16. the servant of sin, and (45) 1. Io. 3.8. of the Devil, and also (as before) not of God but abode in death, his faith and Charity were then for the time lost. Lastly the nature of faith is not to be sleeping or idle, but (46) Gal. 5.6. working by Charity, and (47) jac. 2.17.26. without works dead. Others do answer, that, (47) Fulk. in Disp. in the Tower. 2. Days conference. c. 1. David when he committed adultery was and remained the Child of God, and (49) Resp. ad acta. Col. Montisb. par. alt. p 73. did not fail from his faith: But as Beza and Bastingius do most grossly affirm, (50) Beza ib. p. 37. ●asting. in Comment. of the Catechis. Englished. p. 241. at one and the same time he sinned and sinned not. And therefore (saith Beza (51) Ib. p. 74. he sinned not wholly, but so far forth as not regenerate. To such absurd and inexplicable difficulties are they driven through the clearest words of Scripture. All Infants by Baptism are truly justified, yea without Baptism according to sundry Prot. the Children of the faithful are truly holy: but how incredible is it, that all the Children of the faithful, or all such as are baptised are Predestinate and cannot sinne: Besides hence all Catholics in their Infancies baptised, should also be Predestinate, which I think few Prot. will admit. Again, Pagans' differ from Heretics in that they never had faith, but these having had it, have lost it; which argueth, that either faith may be lost, or that there are no heretics. Lastly, this doctrine is the beaten path to despair: for if none be truly just, but who is certain of his perseverance, so that he is assured he shall never fall, or according to others if he do fall, yet he is assured to rise again; how can any of true judgement certainly hope himself to be just, seeing he daily seethe himself and others to fall into diverse sins, even against their own Conscience? SECT. III. The Sacred Scriptures expounded by the Fathers agreably with Catholics, in proof of our uncertainty of our Predestination and Salvation: As also in proof that Faith and justice once had, may be lost. Whereas Solomon most clearly avoucheth, that the just men's (1) Eccl. 9 1. wo●kes are in the hand of God, and yet man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love or hatred, but all things are reserved uncertain for the time to come; S. Hierome in his Commentary upon this place saith: The sense is, I have found the works of the just to be in the hands of God, but whether they be beloved of God or not, now they cannot know etc. And his Translation here of according to the sense of the Hebrew is, that, Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of hatred or love. S. Ambrose writing upon those words of the psalm, (2) Ps. 118.39. Take away my reproach which I have feared, speaketh thus: He (3) Ser. 5. in. Ps. 118. would have his reproach taken away, which he feared, either because he had thought it in hart, and had not done it; and though it were taken away by Penance, yet he feared left peradventure his reproach yet remained, and therefore he prayeth God to take it away, because he alone knoweth that, which he who did it, can be ignorant of. And he addeth in proof hereof the words of S. Paul, I am not guilty in Conscience of any thing, but I am not justified herein. S. Austin expounding those words of King David, (4) Ps. 41.7. My soul is troubled towards myself, writeth: (5) In Ps. 41. I know that the justice of my God remaineth, but whether mine remain, I know not. For the Apostle terrif●eth me saying He that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed jest he fall. And (6) De Ciu. Dei. l. 11. c. 12. though holy men may be assured of the reward of their perseverance yet they are found uncertain of their own perseverance; for what man knoweth that he is to persever unto the end, in the action and progress of justice, unless by some revelation he be assured from him who by his just & hidden judgement, doth not instruct all herein but deceiveth no man. Yea, (7) L. de Cor. & Grat. c. 13. who amongst all the faithful as long as he liveth in this mortality, can presume himself to be in the number of the Predestinate? Because it is necessary that to be hid in this place, where pride is so to be taken heed of, that even so great an Apostle was to be buffeted by the Angel of Satan, jest he should be puffed up. Again, (8) Ep. 107. add Vital. It is profitable to all or most for their sound humility, that they may not know what hereafter, they are to be: to this end it is said he that seemeth to stand, let him take heed jest he fall. And, (9) De Praedest. Sanctorum. c. 14. Why is it granted to some, that they be taken out of the dangers of this life while they are just, and others that are just do live longer in the same dangers, until they fall from justice? Who knoweth the sense of our Lord? And whereas S. Paul before pronounced himself not to be assured, but careful, If by any means, I may come (saith he) to the resurrection which is from the dead; S. chrysostom from hence thus inferreth (10) Ho. 11. in Ep. ad Philip. If Paul who suffered so much, was not yet secure of that resurrection: what shall we say? Upon these words of the Prophet jonas, (11) Io. 3.9. Who knoweth if God will convert and forgive; S. Hierome writeth, Therefore it is put doubtful and uncertain, that whilst men are doubtful of their salvation they may more seriously do Penance, and more provoke God to mercy. S. Austin alleging the same place saith: (12) In. Ps. 50. It is uncertain, seeing is is said, who knoweth? They have done Penance for that which is uncertain, and have deserved certain mercy. S. Gregory is so plain herein, that Caluin reproveth him for his teaching that, (13) Instit. printed Argentor. 1539. c. 8. de Praedest. & Provide. Dei. p. 260. We are uncertain of our Election. But I will conclude with S. Bernard, (14) Ser. 1. de Septuag. Who (saith he) can say I am elect, I am of the Predestinate to life, I am of the number of the Sons? Who I say, can say these things the Scripture gainsaying, Man knoweth not if he be worthy of love or hatred? We have not certainty, but the confidence of hope comforteth us, that we be not wholly tormented with the anxiety of this doubt. Again, (14) Ser. 2. in Octava Paschae. Our Lord knoweth who are his, but what man knoweth, whether he be worthy of love or hatred? SECT. iv That sundry Prot. do teach from the sacred Scriptures the uncertainty of our Predestination and Salvation: and that Faith and justice once had may be lost. M. Perkins, though our Adversary in this point, yet nevertheless confesseth, aswell of the Elect: that, (1) In his 4. Treatises to be considered of Christians. Treat. 4. sect. 14. This testimony of being persuaded that we are adopted and chosen in Christ etc. is weak in most men, and can scarcely be perceived: As also the reprobate, that, (2) Ep. to the reader. They may do outwardly all things which true Christians do: that, they do willingly subject themselves to the Ministry of the Word, are as forward as any, & as joyful in frequenting Sermons, and do condemn them of impiety, which be negligent hearers of the word; they are also void of Hypocrisy, and herein dissemble not that faith which they have not, but rather show that (faith) which they have. And all this so truly and unfeignedly, that, (3) Ibid. A man being in this Estate may deceive himself, and the most goodly in the world, which have the greatest gift of discerning how they and their brethren stand before the lord Mark here the best signs of an elected Puritan, which yet according to M. Perkins a Reprobate may have. Zanchius confesseth that, (4) Tom. 1. l. 2. de Nat. Dei. c. 2. Who those may be which are to be saved, God truly knoweth: but by the Gospel he doth not teach it; and this because it is not expedient. Now if God doth not reveyle this by the Gospel, Prot. either have not faith of their Salvation, or they have it by some other means then the Gospel. What then can that be but the Devil and Presumption, let any man judge. Again, that faith and justice may be lost, the Lutherans teach that, (5) Confession of Saxony in the Ha●m in English. p. 80. and see p. 233. It is manifest that some who are regenerate &c are again rejected of God, and made subject to eternal punishment That (6) Ib. p 293. justification and regeneration may be shaken of, and we lose eternal life. The Confession of (7) ●b. p 224. Auspurge condemneth the contrary doctrine for Anabaptism. Lobechiu● (8) ●isp. Theol p. 317. 318. defendeth our Catholic Doctrine, alleging to that end the Confession of Augusta, and a great number of particular Scriptures, charging the Caluinists with Anabaptism in teaching otherwise. Chemnitius affirmeth that, (9) Exam. part. 2 p. 103. and see part. 1. p. 190. True lively justifying faith may be lost, and the party made guilty of eternal Damnation. (10) Loc. Theol. p. 188.3.1. Haffenrefferus reproveth herein Caluin & Beza. (11) Disp 7. ex Ep. ad loc. poster. part. 1. Thes. 5. That a man truly regenerate (saith Rungius) may finally fall from the Grace of God and perish, I have proved by undoubted test moneys, and Examples of Scripture. Schlusselburge (12) Theol. Calu. l. 1. art. 14 fol. 45. etc. rejecteth herein Caluin. Zanchius, and the Divines of Geneva. Adamus Francisci concludeth from the Scriptures, that (13) Margarita Theol. p. 101 158. A regenerate man doth lose faith, & is made guilty of Eternal pain. Wigandus proveth by many Testimonies of Scripture, that, (14) Syntagma ex novo Test. col. 732. 733. Faith may be lost. And Melancthon avoucheth that, (15) Consil. Theol. p. 332. Men fall from Grace, and lose justifying faith. And the same truth is taught and defended by sundry (16) Andraeas' in Epit. Col. Montisb. p. 47. 61. Gesnerus Disp. 17. pro lib. concord. Disp. 16. p 155. 156. 157 650. Morgenst. tract. de Eccl p 71. Hunnius in Co. loq. Ratisb p 433. Christmannus in Diagraphe Electionis p. 125. other Lutheran writers, who purposely and at large confirm from the sacred Scriptures this our Catholic Doctrine, impugning by name many of their own Brethrens for teaching the contrary. To come now to the Caluinistes, Musculus teacheth that, (17) Loc. come. loc de pec. Sec 5. 29. If he who hath been made partaker of the heavenly grace, do fall from that grace, and of a just and faithful man, do become unjust and unfaithful etc. this man's Conscience (the purity of faith being lost) is made guilty unto Damnation. And then signifying his dissent herein, from his other Brethrens, concludeth: I know that in this point sundry are of another mind, but what my opinion is, I tell freely, without injury to them. Rollocks' admonition is this, (18) Lectures upon the coloss. Lecture. 6. c. 1. p. 64. I tell thee, that notwithstanding thou art redeemed, and by this blood of Christ freed from sin and death, yet if thou takest delight in sin, the greater shall be thy Damnation. M. Harsnet made a Sermon in proof hereof at Paul's Cross And of Hemingius and Snecanus Willet faith, (19) Synop. p. 811. These Patrons of universal Grace and Conditional Election, do consequently hold, that men may lose their Election and faith, Hemingius p 30. The same is also maintained by Snecanus. p. 976. Caluin writing upon these words of the Apostle, (20) Heb. 11.15. By faith Moses being borne was hid 3 months by his Parents, saith: (21) In Heb. 11.13. It is to be noted, that the faith here praised was very weak. For whereas the fear of his death set apart, they aught to have bred him, they expose him to danger. It is evident therefore that their faith for a short time did not only waver, but was fallen away. Again, (22) Instit. l. 3. c. 2. §. 24. Neither do I gainsay, what I lately said, that sometimes certain interruptions of faith do happen, as the weakness thereof amongst violent motions is hither and thither bended. So in the thick darkness of tentations the light thereof is choked. And in another place, (23) Epist. 68 cuius init. Heri ut plurimùm. Let that of Paul be always in your mind, (24) 1. Tim. 1.19. That certain have fallen away from faith, because they were turned from a good Conscience, jest that we also be Examples to others of so fearful a shipwreck. john Husse teacheth this Doctrine distinctly saying, (25) Ad. c. 1. poster. Epist. D. Petri. Here it is doubted whether any traveller (or man in this life) can be certain of his own Predestination. And it seemeth that not, by that of Ecclesiastes 9 No man knoweth whether he be worthy of love or hatred: To the contrary Peter seemeth here to be, saying, Make your vocation and Election certain, and so certain Predestination. Here it is to be noted, that no man in this life knoweth certainly without revelation made to him hereof, that he is Predestinate, and so neither that he is in grace, or his work to be virtuous. Lastly D. Luther teacheth that, (26) Thes. 1.10. Wittemb. Anno 1517. proposita. No man is secure of the truth of his Contrition, much less of the obtaining of plenary remission. Again, (27) Ep ad Episcopum Moguntin. Man by any office of the Bishop is not made secure of Salvation, seeing neither by the Grace of God infused, he is made secure of Salvation: but the Apostle commandeth us always to work our Salvation in fear and trembling. So that Hussites, Lutherans, and Caluinistes do defend our Catholic Doctrine of our uncertain knowledge in this life of our Predestination and Salvation. SECT. V Objections from Scripture in proof of our certainty of Predestination and Salvation, and that faith and justice cannot be lost, answered. SOme object that, We (1) Rom. 8.16.17. have received the Spirit of Adoption of Sons, wherein we cry Abba Father, for the spirit himself giveth testimony to our Spirit, that we are the sons of God. And if Sons, heirs also etc. yet if we suffer with him, that we also may be glorified with him. Answ. The testimony which the spirit giveth is not by any Revelation, but by a certain feeling and experiment of internal Comfort, and peace of Conscience, which begetteth a hopeful, yet conjectural knowledge: And though it be most true, that the Just during their present Estate of justice are the Sons of God, and so also heirs; yet, which is the only point in question, that the Justice may not finally fall, or that the Heir may not for his after unworthiness be disinherited, is not so much as insinuated in this place: And the contrary might easily be proved by the example of Lucifer, and the other Angels who fell from heaven, (2) Isa. 14. 1●.1. Pet. 2.4. and were during their abode there, and before their sins, the Children of God, and yet afterwards by sin fell from that state. And the same is here plainly taught, in that these sayings are but delivered with this foresaid annexed Condition, if we suffer with him: which like Condition to be necessarily ever understood in all other sayings, where it is expressly wanting, is once for ever sufficiently explained by God himself in these words, (3) Ezech. 33.13.4. If I shall say to the just, that living he shall live, and he trusting in his justice, do iniquity, all his justices shallbe forgotten, and in his iniquity etc. shall he die. And if I shall say to the impious, Dying thou shalt die, and he do Penance from his sin etc. living, he shall live, and not die. jewel (4) Defence of the Apology. p. 78. objecteth these words of S. Paul, (5) Rom. 8.38. I am sure that neither death nor life &c. shallbe able to separate us from the Charity of God. Answ. In the (6) Rom. 8.28.29.30. etc. precedent verses it is clear, that S. Paul speaketh of the Predestinate in general, and so likewise is this place expounded by (7) L. de Correp. & Gra. c. 7. S. Austin; now of the Salvation of these in general no man doubteth. Secondly if S. Paul spoke of himself in particular, and of others like unto himself, yet by those words, Certus sum, I am sure, (8) Comment. in hunc locum. Hier. Ep. ad Algafiam. q. 9 S. Ambrose and S. Hierome understand, I am persuaded, or I trust: and the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which S. Paul here useth doth so certainly signify, persuasus sum, I am persuaded, that (9) Translation of the New Test. in Latin, printed Londini 1587. Kinned. in his Redempt. of mankind. p. 365. Beza, Kinnedoncius, and our English Bibles of Anno 1576. and 1590. do accordingly so translate it: and so the certainty which this text affoardeth, is not of faith, but of persuasion or hope; in respect whereof, in the same Chapter it is said, (10) Rom. 8.24. We are saved by hope. Thirdly, though this certainty were of knowledge and faith, yet it is impertinent to that particular knowledge which Prot. pretend, which according to (11) Beza Annot. in Nou. jest. in ep. ad Rom. 11. c. 2. them, extendeth to every man for himself only, but not concerning any other: whereas, though jewel corruptly for his purpose translateth, shallbe able to remove me; S. Paul yet said, shallbe able to remove us, thereby professing to know as much of others, as of himself which in s●ndry other verses he there explaineth to be the Elect in general. Lastly S. Paul elsewhere saith, And (13) Rom. 25.14. I myself also, my brethren, am assured (certus sum) of you, that you also are full of love, replenished with all knowledge etc. And yet no man will say, that he believed with certainty of faith, that all the Romans were full of love, and of all knowledge: & the same phrase and sense is used in (14) Luc. ●0. 