A MANUEL OF CONTROVERSIES: CLEARLY Demonstrating the truth of Catholic Religion By Texts of holy Scripture, Councils of all Ages, Fathers of the first 500 years, Common sense and reason. AND Fully answering the principal Objections of Protestants, and all other Sectaries. By H. T. DEUT. 32. 7. Remember the old days, think upon every Generation: ask thy Father, and he will declare to thee; thy Elders, and they will tell thee. At Douai, by Laurence Kellam. 1654. TO The truly Noble, Sir C. F. Knight and Baronet, And the perfectly virtuous, Mistress S. H. Dear and honoured friends! HE is accounted a good Master of Rhetoric who can make much of a little: but I think him a better Friend of Truth (especially in controverted points) that makes a little of much, by summing up the substance of things disputed into heads, proving his Positives, and solving others Negatives, with short intelligible Arguments and Answers, which I have aimed at in this little Manuel. If I have done it well, I have my wish; if not, at lest accept my endeavour. You were the first whose patience perused it, in a rough hand: I have now somewhat smoothed it by the Press, and chief in obedience to your commands: give me therefore leave to offer it, as a pledge of my affectionate respects to both, under the shadow of your ingenious Patronage: and as you once were pleased to think well of it, being unpolished; so give it your protection, being perfected, and you abundantly shall crown his labours, who is ambitious to be styled Honoured Friends, Your most devoted, and very humble servant, H. T. To the Reader. IF the unusual method of this little Treatise seem less accommodated to Vulgar capacities (it being indeed the proper form of Schools) at lest I hope the matter will so far please all, and suit with all, as to rectify some mistaken judgements, if not possessed with too much passion, prejudice, or interest. That which moved me to draw it in this form, was the desired satisfaction of some judicious and strong reasoning friends, who could not perhaps have so easily been persuaded to their own good by any long Rhetorical argumentation, as by this short and syllogistical way. The wished effect it wrought in them, gives me some hope, if seriously perused, it may also work the like in many others: the proposed object of my weak endeavours. Finding it than agreed by all parties, that Christ our Lord hath founded and built a Church in his own blood, which was the only Mistress of divine faith, and sole Repository of all revealed Truths, at lest for an age or two: where can I better initiate my following Arguments, than from the Controversies of the Church, the most important doubtless of all others; since on the notion & eviction of her Authority, all other points essentially depend, for their knowledge and decision? My first essay therefore shall be to prove the Roman Catholic Church to be the only true Church of God, by showing all the most conspicuous marks, and eminent properties of the Church, assigned us by Christ himself, to have been verified in her, and none but her. This done, I shall proceed to vindicate her particular and principal doctrines, wherein she hath been most impugned by Sectaries. H. T. APPROBATIO. LIbrum hunc cui Titulus (A Manuel of Controversies, etc.) diligenter legi, in quo nihil Orthodoxae & Christianae fidei dissonum deprehendi; immò methodo facili, compendiosa, & ad docendum accommodata, Veritas Catholica, Catholicis fundamentis stabilitur, Haeresesque solidè, ac erudite in eo refelluntur; ideoque dignum judico, qui in communem utilitatem imprimatur. Onuphrius Eliseus S. T. Doctor nuper Collegii Anglorum Ulissiponensis Professor & Praeses. Datum Duaci 14 April. 1654. Ad H. T. post visum Euchiridion ipsius. PLures singula scripserant, & volumina inflaverant: laborabamus copia, & multitudo prolixitasque Scriptorum e●a●●onerosa. Deficien