9. Heb. 6.9. other places of Scripture. O●hers further object that, (15) 1. Cor. 2.12. We have received not the Spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God: that we may know the things that of God are given us. Answ. This is not spoken of the knowledge of those benefits which belong to this or that man in particular, but of those which are bestowed upon true believers in general, in this time of Grace, as to know Christ's Incarnation, Passion, & the joys of heaven, which Pagans', jews, and Heretics being ignorant of, do deride. Some urge those words of S. Paul, (16) 2. Cor. 13.5. Try your own selves if you be in the faith: prove ye yourselves: know you not yourselves that Christ jesus is in you, unless perhaps you be reprobate. Answ. Though a man might know or feel the act of faith to be in himself (because it is an act of our understanding, which is all that this place affordeth) yet that this faith may not be afterwards lost, which is the point questionable, remaineth hereby unproved. 2. As concerning the Corinthians knowledge, that Christ was in them, the sense is not of Christ's being in them, according to his grace of justification (for then would not S. Paul so grievously have reprehended and threatened them as in (17) In this and the three precedent Chapters. several places of the same Epistle he doth) but of his being in them (18) 2. Cor. 12.12. in signs, wonders, and mighty deeds, which if they did not acknowledge, they were reprobates. Lastly, suppose it were understood of Christ's being in them by his grace of justification, yet this only argueth for the time present, but as concerning their future knowledge of their final perseverance in that estate, & not falling afterwards from thence, this place yieldeth no colour. And ever remember these words of the same Apostle, (19) Heb. 3.14. We be made partakers of Christ; yet so if we keep the beginning of his substance (or faith) firm unto the end. Again it is urged that, (20) 1. Io. 3.14. we know that we are translated from death to life because we love the Brethrens. (21) 1. Io. 4.13. In this we know that we abide in him & he in us, because he of his Spirit hath given to us. (22) 1. Io. 5.13. These things I writ to you, that you may know that you have eternal life which believe etc. Answ. The word (know) doth not necessarily import infallible knowledge by faith, but likewise that which is gathered by hopeful signs & conjectures. But in particular to the two former places, I say, that though the Apostle speaketh in the first person, because he confidently hoped himself to be one of them who loved the brethren and had the Spirit of God, yet his sayings are general, signifying these to be translated from death to life, who love their brethren, and those to abide in God and God in them who have the Spirit of God. Now those are said to love the brethren, or, (23) 1. Io. 2.2. the Children of God, who love God and keep his Commandments; which seeing Protestants think impossible, instead of certainty of their Salvation, they were rather to believe the impossibility thereof. To the third place, to omit that by life eternal, S. john may be said to mean the knowledge of God, which true believers have, according as elsewhere he writeth, (24) Io. 17.3. This is life eternal, that they know thee etc. I further answer that those who believe, have eternal life, not in deed (not being actually in heaven) but in hope only, according as it is said, (25) Rom. 8. ●4. We are saved by hope; for to the obtaining of it actually, is requisite our perseverance in faith, which none can promise' to himself: & I have formerly proved, that true Faith may finally be lost. Others yet urge that, (26) Rom. 8.30. whom he called, them also he justified, and whom he justified, them also he glorified: therefore he who is once justified, is Elect and so cannot finally fall. Answ. This proveth no more of him that is justified, then of him that is called, for the words respect both a like: Now that every one who is called, is not elect, appeareth in that, (27) Mat. 2●. 14. Many are called but few elect; the words therefore are to be understood not of every one who is called or justified in general, but only (as (28) Rom. 8.33. is signified) of the Elect, whom in his forknowledge, he (29) Ver. 29. foreknew, to be (30) Ver. 28. according to purpose called: & of these we grant none do finally fall out who these are who can know? For (31) Rom. 11.34. who hath known the mind of our Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Willet (32) Synop. p. 556. objecteth these places, (33) Rom. 11.29. Without repentance are the gifts and vocation of God; (34) Io. 13.1. whereas he had loved his &c unto the end he loved them. (35) Io. 10.19. My father that which he hath given me is greater than all, and no man can pluck them out of the hand of my Father: therefore he who is once in Grace shall persever unto the end. Answ. Though God doth not for his part repent him of his goodness in bestowing his gifts upon us, yet in regard of our abuse of them, it is said (according to our capacity) that he doth (36) Gen. 6.6. 1. Reg. 15.11. repent him: Also the benefit of our calling here mentioned, which (as before is proved) may be cast off, argueth and explaineth, that his other gifts likewise here mentioned, may in like manner also be lost. As to the second, it is most true, that Christ for his part loveth to the end: and so he (37) Mar. 1●. 21 12. and see Mat. 19.22. loved the rich man who went away from him, and yet this argued not that man's Election. And it may not be imagined, that God is wanting in his love to all sinners, as they are his (38) Sap. 11.21. Creatures, though he hate their Sinne. To the third, Christ said, (39) Io. 17.1. Whom thou gavest me, have I kept, and none of them perished, but the Son of Perdition: whereby is clear that all whom God giveth, do not persevere: the meaning therefore only is, that neither the Devil, nor his Instruments can perforce take them away, but only their own voluntary assent to fall 2. Admit. that the place objected were to be understood of the Elect in general (whose final perseverance God forknoweth) of whom, we confess none doth perish, for God is (40) Aug. de Correp. & Grat. c. 7. not deceived in his forknowledge, and yet as (41) Hier. in c. 26. Hier. Aug. To. 7. de Praedest. & Grat. c. 15. de ciu. Dei. l. 5. cap. 9 Tom 1. de lib. Arb. l. 3. c. 4. Tom 7. Hypog. l. 6. Fathers, and (42) Hiper. Method. Theol. l. 1. p. 319 Amand. Polan. partit. Theol. l. 1. p. 8. & in Disp. de Provide. Dei. sect 38. 39 40. Prot. teach, things are not, because God did forknow them, but because they are, God therefore doth forknow them. This I say doth not prove, either that every one who is once faithful or justified is Elect, or that such as are Elect, should know themselves in particular to be Elect. Willet (43) Synop. p. 557. Kinned in his Redempt of Mank. p. 74. and others further urge that S. Paul saith, (44) 2. Tim. 4.7 8. I have consummate my course etc. there is laid up for me, a Crown of justice, which our Lord will tender to me in that day, a just judge. So assured was S. Paul of his own salvation. Answ. M. Perkins confesseth, that both Catholics & Prot. do (45) Refor. Cath p. 38. hold that a man may be assured of his Salvation through extraordinary revelation, as Abraham and others were. But this is impertinent to Prot. pretended knowledge by (46) Perk. ib. p. 39 ordinary faith: and that S. Paul's knowledge here urged was extraordinary, appeareth by his like foresaid knowledge signified in this very same place of the time of his resolution (or death) being at hand: As also (by like revelation) he said in like manner to the Ephesians, (47) Act. 20.25. Behold, I do know that you shall no more see my face, all you. To omit then, that this place doth more clearly convince merit and reward of good works, it maketh no more for our certainty of Salvation by ordinary faith, than it doth for the certain knowledge of the time of our death, for it concerneth both these a like, and therefore proveth either both, or neither. Kinnedoncius (48) Redempt of Mank. p 382. objecteth, that S. Peter adviseth us thus, (49) 2. Pet. 1. ●. Labour the more that by good works you may make sure your vocation and Election. Answ. 1. Omitting how forcible this text is for justification by works, I demand, Be not the faithful already cetaine of their Election by their faith, but are they yet to seek for this certainty thereof from their works? If so: What more plain against Protestants pretended certainty by faith, or to prove that the certainty of God's Promise dependeth but upon our works, and therefore is to us but conditional, as the text there yet further explaineth, (50) 2. Pet. 1.11 for doing these things you shall not sin. This text objected is so little favouring to Prot. that (51) In his Translat. against the Rhem. Test. and the English Translat. of Anno 1576. and Beza of 1587. Fulke & others do purposely omit this rehearsal of good works, though they be translated as parcel of the text by other (52) Kinned. in his redemp. of mank p. 382. Protestants, and in all Latin Copies, and some Greek also, as Beza confesseth. In so much that the other foresaid omission is most weakly excused, not defended by D. Against Rhem. Test. fol. 441. Fulke. D (54) Against Purgat. p. 15. Fulke urgeth, that the Ephesians (55) Eph. 1.13.14. were signed with the holy Spirit of promise, which is the pledge of our Inheritance. And, (56) Eph. 4.30. Grieve not the Spirit of God, in which you are signed unto the day of redemption. Answ. By the Spirit here is only meant the holy Ghost, (57) Luc. 14.49. promised, and (58) Act. 1.4. given to them in (59) Act. 19.2.6. their Confirmation. 2. By the foresaid signing and pledge of Inheritance, there can be no further urged, but the convention or promise made upon God's part, the performance whereof is on his behalf most certain: but that the Ephesians were hereby assured to perform the condition required on their part, is not so much in this place as intimated; but they rather in regard of the contrary are here premonished not to grieve the Spirit; and so accordingly it is elsewhere said, (60) Esa. 63.10. they provoked to wrath, and afflicted the Spirit of his holy One: they (61) Act. 7.51. resisted the holy Ghost: and (62) Heb. 6.4.6. some who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the holy Ghost etc. are fallen etc. So weak are the Objections made by Prot. from Scripture for their infallible knowledge of their Predestination and Salvation. CHAP. XXXV. The True State of the Question, concerning the formal Cause of justification. Whether the formal Cause of man's justification is any Virtue, or Grace infused by God, and inherent in the Soul: or that it consisteth only in Christ's not imputation of Sin, or in the only remission of Sin without any infusion of Grace. SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. THe Catholic Church Decreeth, that (1) Concil. Trid. Sess. 6. c. 7. justification is not only remission of sins, but also Sanctification & renovation of the interior man, by the voluntary receiving of grace and gifts, whereby man of unjust, is made just, and of an Enemy a friend etc. The Causes of this justification are; The final, the Glory of God and Christ and life eternal; The efficient, our merciful God etc. The meritorious the most beloved only begotten Son our Lord jesus Christ &c The instrumental, the Sacrament of Baptism etc. The only formal cause is the justice of God, not wherewith himself is just, but wherewith he maketh us just, by which we, being bestowed upon us by him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and are not only reputed, but truly called, and are just, every one receiving justice in us, according to his measure, which the Holy Ghost devideth to every one as he will, and according to the proper disposition and cooperation of every one. For although no man can be just, to whom the Merits of the Passion of our Lord jesus Christ are not communicated: yet, that is done in this justification of the wicked, whilst by the merits of the same most sacred Passion the Charity of God by the Holy Ghost is poured into their hats who are justified, and inhereth in them: Whereupon in the justification itself, with remission of sins, man by jesus-christ, to whom he is engrafted, receiveth all these things together infused, Faith, Hope, and Charity. And therefore, (2) Can. 10. If any shall say, men, without the justice of Christ by which he merited to us, to be justified, or that by it they are formally just, Anathema. (3) Can. 11. If any shall say, men to be justified, either by only imputation of Christ's justice, or by only remission of Sins, excluding grace and Charity, which by the holy Ghost is poured into their hearts; or that grace whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God, Anathema. In the second Milevitane Council it is decreed, that, (4) Cap. 3. Whosoever shall say, the Grace of God wherein we are justified by our Lord jesus Christ, to be of force only for remission of Sins already committed, but not to the help that they may not be committed, Anathema. All (5) Bellar. de justif l. 2. c. 2. Rhem Test. in Mat. 6.11. Catholics with one consent teach, that the formal cause of man's justification is not God's justice whereby himself is formally just, nor Christ's justice imputed to us, nor only remission of Sin, or Gods not imputation of it; but it is God's justice whereby he maketh us truly just by infusing into our souls the sacred virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity. Points Disputable. All agreeing, th●t man is justified by Grace infused: (6) S. Tho. 1. q. 110. art. 3. Dom. Soto. l. 2. de Nat. & Gra. c. 17.18. Some teach that this Grace is a habit really distinct from Charity, having for her subject the Substance of the Soul, as Charity the William (7) Alex. Halens. in Sum p. ●. q. 69. mem. 2. art. 4. Others distinguish them not really, but formally. (8) Durand. 1 Dist. 26. q 1. 8. Others think them to differ in nothing but only in name. All also teaching, that according to the ordinary course, mortal sin cannot be forgiven but by the gift of grace: yet some (10) Scotus 2. Dist. 28. q 1. & 4. Dist. 1. q. 6. think, that God by his absolute power may remit sin without all Grace. But others probably teach, that without justifying grace, sin cannot be remitted by God's absolute power. Protestants Untruths. (11) Caiet 1. 2. q. 113. art. 2. Chemnitius tragically complaineth, that we take away the force of justification from the merits of Christ, and ascribe it to our virtues and qualities. But truly we ascribe it to the Grace of God as the formal cause, and to the merits of Christ as the meritorious cause. Caluin affirmeth, that according to our Doctrine, (12) In Antid. ad Sess. 6. Our justification consisteth partly upon imputation partly upon quality. But we (13) Conc. Trid. Sess. 6. Cap. 7. teach that there is only one formal cause of justification, which is the justice of God, infused and inherent in us. Protestant Doctrine. Caluin setteth down the Prot. Doctrine in these words, (14) Instit. l. 3 c. 11. §. 2. We simply do expound justification to be acceptation, whereby God holdeth us received into his Grace for just: And we affirm, that it consisteth in remission of sins, and the imputation of God's justice. The same is taught by (15) In Mat. 12.37. Zuing. in Luc. 1. Zanchius tom. 2. li. 2. de Nat. Dei. c. 2. Beza, and sundry others. D. Humphrey setteth down the English reformed doctrine thus, (16) Ad rat. 2. Camp. p. 142. That which we say and teach of Grace infused, that is of Inherent justice; in us there is no habit got, no virtue ingraffed, no quality infused no justice wherewith we may be justified before God inherent in us; but all iniquity, all rebellion contumacy of the flesh is ingraffed and inherent. So that in a perfect Prot. justified, regenerate, predestinate, there is no virtue infused by God, or inherent in his Soul, but still it remaineth stained and stored with all iniquity, all rebellion and contumacy of the flesh, these only being ingraffed and inherent in her. Protestants agreed with Ancient Heretics. The denial of Inherent justice was condemned in julian the Pelagian by S. Austin, saying. (17) Cont. jul. Pelag. l. 6. c. 11. Thou dost not departed from thy opinion wherein thou affirmest, the Grace of God to consist in the only remission of Sins. And the same error was rejected by Cae●estinus (18) Ep. 1. c. 10. Conc. Mil. c. 3. Aug. l. 1. Retract c. 13. & ep. 106. and the Milevitane Council. And for the same was censured (19) Epiph. haer. 64. Proclus, and the (20) Theod. l. 4. de haer. Fab. M●ssalians. Protestant Errors. The French Hugonots teach that, (21) Confess. Gal. Art 11. Even those who excel in Sanctity are defiled with many sins as long as they converse in this world. Caluin (22) Lib. de coena. p. 2. Let us certainly know, that although we be wicked and impure, yet the Lord to acknowledge and receive, yea and to esteem us for just. Whitaker (23) Ad rat. 8. Camp. p. 38. We affirm our justice to be the hiding of the Sinne. And, (24) L. 3. de pec. Orig. Remission pardoneth the punishment (but) doth not actually take away, or remove all the fault. Piscator, (25) In Thes. l. 1 p. 428. forgiveness of the fault is nothing else, than not to punish for the fault. Hence also Luther teacheth that, (26) Tom. 7. in Mat. 7. fol. 96. A Christian is as good and holy as Peter and Paul, neither is any man greater or better than he. (27) Postil. in Dom. 24. fol. 346. S. Peter is not better than the thief upon the Cross: Marry the Mother of God doth not excel Mary the sinner. (28) In Fes●. Natiu. Mariae. fol. 436. We are as holy as Mary and other Saints. Paraeus (29) De justif. l. 2. c. 7. p. 470. By Christ's justice imputed to us we are accounted no less just than Christ himself, proportion at lest being kept of the members and the head. So that every faithful Prot. is as holy and just, as S. Peter, S. Paul, the B. Virgin, yea as Christ himself, a little proportion being observed. SECT. II. It is proved by Scriptures, that the formal Cause of man's justification is true virtue and Grace inherent: & that it doth not consist only in Christ's not imputation of Sin, or in the only remission of Sinne. TO make trial of the truth in this question by the Sriptures, S. Paul writeth, (1) Rom. 5.17. For if in the offence of one, death reigned by one: much more they that receive the abundance of Grace and of donation and of justice shall reign in life by one jesus-christ. Therefore as by the offence of one unto all men to condemnation: so also by the justice of one unto all men to justification of life. For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners: so also by the Obedience of one many shallbe made just. Hear we are said to be made lust by Christ, no less than we were made unjust by Adam, which was not only by Adam's Injustice imputed unto us, but by Injustice truly and really inherent in ourselves. Again, (2) 1. Cor. 15.49. As we have borne the Image of the earthly, let us bear also the Image of the heavenly: but the Image of earthly Adam we have truly borne by internal Sin, therefore we must ●●uly bear the Image of Christ by internal Grace. Also, (3) Eph. 4. Be renewed in the Spirit of your mind: and put on the new man, which according to God is created in justice and Holiness of the truth: here New man is not said to be imputed to us, but put on us, and that not only to the sight of the world, but according to God, and this in justice and Holiness. But what more convincing than that (4) Tit. 3.5. God according to his mercy hath saved us by the laver of regeneration and renovation of the holy Ghost, whom he hath poured upon us abundantly by jesus Christ our Saviour: that being justified by his Grace, we may be heirs according to hope of life everlasting: here we are said by Baptism to be regenerated and renewed, which cannot be, but by some mutation in ourselves, whereby of hated Enemies, we become beloved Sons. Such texts also confirm this, which teach, that Sins are not only covered by Gods not imputation, but are truly taken or blotted out of the Soul by Grace. So K. (5) 1. Paral. 21.8. David prayed, I beseech thee take away the iniquity of thy servant (6) Isa. 44.22. I have clean taken away thine iniquities as a cloud, and thy sins as a most. (7) Ezech. 36.25. I will pour out upon you clean water, and you shallbe cleansed from all your contaminations. (8) Ps. 50.9. Thou shalt sprinkle me with byssope, and I shallbe cleansed; thou shalt wash me, and I shallbe made whiter then snow. (9) Ps. 102. 1●. As fare as the East is distant from the West, hath he made our iniquities far from us. (10) Ps. 9.5. His sin shallbe sought, and shall not be found. (11) Prou. 15.27. By mercy and faith sins are purged. (12) Mich. c. 7.19. He will return and have mercy on us: he will lay away our iniquities: he will cast all our sins into the bottom of the Sea. (13) Cant. 4.7. Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee. The like phrases are used in the New Testament, (14) Io. 1.29. Behold the Lamb of God, behold him that taketh away the sins of the wolrd. (15) Act. 3.19. Be penitent and convert, that your sins may be put out. And the like may be seen in (16) 1. Io. 1.7. Act. 22.17. Heb. 1.3.1. Cor. 6.11. Eph. 5.8.27. sundry other places Reason also confirmeth this, for doubtless the same justice is restored unto us by the merits of Christ, which he lost in Adam, according to that of S. Paul, (17) Rom. 5.21. Where sin abounded, grace did more abound. And S. Austin affirmeth, (18) De Spir. & lit. c. 21. & de Gen. l. 6. c. 21. In the inward man renewed by the Grace of Christ, that justice to be written, which fault had canceled: But all confess, that Adam's justice before his fall was not imputative, but inherent and true justice, which made him grateful in the sight of God, Again, the justice wherewith Children baptised are endued, is not the extrinsecall justice of Christ, apprehended by actual faith, which they, wanting reason, cannot have, but the habits of Faith, Hope, and Charity: so likewise then are we justified. Besides, one and the same thing can never be the efficient, and formal cause of the same effect: but the justice of Christ is the Cause of our justification, producing justice in us, for (19) Io. 1. ●●. Of his fullness we all have received, according to the measure of his gift: which cannot be understood of imputative justice, which without proportion of measure is equally referred to every one, therefore of inherent: whereof Christ's justice being the efficient, cannot be also the formal cause. In like sort, the Grace wherewith we are here justified upon Earth, is the same which shallbe Crowned in heaven, for the reward of glory is proportioned to the small or great measure of justice & grace which here we have. Now, that which is crowned in heaven is certainly inherent, wherewith the Soul is truly beautified for all eternity. Further, as none can be truly the Object of God's hatred and worthy of Damnation, by mere imputation of fault, unless he be faulty indeed; so none can be the object of his love and worthy of heaven, by extrinsecall imputation, unless he be truly free from Sin, and endued with Grace. And as none can live by the life which is in another, so neither can he be formally just, by the justice which is in another. Again the denomination of a subject is more truly and properly taken from the inherent quality, then from the outward form; therefore if sin doth still in here in us, for all Christ's imputation, we cannot be truly termed just, holy, innocent, immaculate, the Children of God, the heirs of heaven, as we are styled by the Scripture; but rather defiled and wicked sinners, slaves of the Devil, and worthy of hell. Lastly Christ himself had upon Earth, and hath still inherent justice, and so likewise his holy Angels; but the members of one mystical Body partake of one life with the head, (20) Gal. 4. ●. Because you are sons (saith S. Paul) God hath sent the spirit of his Son into your hearts. Thus clearly do the Scriptures make for inherent justice. SECT III. That the Fathers do expound the Scriptures in proof of Inherent justice.. S. Austin writing upon those words of the Psalmist, (1) ●s 98.4. Thou hast done justice and judgement in jacob exalt ye the Lord our God, saith: (2) ●n Ps. 98. Truly exalt ye well exalt ye, let us praise and exalt him, who made the justice which we have. He made it in us; for who made in us justice, but he that iustifyeth us? We therefore , he the justifier, seeing he made that justice in us, wherewith we may please him. Again, (3) Ser. 15. de verb. Apostoli. He that shall believe in him, shall not have his own justice which is from the law, although the law be good, but he shall fulfil the law, not by his own, but by justice given from God; for Charity is the fullness of the law. From whence is that Charity poured into our hearts? not truly from ourselves, but by the holy Ghost which is given us. S. Hierome speaking of Baptism, saith, (4) L. 3. cont. Pelagianos. Now thou art made clean in the laver, and of thee it is said, who is she that ascendeth white? and let her be washed, yet she cannot keep her purity, unless she be strengthened from our lord But S. Hierome is so clear, that Luther saith, (5) In Comment. S. Petri. See Cent. 4. c. 10. Col. 1249. This point which in Christian Doctrine, is to be undoubtedly established, that in Saintes sin abideth, was never by Hierome understood. Caluin also saith of S. Austin touching this point, (6) Inst. l. 3. c. 11. §. 15. The very sentence of Augustine, or at lest his manner of speaking is not altogether to be received. Chennitius of many other fathers writeth, (7) Exam. part. 1. We sue not process against the Fathers, albeit they commonly take the word (to justify) for the renewing whereby the works of righteousness are wrought in us. And, I am not ignorant, that the Fathers do often use the word (justify) in this signification, namely to make inherently just. The Centuristes reprove Origen, for that he doth (8) Cent. 3. c. 4. Col. 78. With open mouth declaim of the justice of job. They blame Cyprian for saying, (9) Ib. Col. 82. He that baptizeth, imparteth the holy Ghost, and inwardly sanctifyeth the baptised. They affirm of Clemens Alex. that, (10) Cent. 2. c. 4. Col. 58. In all his writings it appeareth, he never knew the force of Original Sin, or the inherent malady thereof. So confessed are the Fathers. SECT. iv That Protestant writers do teach the Doctrine of inherent justice.. LVther, (1) Tom 5 in Gal. 3 fol. 335. These things fight one against another, a Christian to be just and to be loved of God, and yet at the same time to be a Sinner: for God cannot deny his own nature, that is, he cannot but hate sin and sinners, and this he doth necessarily, for otherwise he ●hould be most unjust: how then are these two contradictories together true: I have sin, and am most worthy of anger & the hatred of God; and the Father loveth me? This absurdity followeth, by affirming a man to be justified, and yet his sins not to be taken away, nor any virtue infused into his Soul. SECT. V Objections from Scripture against inherent justice, answered. D. Whitaker (1) Cont. Camp rat 8. fol. 224. objecteth that, (2) 2. Cor. 5.21. Him that knew no sin, for us he made sin, that we might be made the justice of God in him: therefore seeing Christ was not truly made sin, but by imputation, so are we no otherwise made just by him. Answ. Christ is said to be made sin, not that he was truly a sinner himself, but that he was made an host, or Sacrifice, for the taking away of sin, for so often the word sin is taken in the (3) Levit. 4.21.24. Ezech. 44.29. Ose. 4.8. Scripture, and so our sins were imputed to him, in that he did voluntarily undertake to make satisfaction for them: wherefore as Christ not by the means of another, but in his own person took (4) Rom. 8.3. The similitude of the flesh of sin, and was truly made a Sacrifice for sin, so we not only by Imputation, but truly and really in ourselves, aught to be the justice of God. S. Austin explaining these former words, that we might be made the justice of God, saith: (5) De Spir. & lit. c. 18. & ep. 120. ad Honorat. Even as when we read Salvation is our Lord, it is not meant that Salvation whereby our Lord is saved; but whereby they are saved whom he saveth: so when it is sa●d, God's justice, that is not to be understood, wherewith God is just, but that wherewith men are just, whom by his grace he iustifyeth. Others object, that God, (6) Eph 1 6. hath gratifyed us in his beloved Son, that is, only holdeth us acceptable in him. Answ. That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth truly signify to make gracious, S. chrysostom teacheth saying, (7) In Comment. huius loci. He made us gracious, that is, he not only freed us from Sins, but he also made us his beloved friends. For if one having a man scabbed corrupted with plague, disease, old age, poverty and hunger, should presently make him a beautiful young man, who should excel all in fairness, sending out great splendour from his cheeks, and darkening the brightness of the eyes with reflections: whom also he should place in the very flower of his age, and should withal & adorn hi● 〈◊〉 purple and all things fine: Not otherwise doth Christ make our S● polished, beautiful, desired, and beloved. These words also of S. Paul are urged, (8) Philip. 3.9. And may be found in him not having my justice, which is of the law, but that which is of the faith of Christ, which is of God's justice in faith: as though hereby it should appear, that the Apostle would have no justice of his own, but only that justice which is in Christ. Answ. S. Paul calleth that a man's own justice, which he challengeth by the works of the law or nature, without the Grace of Christ: and that God's justice (as S. (9) L. 3. cont. 2. Ep. Pelag. c. 7. De Spir. & lit. c. 9 Austin expoundeth this place) not which is in God, or by which God is just, but that which is in man from God, and by his gift. CHAP. XXXVI. The true State of the Question, concerning justifition by Faith and Works. Whether man is truly justified by Faith only, or that Hope, Charity, and good Works are likewise causes of justification. SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. HAVING proved man's justification to be made by some virtues infused by God into the Soul; it remaineth now to show what Virtues these are whereby man is justified: In manifestation whereof the Catholic Church hath decreed, that, (1) Concil. Trid. Sess. 6. Can. 9 If any shall affirm, the impious man to be justified by only faith, so as he understandeth nothing else to be required, which may cooperate to the obtaining of the Grace of justification, and that in no respect it is needful that he be prepared and disposed with the motion of his will, Anathema. And, (2) Can. 24. If any shall say that justice received is not preserved and increased before God by good works, but that the good works are only fruits and signs of justification already obtained, but not the Cause of the increasing thereof, Anathema. In the Council of Moguntia it was defined, that, (3) Conc. Mogunt. Cap 7. See Conc. Senonens. Decret. 16. He who after the grace of Just fication received, falleth again by sin receiveth justification by the remedies of Penance: which with remission of sins giveth also sanctification and renovation of the internal man in that by the merits of Christ's Passion, which now is communicated to him tha● believeth with pardon of sins, man also receiveth the Grace of God and by the holy Ghost together with Faith, Charity also and Hop● poured into the hart. And these gifts of God remaining in him, he is not now only reputed, or named, but truly is just etc. Catholics (4) Bellar. de justif. l. 1. c. 13. Rhem. Testam. in jac. 2. generally teach that Faith, Hope, and Charity are the formal cause of man's justification, which is ever further increased by good works, so that not only faith, but likewise Hope, Charity, and good Works do all of them concur, as true causes of justification. Protestant Untruths. Luther was not ashamed to say, (7) Ad. c. 15. joan. Our Papists have neither taught nor understood any thing of faith. And, (8) In Colloq. Germon. c. de morte. Show ye me one place of Instification, of faith, in the Decrees, Decretals, Clementins, in all the writers of all Sums and Sentences, in all Sermons of Monks, in Decrees of Counsels, in all Postils, in all Hierome and Gregory etc. But whosoever shall but look into these books by Luther cited, shall easily find that every one of them will condemn Luther for an impudent Lyar. Melancthon affirmeth that, (9) In Disp. de poenit. propos. 7. The Schoolmen have taught foolishly and wickedly, Sins to be forgiven by Contrition without faith. And that (10) In Confess. August. art. de confess. & in Apol. art. 11. & art. 15. Satisfactions formerly were extolled immoderately, but no mention was made of faith and the merit of Christ, and the justice of faith. The same just censure will all Schoolmen give of Melancthon, which formerly was given of Luther. Protestant Doctrine. The English Protestant Church decreeth, that, (11) Articles of Relig. art. 11. Calu. Instit. l. 3. c. 11. §. 13. 14. 17. 18 19 We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort. Luther, (12) De Postil. in Domin. post Natal. Nothing else is required to justification, but to hear, and believe jesus Christ our Saviour. And, (13) De libert. Christian. fol. 6. A Christian needeth no works for this that he may be just and saved. Perkins, (14) Tom. 2. in Gal. c. 4. Col. ●19. The doctrine which dreameth of justification by works bringeth in Idolatry. And, (15) Tom. 1: c. 51. Col. 103. It is false & ridiculous, that we are justified by works. Whitaker, (16) Ad rat. 3 Camp. p. 7. That our doctrine is most true and most holy, Man to be justified only by faith. So that even Charity by these men is excluded from being any Cause of our justification. Protestants agreed with Ancient Heretics. S. Austin condemneth certain of the pseudo-apostles, for that they taught that, (17) De fide & oper. c. 14. Only faith sufficeth to gain Salvation, because S. Paul had said, Man is justified by faith without the works of the law. He also (18) L. de haer c. 54. reproveth Eun●mius, for that he taught that, The committing or continuing of any sins whatsoever could nothing hurt any man, if he were partaker of that faith, which was taught by him. That our modern Prot. teach the same, Whitaker shall testify: (19) De Ecclesia p. 301. We say that if any man have an act of faith. Sins do not hurt him: this truly Luther affirmeth, this we all say. And for this your saying M. Whitaker, you, and your All are condemned by S. Austin for Heretics. Protestant Errors. Faith being undoubtedly the beginning and foundation of man's justification and Salvation, and according to Prot. at sometimes the only cause thereo●: yet it is wonderful to see at other times how little esteem they make of it: for thus writeth Caluin, (20) Instit. l. 3. c. 11 §. 7. Properly speaking we say, only God to justify, we compare faith as it were to a vessel etc. Faith although of itself it be of no worth or price, it doth justify us by bringing Christ, even as a pot full of money doth enrich a man. Peter Martyr. (21) ●n loc. Class. 3. c. 4. §. 8. If faith itself be considered, as it is our work, we cannot be justified therewith, seeing it is a work both lame and imperfect, far worse than the law requireth etc. He compareth it, (22) In Rom. 11 to a hand infected with lepry, infirm, scabbed. D●naeus, (23) In c. 31. Enchir. S. Aug. p. 785. If we consider Faith by itself, and as it is in us, it is imperfect, lame, polluted, and defiled and mingled with infidelity, so that it is not truly worthy the name of Virtue Pa●aeus, (24) De justify. l. 4. c. 17. §. 12. 9 It is no absurdity, Faith sometimes to have mingled diffidence or incredulity, which is Sin, and so by accident faith to be Sin. And, faith iustifyeth as the beggar by his scabbed hand receiveth alms. Perkins, (25) Tom. 2. in Gal. 3. Col. 1●9. Salvation doth not depend of our Faith. Luther, (26) Tom. 1. in Disp. hab. an. 1520. fol 371. See Schluss. tom. 7 Catal. haeret. p. 182. 193. Faith unless it be without all even the lest works doth not justify; yea it is not faith. Amsdorfiu●, (27) In Colloq. Aldeburg. script. 6. p. 121. Good works even according to their nature and substance, as they are commanded by God, are hurtful to salvation Luther, (28) Tom. 3. in Ps. 5 fol. 171. Let this be thy rule, where the Scripture commandeth a good work to be done, so understand it, that it forbiddeth thee to do a good work, seeing thou canst not do it. (29) Tom. 2. Wittemb. de Captiu Babyl. fol. 74. A Christian or baptised person is so rich, that although he would, he cannot lose his Salvation by any sins how great soever, unless he will not believe. And this good reason he giveth hereof elsewhere, (30) In 2. part. Postil. Germ. fol. 140. For only Infidelity condemneth all men that are condemned: and on the contrary, Only Faith maketh all men blessed. So that a right Lutheran may live and die a Traitor, a murderer, Adulterer etc. and yet is sure to be saved. SECT. II. It is proved by the Sacred Scriptures, that not only Faith, but likewise Hope, Charity, and other good Works do truly justify, and cause remission of Sinne. TO examine this so weighty a point by the Scriptures, all such Arguments taken from Scriptures, as convince Faith to justify, do likewise prove the same of the rest. Of faith it is said, (31) Heb. 11.6. Without faith it is impossible to please God: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him. (32) Ab. 2.4. The lust shall live in his faith. (33) Act 13.39. In him every one that believeth is justified: and the (34) Rom. ●. 27.28 Gal. 3.6.14. like. Now answerably herto it is said of fear. (35) Eccles. 1.27 28. The Fear of our Lord expelleth sin; for he that is without fear cannot be justified. (36) Philip. 2.12. With fear and trembling work your Salvation. Of Hope, (37) Ps. 36.40. He will &c. save them, because they have hoped in him. (38) Ro 8.24. By hope we are saved Of Charity and good Works, (39) Luc. 7.47. Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much: But to whom less is forgiven, he loveth less. (40) 1. Io. 3.14. We are translated from death to life, because we love the Brethrens. (41) 1. Pet. 4.8. Prou. 10.12. Charity covereth the multitude of Sins. By mercy and truth Iniquity is redeemed. (43) Tob. 12.9. Alms purgeth Sinne. (44) Luc. 11.41. Give alms, and behold all things are clean to you. (45) Mat. 25.34. Come etc. possess the kingdom etc. for I was an hungry etc. (42) Prou. 16.6. (46) Dan. 4.24. Redeem thy sins with alms. (47) 2. Pet. 1.10. Labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your vocation and Election. These last words are so clear for us, that (48) In suis Biblijs German. & in Comment. in 2. Pet. 1. tom. 5. fol. 487. Luther, Beza, Tremelius, and our English (49) In the king's Bible. Prot. do quite leave out these words, By good works. So express it is, that Alms and good Works do cause remission of sins, and justify. Because these words, (50) Dan. 4.24. Redeem thy Sins by Alms, do prove that good works do justify and satisfy for Sin, Gesnerus therefore affirmeth that (51) Compend. doct. ca l. loc. 23. p. 495. This Translation is corrupt. And yet Peter Martyr avoucheth that the Chaldee, in which this Epistle was written, hath verbatim, Redeem thy sins in justice.: and that, the Vulgar reading is taken from the Greek text. And whereas concerning this last place of Daniel, some Prot. for redeem, translate, break of; yet by the judgement of (52) In Ps. 84. Englished c. 6. part. 4. p. 517. Hemingius, the Hebrew word signifieth to redeem. S. Hierome here readeth accordingly, and so also doth (53) Luth loc. come. class 1. p. 72. Pet. Mar. in his come. plac. in Eng. part. 3. c. 4. p. 114. Melancth. loc. come. c. de bon. opib. p. 157. Calu. Inst. c. 5. pa. 181. Bull. Dec. in Engl. p. 584. Aret. loc. come. p. 321. Luther, Peter Martyr, Melancthon, Caluin, Bullinger, with sundry other Prot. and so also are some of our English (54) Of Anno 1566. Bybles. This place is so convincing, that Herbrandus saith thereof, I answer, If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word be urged, it is manifest the sense of those words (of Daniel) to fight with the scope of the whole Scripture, and with analogy of faith. So that according to the literal words, the sense directly maketh against Protestant's. In like sort whereas Christ before said, Give Alms, and behold all things are clean to you, Prot. in answer heerto, do expound the same in a direct contrary sense. Vallada, (55) Apol. count. Episcop. Luzonensem c. 22. p. 300. Christ is far from teaching, that sins are redeemed by Alms, that to the contrary he derideth and reprehendeth the Pharisees, because they had this opinion. Peter Martyr, (56) In Rom. 11. p. 518. These words, Give alms etc. may be expounded 3. ways, first, that we decree that it is an Ironical speech etc. And the same answer is given by (57) Apol. Confess August. c. de respon ad argumenta. Ar●t. in loc. part. 1. fol. 90. others. But if such Ironical speeches may be holden for good, it will be easy to evade all texts of Scripture though never so plain, for any one Article of our Christian faith. Lutherans expound those words, (58) Apol. Confess. August. c. de impletione legis. Because she loved much, that is, because she truly worshipped me with faith, and with the exercises and signs of faith, still flying to their signs and figures, and strangely confounding Faith and Charity, being virtues most distinct. Because those words of Christ, (59) Luc. 7.47. Many sins are forgiven her because she loved much, do make for justification by works; Beza instead of quoniam, because, placeth name, for. And this he saith he did, that it might more easily be understood, the cause of remission of Sin not to be showed in these words. Illyricus upon this place doth follow Beza. But what more plain than those words and examples produced by S. james, (60) C. 2.21.22.24.25. Abraham etc. was he not justified by works, offering Isaac his son upon the Altar. Seest thou that faith did work with his works, and by the works the faith was consummate & c? Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only? etc. Rachab the harlot was she not justified by works & c? S. Austin (61) L. 83. quaest. q. 76. noteth, that of purpose S. james took the very same example of Abraham, whom S. Paul said to be justified by faith, and declareth that he was also justified by works, specifying the good work for which he was justified, to wit, his obedience, and immolation of his only Son. Caluin (62) Instit l. 3. c. 17. sect. ●1. Fulk. again. Rhem. Test. fol. 4●9. And the Marg. notes of the Engl. Bible of 1576. Whitak. cont Dur. l. ●. sect. 13. and others do answer herto, that here, by faith is understood a barren and dead faith: But this is to offer violence to the words and meaning; for the Apostle having told, that faith without works is idle, allegeth in further proof thereof the example of Abraham justified by works, whose faith did work with his works, and then concluding immediately thereupon, Do you see that by works a man is justified and not by faith only: so clearly is it spoken of such faith, as wrought with works, and whereby Abraham was called the friend of God, which cannot be a barren and dead faith. Perkins (63) Reform. Cath. p. 92. would evade by affirming, that by the word, justified, is understood only our justification before man: but this is as helpless as the former, for the Apostle saying, By works a man is justified, and not by faith only, doth here at once and alike refer the word justified, both to works & faith: wherefore if by faith he meant a true faith, then doth that justify before God; & if a barren and dead faith without works, then doth it not justify so much as before man. Again, the Example of Abraham who believed, and it was reputed to him for justice, and who was called the friend of God, convinceth that this justification was before God. Paraeus his answer is, that S. james (64) De iustif. l. 4. c. 18. p 1157. addeth the Antithesis, or contrary, and not by faith only, by imitation of hypocrites: But so fare was S. james from hypocrisy or dissimulation, that by those words he spoke as plainly and fully for justification by works, as any Roman Catholikce at this day can do. Lastly this place is so unanswerable, that sundry Prot. rejecting this Epistle, for Apocryphal, do yield for their reason thereof, that justification by works is taught therein. Whereof Luther saith, (65) Tom 6. in c. 12. Gen. fol. 282. james concludeth naughtily; It followeth not as james doteth, therefore fruits justify. Let our Adversaries therefore be packing with their james. Melancthon, (66) Tom 2. de sacris Concionibus fol. 23. But if they cannot be mitigated by any exposition, as that of james, you see etc. such simply are not to be received. Beza, (67) In Ep. jac. 2.14. This Epistle for that Cause is altogether rejected by some, as though it did impugn sound doctrine. And the same is taught by other (68) Muscul. in loc. tit. de instif. p 504. Schlussel. Theol. Cal. li. 1. art. 15 fol. 50. Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. Col. 54.71. Prot. So that when the Scriptures are so plain, as that by no Exposition they can be evaded by Prot. then they must be cast away for Apocryphal. But the Scriptures are so plain & plentiful in behalf of good works, that Luther being much urged therewith, hath instructed his Scholars to answer them thus, (69) Tom. 3. in Gal. 3 fol. 345. Here is Christ, there the Testimonies of Scripture, for the law and works: But Christ is Lord of the Scripture etc. thou urgest the Servant, that is, the Scripture: I leave the servant to thee; I urge the Lord, who is the king of Scripture. So making Christ and the Scriptures to be contrary one to another: which is intolerable blasphemy, and an evident sign of a desperate Cause. But to proceed, if neither Hope, Charity, nor other virtues, but only Faith doth justify, than it necessarily followeth, that if true faith were separated from other virtues, the same would truly justify, whereas it is most certain that, (70) 1. Io. 3.14. He that loveth not, abideth in death. And, If (71) 1. Cor. 13.2. I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not Charity, I am nothing. Because these words, (72) 1. Cor. 13.2. If I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not Charity, I am nothing, do prove no faith to be sufficient to justification without Charity; Beza here for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, omnem, translateth, totam: and this he saith, he did, jest this should deceive any man. Besides it would follow, that a man having true faith were truly just, though he had a full and deliberate intention to blaspheme, murder etc. which is most absurd. Now, that a man may have true faith without Charity, besides the next recited words of S. Paul, is by sundry other texts manifest, as, Yet (73) Io 12.42.43. of the Princes many believed in him: but for the Pharisees they did not confess, that they might not be cast out of the Synagogue, for they loved the glory of men more, than the glory of God. What (54) will it profit etc. if a man saith he hath faith, (74) jac. 2.13. but hath not works? shall faith be able to save him? (75) Tit. 3.8. They which believe in God, be careful to excel in good works. All these places speak of true faith, and not only of an imperfect knowledge of Christ, as some would evade; agreably to which saith S. Austin, (76) Tracked. 5●. in joan. See how the Evangelist noteth, and reproveth some, which yet he saith to have believed in him; who if they should profit in this entrance of faith, they would by profiting overcome the love of humane glory. But if this faith could profit, and by profi●ing overcome the love of humane glory, certainly it wa● a true faith. Again saith the same S. Austin. (77) Tract. 54 in joan. Some hau● believed being Predestinate to life eternal, but some have not believed: But of those who have believed, some did so confess, that taking boughs of Palms they met him coming, rejoicing in the same Confession of praise: But others of the Princes durst not confess, jest they should be cast out of the Synagogue. Hear the same Faith is ascribed to those which professed jesus manifestly, and to those who durst not profess him. Now no man will deny, but that those who did profess him, had true faith in Christ, therefore also it was true in those that did not confess him: but in the first it worked with Charity, in the later it was alone without Charity. Lastly, he expressly teacheth that, (78) De Trinit. l. 15. c. 18. Faith truly may be without Charity, but not to profit. This truth is further proved by all such (79) Mat 3.12. & 13.48, & 22.10. & 25.2. places as show, that in the true Church (in which none can be without true faith) some are good, and some are evil: And yet the bad are not reprehended for want of faith, but for want of the marriage garment, that is, Charity, and for want of oil, which signifieth works of mercy. And (80) Mat. 7.21. not every one that saith to me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven, but he that doth the will of my father, which is in heaven, he shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven. These men have Faith, otherwise they could not invocate Lord, Lord; according to that of S. Paul, (81) Rom. 10.14. How then shall they invocate in whom they have not believed, and yet besides this faith, to enter into Heaven, they must do the will of the Father. Lastly, Prot. do therefore teach justification by only faith, because if it depended conditionally upon works, than no man could be assured of his justification, in which assurance or certainty they place their justification, and so their said justification should be impossible. But if faith be necessarily joined with works, then, in that our justification dependeth of faith, it dependeth also at lest for our knowledge thereof, of good works, and so thereby none can be assured, that he is justified, directly against Protestants. SECT. III. The Fathers expound the Sacred Scriptures in proof of justification not only by faith, but likewise by works: Also that true faith may be without works. IN clearest proof here of S. Austin writeth thus, (1) De fide & oper. c 14. Wherhfore now let us see that which is to be cast from Religious hearts, jest by evil security they lose their Salvation, if for the obtaining thereof, they shall think only faith to suffice, and shall neglect to live well, and by good works to keep the ways of God. For even in the times of the Apostles, certain hard sentences of Paul the Apostle not being understood, some thought that he said this, Let us do evil that good may come, because he had said. (2) Rom. 5.20. The law entered in, that sin might abound. And where sin abounded, grace did more abound etc. When then the Apostle saith, that he accounteth a man to be justified by faith without works of the law, he doth not this, that faith being obtained and professed, the works of justice should be contemned, but that every one may know, that he may be justified by faith, although the works of the law be not precedent. For they follow him that is justified, do not go before him that is to be justified etc. Therefore because this opinion was then begun, the other Apostolical Epistles of Peter, john, james, jude, do chief direct their intention against it, that they may strongly confirm, that Faith without works doth profit nothing: Even also, as Paul himself hath not defined any faith whatsoever whereby God is believed, but that wholesome and plainly Evangelicall, whose works proceed of love; (3) Gal. 5.6. Faith, saith he, which worketh by Charity. Whereupon that faith which seemeth to some to suffice to Salvation, he so affirmeth to profit nothing, that he saith, (4) 1. Cor. 13.1. If I should have all faith, that I could remove mountains, and have not Charity, I am nothing. And, (5) De fide & oper. c. 15. I see not why Christ should say, if thou wilt have life everlasting, keep the Commandments, if without observing of them by only faith, a man might be saved. S. Ambrose demandeth, (6) L. 10. Ep. 82. What Salvation can be to us, unless we wash away our sins by fasting, seeing the Scripture saith, (7) job. 4. & 12. Fasting, and alms do free from sin. Who then are these new masters, who exclude the merit of fasting? Origen affirmeth that, (8) Tract. 32. in Mat. Those who profess faith in jesus, but do not prepare themselves with good works to salvation, are to be compared to the foolish Virgins. Whereof also saith S. Cyrill, (9) Catech. 15. Do not trust in this, that thou hast the lamp only, but keep it burning. Do not trust in this only, that thou believest, but keep faith burning, that thy light may shine before men by good works etc. S. chrysostom demandeth, (10) Ho. 30. in joan. Is it sufficient for life eternal to believe in the Son? And his answer is, Not, For not every one, (11) Mat. 7. saith he, who saith to me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven etc. If thou shalt rightly believe in the Father, and the Son, and the holy Ghost, but shalt not rightly live, it doth nothing profit thee to Salvation. To the same effect saith cyril of Alexandria, (12) L. 10. in Io c. 18. That faith doth not suffice to Salvation, the Disciple of Christ showeth, writing. (13) jac. 2.19. Thou believest there is one God, the Devils also believe and tremble. If therefore only faith should be sufficient, the multitude of Devils could not perish: wherefore the works of Charity must come to faith. The Fathers did so confessedly teach justification by works, that Melancthon saith, (14) In Ep. ad Rom. p. 391. Origen, and many others following him, feigned men to be just for their works. Whitaker chargeth with (15) Resp. ad Rat. Camp. p 78. Fulk. in Def. of the Engl. Transl. p. 368. Error herein not only Cyprian, but almost all the most holy Fathers of that tyme. The Centurists say of those ancient times, (16) C●nt. 3. c. 4. Col 79. It seemeeh, that for the most part this chiefest Article of justification to have been obscured, for they attributed to works justice even before God. (17) Cent. 3. Col. 265. 266. Origen made good works the Cause of justification Luther termeth (18) In Gal. c. 4. Hierome, Ambrose, Austin and others, justice-workers of the old Papacy. Bullinger acknowledgeth that, (19) Upon the Apoc. Serm. 87. The Doctrine of Merits, Satisfaction, and justification of works, did incontinently after the Apostles times lay their first foundations. So confessedly did the ancientest and learnedst Fathers teach our Catholic Doctrine of justification by works. SECT. iv That sundry Prot. do teach our Doctrine of justification by Works, and not only by Faith. IT is supposed, that hus, Wicliffe, and other pretended Prot. before Luther's time agreed with Catholics herein, as well for that we do not found that they were charged, or troubled for any contrary doctrine, but also for that Fox avoucheth that, (1) Act. Mon. p. 402. Our free justification by faith only was long hid before Luther's time, and opened by him. And so Melancthon censured (2) Ep. ad Frider. Micon. Wicliffe, that, He did not at all understand, nor hold the justice of faith. M. Napier upon these words of the Apocalypse, (3) Apoc. 20.12. The dead were judged etc. according to their works, writeth thus, (4) In Apoc. c. 20. p. 296. 297. By works here are we judged and justified, and not by faith only, as also james 2.24. testifieth, meaning hereby, that of lively faith and of the good works that follow thereupon, man is justified, and not of that dead faith, that is by itself alone without any good works. And then reconcyling the seeming repugnance between S. Paul and S. james, he affirmeth that S. Paul saith, We are justified by faith without the works of the law, that is to say, not without good work, whatsoever &c. although it be without the precise works that the law requireth etc. Yea shall find both james and Paul agreed in diverse places, that faith without works is a dead faith, and serveth nothing to justification. Yea he spareth not to say, we are justified by faithful works etc. Caluin affirmeth, (5) justit. l. 3. c. 17. §. 8. justification not to stand without works, and that good works are not only acceptable to God, but also are to have reward. And good works of the faithful are causes why our Lord doth bestow his benefits upon them, Finally that, our Lord doth embrace works as the inferior Causes of our Salvation. Rogers confesseth that, (6) Def. of the Art art. 20 p. 110. justification by faith only, is grounded upon Gods written word, though not by our common and vulgar terms to be read therein: which is in plain terms, to acknowledge, that justification by faith only, is not to be read in God's word. Peter Martyr expounding the foresaid words of Daniel, Redeem thy Sins with Alms, confesseth that, (7) Hom. 21. in Dan. This seemeth to be the most plain sense of all; If thou wilt hear me, thou shalt consider hue thou mayest purge thy Sins, and mayst return into favour with God: this may be done, if thou shalt redeem thy sins by justice, and Beneficence. SECT. V Objections taken from Scripture in proof of justification by only Faith, and not by Works, answered. IT is objected from S. Paul that, (1) Rom. 4.2. If Abraham were justified by works, he hath glory, but not with God. And, (2) Rom. 3.28. We accounted a man to be justified by faith without the works of the law. Answ. Luther to make this later place the stronger, addeth thus to the text, we accounted a man to be justified by only Faith: And in defence hereof he saith to a friend of his, (3) Ep. ad amicum. de voce (sola) quam Rom. 3. de suo adiecit. See tom. 5. Germ. jen fol 141. & tom. 4. Ger. Wit. fol. 475. If thy Papist show himself angry and discontented for the word (sola) forthwith tell him, A Papist, and an Ass are the same thing. Again, I knew long since, that in this place neither in the Greek nor the Latin text the word (sola) was read, neither was there any need that the Papists should admonish me thereof etc. I repent me that I added not (omnes) and (omnibus) that so it should be without all works of all laws, and so I had spoken well and roundly. Wherhfore this word shall remain in my Testament, although all Bishops should run m●d together, and should be transformed into Asses, yet they shall not shave it thence from me. But to omit this cursed adding to the Scirptures, and Luther's scurrile impudence, the Gentiles did boast of their Philosophy & moral virtues proceeding of nature: and the jews did likewise boast of their law & legal Observations, both which the Apostle confuteth in that Epistle, and proveth that neither of these are of any force to Salvation, without the Grace of Christ and faith in him; to that end in the later place expressly naming and excluding the Works of the Law, that is, saith john hus, (4) In Ep. jac c 2. The legal Ceremonies: and in the first, explaining himself, saying there next before, (5) Rom. 4. ●. What did Abraham found our Father according to the flesh? Agreably herto answereth ancient Sedulius, (6) Ad c. 3. ad Rom. Without what works of the law is the Apostle to be thought to affirm man to be justified by faith? to wit of Circumcision and the Saboth, and other such like, not without the works of justice, of which S. james saith, Faith without works is dead. Lastly, this is answered by S. (7) De Gra. & lib. Arb. c. 7. Austin saying: Men not understanding that which the Apostle saith (we count a man to be justified by faith without the works of the law) did think that be said, faith would suffice a man though he lived ill, and had no good works. Which God forbidden that the Vessel of Election should think: who in a certain place after he had said, In Christ jesus neither Circumcision nor Prepuce, availeth any whit, he strait added, but faith which worketh by love. And whereas some oppose S. Paul to S. james, S. Austin thus Catholickly reconcileth them, (8) L. 83. Quaestionum. q. 76. fin. & l de fide & operibus c. 14 init. Wherefore the sentences of the 2. Apostles Paul and james, are not contrary in themselves: when one saith, a man is justified by faith without works, and another saith, Faith is void without works: because he, speaketh of works that go before faith, this, of those which follow faith, even as Paul himself showeth in many places. Hereof saith D. Whitaker, (9) Resp. ad Camp. rat. 1 p. 12. See Cent. 5. c. 10. Col. 1133. Austin reconcileth james to Paul, wherefore, saith Austin, the Sentences of the two Apostles, Paul and james, are not contrary in themselves &c. because Paul speaketh of works which go before faith (unto which never any Catholic ascribed justification) and james of those works that follow faith: which is the same truth that Catholics now teach. Others object that, (10) Io. 1.11. As many as received him, he gave them power to be made the Sons of God, to those that believe in him. And, (11) Io. 3.14. So must the Son of Man be exalted, that every one which believeth in him perish not, but may have life everlasting. Answ. Whereas many causes concur to the producing of one effect, as our justification, sometimes the Scriptures attribute the same effect to one Cause, sometimes to another; yet never so as excluding the rest. And so, as in these places it referreth our justification and salvation to Faith; so in other, it referreth to (12) Luc. 71 47 1. Io. 3.14. 1. Pet 4.8. Charity, (13) Rom. 8.24. Hope, (14) 'tis 3.5. Baptism, & other virtues. And agreably unto this saith S. Clement. (15) L. 4. Strom. post med. Wherefore when we shall hear, Thy faith hath saved thee, we do not understand him to say absolutely those to be saved, who any ways believe, unless their deeds shall follow: And so where it is said in S. Mark, (16) Mar. 16.16. He that believeth and is baptised, shallbe saved, S. Matthew also addeth these words of our Saviour, (17) Mat. 28.20. teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, which containeth all good works, and the whole justice of a Christian man. Such places also are urged, wherein our justification is said to be gratis. (18) Rom. 3.24. justified gratis by his grace: (19) Rom. 11.6. If by grace, not now of works, otherwise Grace is not Grace. Answ. The word, Gratis, is either taken, as it is opposed to debt of justice, and true merit de condigno, & this hindereth not, but that as faith, so likewise good works may concur gratis to our justification, as dispositions, and as meritorious de congruo: or else it is taken as it is opposed to works done without grace, only by the force of nature; but this excludeth not absolutely all merit, but only our own merit, that is, such as is from ourselves, and not from God: so that justification gratis, is not all one with justification by only Faith: neither doth it exclude such works as proceed from Grace, for so it also should exclude faith, which proceedeth from Grace, and which also is a most excellent work itself. (20) Io. 6.29. This is the work of God that you believe in him etc. but it only excludeth such works, as are done only by the strength of nature, & such as should merit our justification de condigno, justice, and debt. Some object those words of our Saviour, (21) Luc. 8.50. Believe only, and she shallbe safe. Hear some think they have found only faith to save: But here Christ speaheth not of justification and remission of sins, but of the miraculous raising of one from death to life. Now for the working of miracles faith alone doth sometimes suffice, as might be easily proved from Mat. 7.22. Now that true faith cannot be without good works, some object that of (22) 1. Tim. 5. ●. S. Paul, But if any man have not care of his own, and especially of his domesticals, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an Infidel. Answ. S. Chrisostome and others do expound this of those who are said to deny their faith, because they do not live as their faith teacheth them, who, as the same Apostle saith, (23) Tit. 1.16. Confess they know God, but in deeds deny him. Who are said in this respect of want of Charity towards their own, to be worse than Infidels, who have a care of their own; and so deny their faith not in hart or mouth, but in deeds. Others urge those words of S. john, (24) 1. Io. 2.4. He that saith he knoweth him and keepeth not his Commandments is a liar. Answ. Knowledge here is taken, according to S. Bedes and Oecumenius Exposition, for the knowledge of love and friendship, in which sense Christ saith to the wicked, (25) Mat. 25.12. I know you not: wherefore if any man vaunt himself to know God by familiar and experimental knowledge of his Graces, and yet keepeth not his Commandments, this man is a liar. And therefore such are all modern heretics, who profess themselves to be in the favour of God, by only faith, and yet they acknowledge they neither keep, nor possibly can keep his Commandments. Some object that, (26) 1. Io. 5. ●. Whosoever believeth that jesus is Christ, is borne of God, and therefore doubtless hath Charity. Answ. (27) Tract. 20. in Ep. joan. S. Austin teacheth that this is spoken of faith informed, which worketh by Charity. CHAP. XXXVII. The true State of the Question, concerning merit of Works. Whether Works proceeding from Faith and Charity, do truly merit increase of Grace and Glory. SECT. I. Catholic Doctrine. HAVING proved that good works do justify, it remaineth now to show that they are truly meritorious of Grace and eternal Glory. To which purpose the Catholic Church decreeth that, (1) Conc. Trid. Sess. 6. cap. 16. Seeing Christ jesus doth continually pour virtue into those that are justified, as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches: which virtue doth always precede & accompany, and follow their good works, and without which they can by no means be grateful to God and meritorious; nothing more is to be thought to be wanting to the justified, but that by those works which are done in God, they may be judged to have fully satisfied Gods law, for the state of this life, and to have truly deserved life eternal to be gained in its time, if that they shall departed in Grace, etc. neither is that to be omitted, that although so much be ascribed to good works in the sacred Scriptures, that to him who shall give to one of his lest ones a draught of could water, Christ promiseth he shall not want his reward etc. Yet God forbidden, that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself, and not in our Lord; whose goodness is so great towards all men, as that those things which are his gifts, he will have to be their merits. And because all offend in many things, as every one aught to have before his eyes mercy and goodness, so also severity and judgement: neither let any man judge himself, although he be guilty of nothing to himself; because the life of men is not to be examined and judged by man's judgement, but Gods, who will enlighten the hidden things of darkness, and will manifest the Counsels of the hearts. And then praise shallbe to every one from God, who, as it is written, will give to every one according to his works. Wherefore, (2) Sess. 6, Can. 32. If any shall affirm, a just man's good works so to be the gifts of God, that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified: or that he who is justified by good works, which are done by him through the Grace of God, and the merit of jesus Christ, whose lively member he is, doth not truly merit increase of Grace, life eternal, and the obtaining of life eternal, if so he die in Grace, as also the increase of glory, Anathema. In the Council of Moguntia it is defined, that, (3) Cap. 8. See Conc. Senon. Decret. 16. Those works which the justified do etc. to be truly good and grateful to God, and worthy the reward of eternal life. And so all Catholics teach, that works proceeding from God's Grace, through the merits of Christ, are truly and properly meritorious of Grace and eternal Glory. (4) Bellar. de justif. l. 5 c. 1. 2. etc. Rhem. Test in Rom. 2.6. Points Disputable. All believing that works proceeding from Grace do truly merit: some (5) Durand. 1. Dist. 17. q. 2. teach, that the reward given to such works is according to the form of communicative justice. But (6) Caiet. 1. p. q. 21. art. 1. others more probably teach, that it is according to the form of distributive justice. Some (7) Durand. 2. Dist. 28. q. 5. Gabr. 2. Dist. 28 q. unica. teach that the natural motions of the mind do merit ex congruo, the first grace. (8) Vega q. 7. de justify. Others ascribe this only to the supernatural motions of perfect faith, Charity etc. Whereby we are sufficiently disposed to grace, considering them, not as they proceeded from Grace, but from free will. (9) Valent. Tom. 2. Disp. 8. q. 6. P. 4. §. 2. Others more probably deny merit ex congruo, to all acts disposing to Grace. Some (10) Caiet. in. 1.2. q. 114. art. 3. Sotus l. 3. de Nat. & Grat. c. 7. think, that the good works of the just do merit ex condigno life eternal, by reason of the work, although there were no pact or promise from God. (11) Scotus 1. Dist. 17. q. 2. Vega de justificat. q. 5. Others think that they only so merit by reason of the pact & God's acceptation. But (12) S. Tho. 1.2. q. 114. art. 1.3. S. Bonavent. in 2. Dist. 27. others most probably teach, that they are so meritorious by reason of the pact, and the work also. Protestants Untruths. Melancthon (13) In Apol. art. 12. affirmeth, that Catholics believe that, by good works done out of the state of Grace they merit grace by God's covenant, that, by attrition they merit grace: that, for the blotting out of sin only detestation of the crime sufficeth: That, by Contrition, not by faith in Christ we may obtain remission of sins etc. Again, (14) In Apol. p. 112. Our Adversaries are plainly deaf it hath been so often said, the law not to profit without Christ, for whom good works pleased. But they every where Christ excluded, do teach the works of the law to merit justification. But these are all so gross, that I persuade myself instead of further answer, that no man will believe him. Accordingly Roger's saith, (15) Def. of the Art art. 11. p. 52. Sin's mortal, not by the merits of Christ only, but many ways beside are cleansed, think the Paepists, as by the merits of dead Saints, namely of S. Marry the Virgin. And, (16) Ib. Art 14. p. 61. Supererogatory works do merit (say they) remission of sins, and that not for the doers of them only but for others besides. But the Rhemistes whom he citeth for this, have not the word merit, but only satisfy: teaching as all other Caholickes do, the good works of one, though they cannot merit for another, yet they may justly satisfy for him. Protestant Doctrine. The Doctrine of merit of works is so displeasing to Prot. as that (17) justit. l. 3. c. 15. §. 2. Caluin much disliketh the word Merit, or Reward, reproving the ancient Fathers for using the same: And further saying. (18) Ibid. c. 16. §. 2. We take from men the opinion of meriting. According to M. Perkins, (19) Reform. Cath. Contro. 5. c. 1. Man cannot merit a morsel of bread. Scharpius, (20) De Iust. C●ntrou. 15. p. 218. We say, that the works of the faithful in ●he sight of God are no ways meritorious, neither of congruity, nor condignity. Protestants agreed with Ancient Heretics. We condemn (saith S. (21) De temp. Ser. 191. Austin) the Error of jovinian, who said there was no difference of merits in the world to come. And S. (22) Conc. Telense & Rescriptum Ambrosij & aliorum ad Siricium. Pap. Ib. Ambrose with others term it a rude howling &c. to confounded all things promiscuously etc. and to take away the degrees of different merits. Protestant Errors. Luther teacheth that (23) L. de libert. Christ. good works do not make a man good, nor evil works evil. And, (24) L. de Captiu. Babyl. c. de Bap. Thou seest how rich a Christian or baptised man is, that although he would, he cannot lose his Salvation by any sins how great soever, unless he will not believe; for no sins can damn, but only Infidelity. Many (25) Caluin in Epist. duabus ad Polones. Chem. l. de duabus naturis. Melancth. in loc. cap. de filio. & in l. concor. p. 556. 645. 736. Prot. teach that Christ is our Mediator according to both natures, divine and humane. Yea Swinglius teacheth that, (26) L. de vera & fall. Relig. c. de Euchar. Christ is to us a Saviour by that part wherein he descended from heaven, not by that he was borne of the most unspotted Virgin. And further addeth (27) Tom. 4. in c 6 joan. p. 310. elsewhere, that the flesh of Christ profiteth nothing, it profiteth nothing at all. Caluin affirmeth that, (28) Instit. l. 2. c. 17. § 6. to ask whether Christ merited to himself (which the Schoolmen do) is no less foolish curiosity, then temerarious definition, where they affirm the same etc. by what merits could man obtain that he should be the judge of the world, the head of Angels? And the same is taught by (29) Controu. 2. p. 207. Paraus de justif l 5. c. 3. p. 1227. Danaeus, and Paraeus. Tyndall thinketh that, (30) In Fox his Act. & Mon. edit. 1610. p. 1138. For as much as concerneth pleasing of God, no work is better than another To make water, to wash dishes, to be a Schoomaker, or Apostle, is all alike. And this doctrine Fox himself thinketh to be free from heresy. Luther, If I should see heaven open, and that I could merit it by taking a straw (31) Apud Scioppium in Ecclesiastico. c. ●7. from the ground, I would not take up the straw. So poor esteem have Prot. of all merits of good works. SECT. II. It is proved by Scriptures that works proceeding from Faith and Charity, do truly merit increase of Grace and Glory. TO decide this by Scripture, such texts prove our Catholic Doctrine as teach life eternal to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, merces, wages, hire, or reward. (1) Mat. 5.12. Rejoice for your reward is very great in heaven. (2) Mat. 20.8. Call the workmen, and pay them their hire. That by reward and hire in these places is understood life eternal, it is so manifest, that I think none will deny it: And that this reward is due not only in regard of God's promise, but also in regard of the works, these words convince: Call the workmen & pay them their hire: Neither can any without great abuse in speech entitle with the name of wages, hire or reward, a gift of a King promised upon mere liberality without all respect of desert and work in the receiver. If the reward of heaven be given according to the measure and proportion of our works and labours, then in the bestowing of that reward, respect is not had only of the promise and bounty of God, but also of the dignity and desert of the works. (3) Mat. 16.17. Rom. 2 6. Apoc. 22.12. The Son of Man shall come in the glory of his father with his Angels: and then will he tender to every man according to his works. (4) Luc. 6.38. With the same measure that you do meat, it shallbe measured to you again. (5) 2. Cor. 9.6. He that soweth sparingly, sparingly also shall reap, and he that soweth in blessings, of blessings also shall reap. (6) 1 Cor. 3.8. Every one shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. (7) Luc. 7.47. Many sins are forgiven her because, she hath loved much: but to whomelesse is forgiven, he loveth less. These and sundry other such places convince that the greatness or smallness of our reward, is proportionable to the greatness or smallness of the dignity and worth of our works: which convinceth the works to be meritorious. Good works are further said to be the cause, why life Eternal is given us. (8) Mat. 25.34. Come you blessed of my father, possess you the Kingdom etc. for I was hungry, and you gave me to eat etc. Because thou hast been faithful over a few things, (9) Mat. 25.23. I will place thee over many things; enter into the joy of thy lord (10) Apoc. 7.14.15. sect. 1. Io 3.22. These are they which are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb, therefore they are before the throne of God etc. (11) 2. Cor. 4.17. Our tribulation which presently is momentane and light, worketh above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory in us. For the avoiding of this place, (12) Ag. Rhem. Test. 2. Cor. 4.17. Fulke and other English Translatours of the Bible, do instead of worketh, translate, prepareth, whereas the Greek Word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifieth worketh, and some (13) Of 1576. English Bybles translate, causeth; yea Fulke himself confesseth that, (14) In defence of the Engl. Translation. p. 173. That translation of preparing, is not so proper. The reward of good works is said to be given of justice. (15) 2. Tim. 4.8. There is laid up for me a Crown of justice, which our Lord will tender to me, in that day, a just judge: and not only to me, but to them also that love his coming. (16) 2. Thes. 1.4.5.6. Ourselves glory in you etc. for your patience and faith in all your persecutions etc. for an example of the just judgement of God, that you may be counted worthy of the Kingdom of God etc. If ye be just with God to repay tribulation to them that vex you, and to you that are vexed rest with us in the revelation of our Lord jesus from heaven with the Angels etc. (17) Heb. 6.10. God is not unjust to forget our works And hence it is, that our good works are called (18) Luc 1.6. Apoc. 19.8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, justifications. A promise made upon Condition of some work, the work being performed, is of justice to be kept, and the worker truly deserveth it: but life Eternal is promised to good works. (19) jac. 1.12. Blessed is the man that suffereth tentation for when he hath been proved, he shall receive the Crown of life, which God hath promised to them that love him. (20) 1. Tim 4.8 Piety is profitable to all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that to come. (21) Mat 19.29. Every one that hath left house or brethren etc. for my sake, shall receive an hundred fouled, and shall possess life everlasting. To be worthy, to merit or dese●ue, signify all one thing. Christ saith, (22) Lu. 10.7. The workman is worthy of his hire. (23) Col. 1.10. That you may walk worthy of God, in all things pleasing, fructifying in all good works. (24) 2. Thess. ●. 5. See Luc. 20.35. & 21.36. That you may be counted worthy of the Kingdom of God; for the which also you suffer. (25) Ap 3.4. They shall walk with me in whites, because they are worthy. And, (26) Sa●. 3.5 God proved them and found them worthy of him. Now whereas Prot. for Worthy, translate, Meet, it is so unworthily done, that Fulke himself saith, (27) Defence of the Engl. Transl p. 276. For my part I wish they had retained the usual signification of that word, and said, worthy of himself, God being a lust judge, & not accepter of persons, doth thereupon give to every one according to his merits. (28) Rom. 2.11. Gal. 2.6. There is no acception of persons with God. (29) 1. Pet. 1.17. Act. 10.35. If you invocate the Father, him which without the acception of persons, judgeth according to every one's work. But the Scriptures are so unanswerable and convincing in behalf of good works, that Luther for want of other answer doth fly to his desperate and damnable refuge, saying, (30) Colloq. Isl●b de Christo. fol. 96. tom. 1. Ger. Wit. part 2. fol. 190 tom. 5 len. fol 500 in Colloq. de Sanct. fol. 1●5. de tentationibus fidei, fol. 288. ●om. 6. Ger. Ie●. fol. 86. tom. 7. Ger. Wit. fol. 483. Although the Papists dobring a great heap of Scriptures, in which good works are commanded, yet I nothing care for all the words of Scripture, although more than those were yet produced. Thou Papist dost greatly contemn, and with the Scripture makest thyself courageous; which yet is inferior to Christ, as Lord. Therefore I am nothing moved therewith. Go too then, rely upon the servant as much as thou wilt, but I do rely upon Christ the true master, Lord and Emperor of Scripture. To him I do assent, and know that he will lie to me in nothing, nor will lead me into Error. I do rather make choice to honour and believe him, then that, with all the sayings of Scripture, I will suffer myself to be removed from my opinion a nails breadth. So convincing than are the Scriptures, for the merits of works, as Prot. are enforced to disclaim from the Scriptures, and to appeal only to Christ himself, as though the doctrine of Christ and the Scriptures were contrary. SECT. III. The Fathers do expound the Scriptures in proof of Merit of Works. S. Ambrose demandeth, (1) L. 10. Ep. 82. What salvation can be to us, unless we wash our sins away by Fasting, seeing the Scripture saith, (2) Tob. 4. & 12. Fasting and alms do free from sin: who are therefore these new Masters, who exclude the merit of fasting? And upon those words of the Psalmist, Be mindful of thy word, he further saith, (3) Ser. in Ps. 118. God willbe agreed with, that if any following the rewards propounded to virtues, shall strive well, he may expect suit of reward, yea he may exact it. Tertullian asketh. (4) In Scorpiac. c. 6. How there are many Mansions with the Father, if it be not for the diversity of merits? And how shall a (5) 1. Cor. 15.41. star differ from a star in glory, unless it be for the diversity of beams? Clemens Alex. writeth that, (6) L. 4. Strom. There are with our Lord many rewards and Mansions by proportion of their lives. For who, (7) Mat. ●●41. saith he, receiveth a Prophet in the name of a Prophet, shall receive the reward of a Prophet. And he that receiveth a Just man in the name of a just man, shall receive the reward of a just man; and who shall receive one of these little Disciples, shall not lose his reward. Let us return (saith S. Austin) (8) De Grat. & lib. Arb. c. 6. & ho. 14. ex 50. & in Ps. 83 & in Ps. 100 to Paul the Apostle, whom we find without any good deserts, yea with many evil deserts to have obtained the Grace of God, giving good for evil. Let us see what he saith now, his Passion drawing near, writing to Timothy: (9) 2. Tim. 4. ●. For I am even now to be sacrificed, and the time of my resolution is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have consummate my Course, I have kept the faith. These his good merits he now rehearseth, that after good merits he may obtain the Crown, who after evil merits obtained Grace. Finally attend what followeth: Concerning the rest, saith he, there is laid up for me a Crown of justice, which our Lord will tender to me in that day, a just judge. To whom would the Just judge give a Crown, if the merciful Father had not given Grace? And how had that been a Crown of justice if grace had not gone before, which iustifyeth the wicked? How should it have been given as due, if it had not formerly been given gratis? And again, (10) Tract. ●7. in joan. Although one be stronger than another, one wiser than another one more just than another one more holy than another in my Father's house there are many mansions. None of them shallbe estranged from that house, where every one is to receive a Mansion according to his merit. (11) Mat. 20.2.10. That penny truly is equal to all which the Master of the family commandeth to be given to all them who wrought in the vineyard, not in tha● making difference who had laboured less and who more: by wh●ch penny life eternal is signified, where no man liveth longer than another, because in eternity there is no different measure of living: but many Mansions do signify the diverse dignities of merits in one life eternal: for one is the glory of the Sun, another of the Moon, another of the Stars, for star differeth from star in glory, so also is the resurrection of the dead. As stars the Saints obtain in the kingdom diverse Mansions, diverse excellencies as it were in the heaveus Yea saith he, (12) Ser. 191. de Tem●ore. We condemn the Error of jovinian, who saith there is no difference of merits in the world to come. Of this say the Centuristes, (1) enter. 5. c. 4 Col. 518. See Chemnit. Ex. part p. 4. 110. 142. and Wotton in defence of Perkins. p. 500 It appeareth, that Austin was of that opinion, that Virgins dedicated to holiness, have more merit with God than the faithful that are married: for because jovinian thought the contrary, that they had no more merit, this in him reprehendeth Austin. S. Gregory in proof of merits argueth thus; (14) L. 4. Mor. c. 31. Because in this life there is difference of works, there shall no doubt in the other, be difference of honours, that by how much here one excelleth another in merit, there one shall exceed another in reward. Whereupon in the Gospel the Truth saith, (15) Io. 14.2. In the house of my Father there are many Mansions. But in those same Mansions, there shall be in some respect an agreeing diversity of rewards: because such force of love doth join us in that peace, that what any one receiveth not in himself, he rejoiceth to have received in another. S. Irenaeus (16) L. 4. c. 28. produceth Solomon saying, (17) Prou. 19.17. He dareth our Lord that hath mercy on the poor. For God who needeth no man, taketh unto himself our good works to this end, that he may bestow upon us the retribution of his goods. Even as our Lord said, (18) Mat. 25.34. Come ye blessed of my Father, receive the kingdom prepared for you, for I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat etc. Sundry Prot. do reprove S. Austin for our Doctrine of the merits of good works. Osiander saith, (19) Cent 4. ●4. c. 23. Austin sometime in the Article of justification seemeth to attribute over much to the merits of good works, which are done after a man's Conversion. Others charge him for teaching that, (20) English Ha●m. of Conf sect. 16 c 25. We obtain remission of our sins and life, not only for Christ his sake through faith, but also for the merit of our works. Doctor Humphrey saith, (21) In jesuit. part. 2 p. 530. It may not be denied, but that Irenaeus, Clemens, and others whom they ca●● Apostolical have little Apostolically inserted into their writings the opinion of Freewill, and Merit of works Caluin, (22) Instit. l 3. c 15 n 1. I conf●ss●●nat the writers of the ancient Church have every where used the n●me of Merit, and I would to God, that by the abuse of this word they bade not given t●●sterity occasion of Error. White gift acknowledgeth th● (23) D●f. p. 472. Almost all the Bishops and learned writers of the Greek Church, and Latin also for the most part were spotted with doctrines of Freewill of Merit etc. And the very same is affis med by (24) Against the Plea of the Innocent. c. 9 p. 120. D. Covell Wherefore the Fathers are most clear in their Expositions of the Scriptures for merits of works, and are therefore reproved by Prot. writers. SECT. iv That Protestant writers teach our Catholic Doctrine of Merit of Works. Protestants (25) See Fulke ●g. Rhem. Test. in 2. Cor. 9 sect. 2. f. 312. In his Answer to the Marginal notes. teach that good works shallbe rewarded in heaven: And that, (26) Ib. in Heb. 11. sect. 3. fol. 417. & in. 1. Cor. 9.23. sect. 7 f. ●76. & in Mat. 19 sect. 13 f. 38. Men may or aught to do good in respect of reward. That, (27) Clapham in his Sovereign remedy ag. Schism. p. 46 Hook. in Eccl Pol. l 2. s●ct 8 p. 122. Haffent. loc. Theol l. 3. loc. 10. p. ●●4. the degrees of glory shallbe according to our works. Friccius teacheth that, (28) D● Eccles. l. 4 c. 18. Christ doth plant in us virtues of new life, and imparting to us Merit and justice with most singular fruit, he is said, to live in us, and by this means the glory of Christ is not obscured, but made clear. Perkins acknowledgeth that, (29) In his 4. Treatises. 4. treat. n. 9 The man justified doth deserve and merit at God's hands the kingdom of heaven and eternal life in, and by Christ. The Confession of Auspurge speaking of Fasting, saith, (30) Harm. of Confess. p. 495. These Exercises be good in the godly, and are meritorious works. And the like is more than insinuated by M (31) Eccl. Pol. l. 5 sect. 72. p. 208. Hooker. The same Confession also acknowledgeth good works to be, (32) Harm. of Conf. p. 273. a righteousness worthy of reward: and (33) Ib. p. 273. Spiritual Sacrifices deserving reward. And that, (34) Ib. p. 229. Repentance deserved that God should altar his purpose touching Ninive. And the like is taught by other (35) Ib. p. 300. And Spangburg in his Margar. Theol. de Sacram. p. 48. 50. Hook. Eccl Pol. l. 5. sect. 72. Prot. amongst whom Melancthon saith that, (36) Loc. Com. de bonis operibus. After we apprehended our Reconciliation by faith, the worthiness of our works is not (then) to be extenuated, for the Scripture setteth honourably forth this justice of works. Caluin saith, (37) Instit. l. 3. c. 15. §. 3. Our Lord calleth the good works which he hath bestowed upon us, ours, and testifieth that they are not only acceptable to him, but that they shall have reward. And a little after, Therefore good works do please God, neither are they unprofitable to the workers, but rather in lieu of reward they bring the greatest benefits of God. So certain it is, even by the Confession of Protestants, that good works proceeding from Grace, do truly merit Reward. SECT. V Objections from Scriptures against Merit of Works, answered. SOme urge that, (1) Rom. 8.18. The Passions of this time are not condign to the glory to come. Answ. The Passions of this time considered in their own nature, or only in regard of their short continuance, are not worthy of the foresaid glory, which hindereth not their due worth considered as proceeding from faith and Charity. The Passion of Christ himself in regard of that immense glory, which thereby he purchased to himself, and that unspeakable good which he merited for man, was but short, and yet he truly merited thereby his own glory, and our redemption. So likewise the pleasures of this world are but few and of little esteem, in respect of eternal and most painful damnation. In like sort it is most true that, (2) Cor. 4.18. Our tribulation which presently is momentane, and light, worketh above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory in us. Others urge those places wherein our Reward is said to be given us of mercy and not of justice, (3) Ps. 100LS. 4. Who crowneth thee in mercy and comm●serations. (4) Mat. 5.7. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Answ. Our reward (as S. (5) Ep. 105. & l. de correp. et. gra. c. 13. Greg. in Ps. 7. Poenis. Austin & S. Gregory do expound) is attributed to mercy, not because merit hath not a true reward, but because our merits are given of mercy; for no man can merit unless he be first justified, which first justification is not merited by works, but given gratis, and of mercy. To the same effect are urged these texts, (6) Isa. 55.1. Come ye and buy without silver, and without all change wine and milk. (7) Dan. 9.18. Not in our justifications do we prostrate prayers before thy face, but in thy many Commiserations. Answer. Wine and milk (according to S. (8) In Comment. Hierome) do not signify Eternal glory, but present Grace, which though it be not obtained without works, yet not for works but gratis. And in sign that wine and milk do signify Grace, S. Hierome testifieth, that Christians were accustomed to give to such as were newly baptised, wine and milk to taste. Daniel prayeth not here for eternal glory, but for delivery out of temporal Captivity, into which the people of God through their sins were cast. But many urge that, (9) Luc. 17.10. when you shall have done all things that are commanded you, say, we are unprofitable servants; we have done that which we aught to do. Answ. According to S. (10) L. 8. in Lucam. Ambrose Christ commandeth hereby, that we acknowledge that which we are of ourselves, to wit, unprofitable servants, unable to fulfil those things which he commandeth, whereas by his grace we are made profitable, according to that of the Apostle, (11) 2. Tim. 2.21. If any man therefore shall cleanse himself from these, he shallbe a vessel unto honour, sanctified and profitable to our Lord, prepared to every good work. 2. According to S. (12) Ser. 3. de verb. Dom. Austin, we may be said to be unprofitable servants, when he have done all things that are commanded us, because we do nothing but that which we aught, neither can we exact any reward, had not God of his voluntary and liberal Covenant agreed with us: for of our own condition we are the basest slaves of God, bound without expectation of all reward to perform all works himself pleaseth. And this our base estate, for the preservation of humility, Christ here directeth us to acknowledge: which nothing hindereth, but that, supposing the bountiful pact and promise of God, we may through his grace truly merit, and expect reward, himself saying, (13) Mat. 20.13.14. and see ver. 2. Didst thou not covenant with me for a penny? take that is thine, and go. 3. S (14) In Illud, Elatum est Cor Isaiae. Chrisostome observeth that Christ saith not, you are unprofitable servants, but say, you are etc. willing us after our good deeds to think humbly, jest they be corrupted with pride; for that those which work evil be only unprofitable, and that those who work good, profitable, our Saviour testifieth saying, (15) Mat. 25.20.21.30. Well far thee good and faithful servant, because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many things; enter into the joy of thy Lord. And the unprofitable servant cast ye out into the utter darkness. Again it is objected that, (16) Rom. 6.23. The stipend of Sin, death: but the grace of God, life everlasting: And, (17) Rom. 4.4 To him that worketh, the reward is not imputed according to grace, but according to debt. Answ. The Apostle (as S. (18) L. de Gra & lib. Arb. c. 8. 9 & ep. 105. in Enchyr. c. 107. ) Austin teacheth) might truly have said, The wages of justice, life eternal, as he said, The wages of Sin, death; but yet he did not, jest any should think, that as of ourselves we have sin, so likewise we have justice: wherefore life eternal is called Grace, not because it is not the reward of merit, but because our merits proceed from grace. In the second place S. Paul speaketh only against such works, as are done without the Grace of God, only by the (19) See Eph. 2.8. natural power of our freewill. Lastly, it is generally urged, that if any thing be attributed to our merits, injury is thereby done to Christ's merits, as though they were not sufficient. Answ. The merits of the just are not to be opposed to the merits of Christ, but springing from them, whatsoever praise they have, redoundeth to the merits of Christ. (20) Io. 15.5. He is the vine, we are the branches. (21) Io. 15.4. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine; so we neither without Christ. Now as i● nothing detracteth from the glory of the vine, that the branches are fruitful, but rather augmenteth the same; so doth it neither diminish the glory of Christ, but rather addeth thereunto, if his servants through Faith, Charity and other virtues, inspired and given by him, do produce such works, as are truly just and meritorious. Neither are the merits of man requisite for any insufficiency of the merits of Christ, but rather for proof of their great virtue and efficacy: for the works of Christ not only merited with God our eternal Salvation, but also that we might obtain the same through his grace and merits, by our own merits. To give light to the world by the sun, or to give heat or cold thereto by fire or water, doth nothing derogate from the power of God, but rather more proveth his Omnipotency, whereby he could work those things, not only himself, but likewise could give to his Creatures, the power of working. Laus Deo, & B. Virgini. Faults escaped in the Print. In the Text. Page, Line, Error, Correction. 39 8. contending contenting 57 24. was opinion was of opinion 71. 21. satisfaction sanctification 73. 29. certainty certainly 86. 6. to so 89. 8. promiseth premonisheth 96. 27. unavoidable unavailable 97. 12. for or Ibid. 13. Elections Election 115. 2. teacheth teach 117. 34. know it, know not the truth, but also the that know it, 130. 10. or of 145. 7. alike Ass-like 244. 12. word world 247. 12. ction perfection 261. 37. his this 306. 9 intravit initiavit 354. 29. not we not what we 374. 28. many may 406. 18. perato, operato, 411. 23. boundant abundant 414. 17. for or 433. 5. alleating alleging 484. 8. another other 488. 26. reply rely 505. 20. do thou 512. 23. never ever Idid. 26. familiar familiarly 531. 9 reservation reseration Ibid. 15. whence when 53●. 27. he that that he 170. penult. deal the 582. 25. of you O you 661. 26. but not 689. 12. Patron Patroness 698. 3. facts fact 719. 31. dole to will 721. 4. Godt, hrough God, through In the Margin. Page, Figure, Error, Correction. 8. fig. 9 81. 18. 13. 11. 52. cap. 52. 38. 40. 2. 32. 40. 56. 218. 288. 57 32. 82. 8. 2. 64. 28. 573. 533. 71. 40. 3. 13. 76. 6. 324. 243. 83. 7. 235. 335. 90. 3. 106. 166. 98. 30. 16. ib. 103. 12 c. c. 4. 117. 21. Io 1.27. 1. Io. 2.27. Ibid. 24. 62. 26. 255. 8. 53. 35. 276. 11. 180. 380. 287. 5. in 8.14. in Mat. 8.14. 325. 34. Ep. 5. 1. Ep. 5. 343. 49. 309. 306. 396. 17. 10. 18. 401. 37. 145: 415. 405. 20. 2. 24. 446. 45. 67. 77. 448. 3. Mat. 11. Mat. 3.11. Jbid 5. 1408. 1048. Pag. 491. 61. 266. 260. 498. 106. 16. 61. 504. 21. etc. etc. p. 211. 515. 19 6. 60. 587. 68 18. 12. 588. 5. 597. 579. 590. 4. 3. 33. 595. 14. 442. 422. 689. 3. 82. 62. 690. ●2. ●23. 23. AN ALPHABETICAL TABLE, Directing where to found the particular Points handled in this Book, through every Chapter and Section, with reference to the Figures, where they are to be found. A. Absolution. FROM sin, given by Priests, See Penance. Abstinence. FRom certain meats: See Fasts. Absurdity. OF Prot. Real Presence. ch. 21. sect. 2. Adoration. OF the B. Sacrament. ch. 21. sect. 1. fig. 5. Sect. 5. fig. 30. & f. ●7. Angels. SEe Intercession and Invocation of Angels and Saintes. Antichrist. PRot. lies to make the Pope Antichrist. Ch. 10. sect. 1. f. 14. Prot. believe the Pope to be properly Antichrist. ib. f. 17. Antichrist is not yet come, nor any Pope Antichrist. sect. 2. He is to be one man. ib. f. 5. An open Adversary to Christian Religion. ib. f. 14. Is to sit in Hierus. ib. f. 20. His Reign short. ib. f. 23 Enoch and Elias are to oppose him. ib. f. 63. See also for these points the Fathers. sect. 3. & Prot. sect. 4. Object. answered. sect. 5. Apostles. ERred in their doctrine according to Prot. ch. 2. sect. 1. f. 29. B. Baptism. NEcessary to salvation. ch. 20. sect. 1. f. 1. sect. 2. 3. 4. Prot. lies concerning Baptism. sect. 1. f. 7. They think it not necessary. ib. f. 23. And are therein condemned with ancient Heretics. ib. f. 31. Their errors concerning Baptism. ib. f. 40. Object. answered. ib. sect 5. C. Chastity. Counselled. cha. 11. sec. 2. f. 1. sec. 3. f. 1. sec. 4. f. 7. vowed. ch. 12. sec. 2. f. 13. sec. 3. f. 1. by the B V Mary. ib. sec. 3. f. 13. sect. 4. Object. answered. sec. 5. Christ. THe first man that entered into Heaven. ch. 14. sec. 2. f. 1. See Limbus Patrum. Church. ROman Church mother of all Christians. Ep. Ded. to the Prot. Nob. Best Interpreter of Scriptures. Prep. sec. 10. What is understood here by the Church. ib. sec. 11. judge of Controversies. ch. 1. sec. 1. f. 1. sec. 2. 3. 4. Prot. untruths concerning the Church. ch. 1. sec. 1. f. 15. Church cannot err in matters of faith and manners. ch. 2. sec. 1. f. 1. sec. 2. 3. 4. Prot. lies in disgrace of Church and Counsels. ib. sec. 1. f. 11. According to Prot. the whole Church may err. ib. f. 15. And the same was taught by ancient Heretics. ib. f. 22. Objections against the Churches not erring answered. ib. sec. 5. Commandments. THe 10. Commandments rejected by some Prot. ch. 5. sec. 1. f. 18. They are possible to be kept. ch. 32. sec. 1. f. 1. sec. 2. 3. 4. Prot. lies. ib. sec. 1. f. 11. They deny them to be possible. ib. f. 13. And therein agreed with former heretics. ib. f. 24. Their Errors. ib. f. 29. Object. answered. sec. 5. Communion. Under one kind lawful. ch. 22. sec. 1. f. 1. sec. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Prot. untruths sect. 1. f. 11. They defend the use in both kinds. sec. 1. f. 13. And are therein condemned in ancient Heretics. ib. f. 16. Their gross Errors. ib. f. 19 Object. answered, sec. 7. Concupiscence. WIthout consent not sin. ch. 28. sec 1. f. 1. sec. 2. 3. 4. Prot. teach the contrary. ib. sec. 1. f. 7. And agreed therein with former Heretics. ib. f. 9 Object. answered. sec. 5. Confession. OF sins. See in Penance. Confirmation. A True Sacrament. ch. 19 sec. 1. f. 2. sec. 2. f. 9 sec. 3. f. 7. sec. 4. f. 1. Counsels. AVthority to determine Controversies. ch. 1. sec. 1. f. 3. sec. 2. f. 31. sec. 4. f. 28. Cannot err. ch. 2. sec. 2. f. 26. sec. 3. f. 7. sec. 4. f. 19 Counsels Evangelicall. Proved. ch. 11. sec. 1. f. 1. sec. 2. 3. 4. Prot. untruths concerning Counsels. ib. f. 3. They deny all Counsels. ib. f. 10. For which ancient Heretics were condemned. ib. f. 14. Prot. Errors concerning Counsels. ib. f. 20. Object. answered. sec. 5. Cross. TO be honoured. ch. 17. sec. 3. f. 12. The sign thereof to be made. ib. f. 17. sec. 4. f. 26. D. DEcrees. See Counsels. E. Errors. SEe in every Chap. sec. 1. §. Prot. Errors. Eucharist. SEe Real Presence. Extreme-Vnction. A True Sacrament. ch. 19 sec. 1. 2. 3. 4. F. Fasts prescribed. ANd abstinence from certain meats proved to be lawful. ch. 27. sec. 1. f. 1. sec 2. 4. Prot. untruths. ib. sec. 1. f. 11. They impugn them. ib. f 15. They agreed with ancient Heretics. ib. f. 18. Their Errors. ib. f. 33. Object. answered. sec. 5. Fathers. AVthority to interpret Scriptures. ch. 1. sec. 1. f. 5. sec. 4. f. 47. Freewill. Proved ch. 31. sec. 1. f. 1. sec. 2. 3. 4. Prot. untruths. ib. sec. 1. f. 24. Prot. deny it. ib. f. 26. And agreed therein with ancient Heretics. ib. f. 30. Their gross Errors. ib. f. 36. Objections answered. sec. 5. H. Hell. SEe Limbus Patrum. Heresies. SEe sec. 1. of every Chapter. 5. Prot. agreed with ancient Heretics. I. jesus. THis name is to be honoured. ch. 17. sec. 4. f. 21. Images of Saintes. MAy be made, and worshipped, proved. ch. 17. sec. 1. 2. 3. 4. Prot. untruths. sec. 1. f. 9 Prot impugn Images ib. f. 14. For which ancient Heretics were condemned. ib. f. 18. Prot. Errors in this. ib. f. 24. The Image of God himself, or the B. Trinity may be made. sec. 2. f. 12. They may be placed in Churches. ib. f. 21. f. 3. & worshipped. f 30. Object. answered. sec. 5. The second Commandment not taken away in behalf of Images. sec. 3. f. 6. sec. 5. f. 33. Indulgenc s. Proved. ch. 26 sec. 1. f. 1. sec. 2. 3 4. Prot. untruths. ib. sec. 1. They impugn Indulgences ib. f. 25. And are therein condemned, with ancient Heretics. ib. f. 28. Object. answered. sec. 5. Intercession & Invocation. OF Angels and Saintes proved ch. 16. sec. 1. 2. 3. 4. Prot. lies. sec. 1. f. 11. They deny this Intercession & Invocation. ib. f. 18. And are therein condemned with old Heretics. ib. f. 27. Prot. Errors herein. ib. f. 34. The Angels and Saints do know our Prayers. sec. 2. f. 1. sec. 4. Angels and Saints do pray for us. ib. f. 26. sec. 3. 4. We may pray to them. sec. 2. ib. f. 45. sec. 3. 4. Object. answered. sec. 5. judge of Controversies. SEe Church, and Scriptures. justice and faith may be lost. Proved. ch. 34. sec. 2. f. 20. sec. 2. f. 20. sec. 4. f. 5. justice's inherent. Proved. ch. 35. sec. 1. f. 1. sec. 2. 3. 4. Prot. deny it. ib. sec. 1. 1. 14. And therein agreed with ancient Heretics. ib. f. 17. Their Errors. ib. f. 21. Object. answered. sec. 5. justification by faith & works. Proved ch. 36. sec. 1. f. 1. sec. 2. 3. 4. Prot. lies. ib. sec. 1. f. 7. They teach only faith to justify. ib. f. 11. wherein they agreed with condemned Heretics. ib. f. 17. Th●ir Errors. ib. f. 20. Object. answered. sec. 5. K. Knowledge. KNowledge of true Religion necessary. Pref. to the Prot. Read. how to be gained. ib. KNowledge of our Predestination, & salvation not infallible. ch. 34. sec. 1. f. 1. sec. 2. 3. 4. Prot. untruths. ib. sec. 1. f. 9 They teach that every man aught infallibly to believe his own Predestination and Salvation. ib. f. 11. Prot. Errors. ib. f. 18. Object. answered. sec. 5. L. Limbus Patrum. CHrist descended into Hell. ch. 14. sec. 1. 2. 3. 4. Prot. in the understanding of this Articles are divided amongst themselves. ib. sec. 1. f. 11. Their Errors in this ib. 18. Before Christ's descending the souls of the just were in Limbus. sec. 2. f. 10. Object. answered. sec. 5. Luther's gross errors. c. 9 sec. 1. f. 30. and sec sec. 1. of every Chapter. §. Protestant Errors. M. Mass. A True Sacrifice. ch. 23. sec. 1. f. 1. sec. 2. 1. 4. Prot. Untruths. ib. sec. 1. f. 10. They deny all proper external Sacrifice. ib. f. 28. And are therein condemned with ancient Heretics. ib. f. 31. Object. answered. sec. 5. Matrimony. A True Sacrament. ch. 19 sec. 1. 2. 3. 4. Method. Observed throughout this Book. Pref. to the Prot. Reader. Moses. A Priest. cha. 1. sec. 2. f. 4. sec. 3. f. 1. N. Nobility. Wherein it consisteth. Ep. Dedic. to the Prot. Nob. Nobility by birth much to be honoured. ib. by virtue more. ib. Christian Nobility what, and most to be esteemed. ib. To degenerate from Nobility dishonourable. ib. O. Omnipotency of God Denied by Prot. ch. 21. sec. 1. f. 75. Orders. A True Sacrament. ch. 19 sec. 1. 2. 3. 4. P. Pastors of the Church. ARe to decide controversies. ch. 1. sec. 2. f. 32. sec. 4. f. 56. According to some Prot. the Church for some ages had no Pastors. ch. 2. sec. 1. f. 25. Pastors of the Church are to be obeyed. ch. 2. sec. 2. f. 42. Pennance a true Sacrament. Proved. ch. 19 sec. 2. fol. 15. ch. 24. sec. 1. f. 1. sec. 2. 3. 4. Priest's power to forgive sins. ib. sec. 1. f. 1. sec. 2. f. 1. sec. 3. sec. 4. Confession of sins necessary. ib. sec. 1. f. 4. sec. 2. f. 14. sec. 3. f. 1. sec. 4. Prot. untruths. ib. sec. 1. f. 18. They reject this Sacrament, and all necessity of Confession. ib. f. 20. And are therein condemned with former Heretics. ib. f. 34. Their dangerous Errors. ib. 43. Pennance imposed after Confession. sec. 3. f. 17. Object. answered. sec. 5. S. Peter's Primacy. Proved. ch. 8. sec. 1. f. 1. sec. 2. 3. 4. Prot. give this Primacy some to Ministers, others to the Laity, others to Temporal Princes, men or women. ib. f. 10. Denial of S. Peter's Primacy condemned for heresy. ib. f. 14. Primacy denied to Christ as man by Prot. ib. f. 16. Object. answered. sec. 5. Pope. POpe cannot err in defyning matters of faith. ch. 2. sec. 2. f. 48. sec. 3. f. 10. Successor to S. Peter in Primacy. ch. 9 sec. 1. f. 1. sec. 2. 3. 4. Prot. untruths against the Pope. sec. 1. f. 16. Some Prot. made a woman their supreme head. ib. f. 20. Others admit none but Christ. ib. f. 21. The denial of his Primacy condemned in ancient Heretics. ib. f. 25. Object. answered. sec. 5. Poverty. Counselled. ch. 11. sec. 2. f. 5. sec. 3. f. 5. Poverty vowed. ch. 12. sec. 2. f. 10. sec. 3. f. 2. 6. sec. 5. f. 4. Priests. ARe not to be married. ch. 13. see. 2. 3. 4. Prot. lies for Priest's marriage. ib. sec. 1. f. 1. They allow their Bishops and ministers to marry. ib. f. 11. For which they are codemned with ancient heretics. ib. f. 13. Prot. Errors concerning Priest's marriage. ib. f. 18. Object. answered. sec. 5. Priest's power to forgive sins. See in Penance. Private spirit. NOt sufficient to decide Controversies, or to interpret Scriptures. ch. 4. sec. 1. f. 1. 2 3. 4. 5. Challenged by Prot. and ancient Heretics. ib. f. 6. 8. Object. answered. ib. sec. 6. Punishment, or Satisfaction. Remainss, the ●ault being pardoned. ch. 25. sec. 1. f. 1. sec. 2. 3. 4. Prot. lies. ib. sec. 1. f. 14. They deny all necessity of any Satisfaction. ib. f. 20. Object. answered. sec. 5. Purgatory, and Prayer for the dead. Proved. ch. 15. sec. 1. 2. 3. 4. Prot. untruths concerning Purgatory. sec. 1. f. 9 Prot. deny Purgatory. ib. f. 11. And are therein condemned with ancient Heret. ib. f. 14. Prot. Errors concerning Purg. ib. f. 20. Object. answered. sec. 5. R. Real Presence. Proved. ch. 21. sec. 1. f. 1. sec. 3. 4. 5. 6. 10. Prot. untruths. ib. sec 1. f. 21. Their Real Presence what. ib. sec. 1. f. 33. sec. 2. They are condemned with ancient Heret ib. s●c 1 f. 38. And teach gross Errors. ib sec. 1. f. 68 Object. answered. sec. 7. 8. 9 Reservation of the B. Sacrament. ch. 21. sec. 1. f. 4. sec. 5. f. 15. S. Sacraments. THey confer Grace. ch. 18. sec. 1. f. 1. sec. 2. 3. 4. 5 Prot. untruths concerning the Sacraments ib sec. 1. f. 27. They equal them only with the Sacraments of the old Law. ib. f. 36. They are condemned with ancient Heretics. ib. f. 39 They dislike the word Sacrament. ib. f. 44. And teach that the Devil may administer Sacraments. ib. f. 47. That women may ●re●ch. f. 49. That all Christians are Priests. f. 48. And that Intention is not necessary in the Administration of them. ib. f 50. Object. answered. sec. 6. Sacraments seven. ch. 19 sec 1. f. 2. sec. 2. 3. 4 5. Prot. untruths concerning the number of Sacraments ib. sec. 1. f. 33. They allow only ●●o. ib. f. 58. therein they are condemned with ancient Heret. ib f. 55. They hold gross Errors herein. ib. f. 70. Object. answered. sec. 6. Sacrifice. SEe Mass. Scriptures. ARe the true word of God, and in all things to be believed. Prop. sec. 1. f 1. sec. 2. 3. 4. Rejected by some Prot. ib & ch. 1. sec. 1. f. 53. To corrupt or reject Scriptures impious. Pre. sec. 5. Scriptures true sense necessary to be found Prep. sec. 6. Scriptures how said to be the book of Heretics. ib. f. 7. They admit several true senses. ib. sec 7. The literal sense affoardeth the strongest argument. ib. sec. 7 ep. 16. Mystical sense not so forcible. ib. f. 13. How to discern the literal sense from the figurative. ib. sec. 8. And how to find out the true sense. ib. Rules observed by Prot for the finding out of the true sense, refuted. ib sec. 9 The certain Rule thereof is the Church. ib. sec. 10. What Catholics here understand by the Church, ib. sec. 11. Scriptures according to some Prot. sole judge of Controversies. ch. 1. sec. 1. f. 24. according to others the Private spirit. ib. f. 30. Appealing to Scriptures used b● Prot. condemned by the Fathers in Ancient Heretics. ib. f. 35. Prot. Errors against t●e Authority of. 〈◊〉 Scripture. ib. f. 53. Scriptures difficult to be understood. ch. 3. sec. 1. f. 1. sec. 2. 3. 4. 5. According to Prot. most easy. ib. f. 3. Conference of Scripture doth not make it easy. ib. sec. 6. Objections answered. ib. sec. 7. Sundry Books of Script. rejected by Prot. ch. ●. sec. 1. f. 18. Sins. Mortal and Venial. ch. 29. sec. 1. f. 1. sec. 2. 3. 4. According to Prot. all Mortal. ib. sec. 1. f. 7. wherein they are condemned with Ancient Heretics. ib. f. 12. Their gross Errors. ib. f. 17. Object answered. sec. 5. God is not the author of sin. ch. 30. sec. 1. f. 1. sec. 2. 3. 4. 5. Prot. lies. ib. sec. 1. f. 19 They teach that he is the Author of sin. ib. f. 12. And agreed therein with former Heretics. ib. f. 43. Object. answer. sec. 6. T. Toby, judith etc. ARe Canonical Scriptures. ch. 5. sec. 1. f. 1. sec. 2. 3. 4. Denied as Apocryphal by Prot. ib. f. 9 Objections answered. sec. 5. Traditions. Proved. ch. 7. sec. 1. f. 1. sec. 2. 3. 4. Prot. lies concerning Traditions. ib. sec. 1. f. 6. Traditions denied by Prot. ib. f. 16. And ancient Heretics. f. 21. Sundry particular Traditions by Prot. sec. 4. f. 4. Object. answered. sec. 5. Translations of the Bible. THe vulgar Latin proved to be best. ch. 6. sec. 1. f. 1. sec. 2. f. 34. Rejected by some Prot. sec. 1. f. 15. Luther's Translation corrupt. sec. 2. f. 1. And so are all other Prot. Translations. ib. Object. against the Vulgar Translation answered. sec. 3. Transubstantiation. CHap. 21. sec. 1. 3. V Vows. Vows of perfection lawful. ch. 12. sec. 1. f. 1. sec. 2. 3. 4. Prot. Untruths, concerning vows. ib. f. 2. 1. f. 11. vows impugned by Prot. ib. f. 14. For which they are condemned with ancient Heret. ib. 20. Objections answered. sec. 5. W. Works of the just, are not all sins. Proved ch. 33. sec. 1. f. 1. sec. 2. 3. 4. Prot. teach all works of the just to be sinful. ib. sec. 1. f. 5. Prot. Errors. ib. f. 9 Object. answered. sec. 1. f. 5. Prot. Object. answered. sec. 5. Works that are good do merit. Proved ch. 37. sec. 1. f. 1. sec. 2. 3. 4. Prot. untruths. ib. sec. 1. f. 13. They deny all merit to works. ib. f. 17. And therein agreed with former Heretics. ib. f. 21. Their Errors. sec. 1. f. 32. Object. sec. 5. Works that are good, do justify. SEe justification. FINIS.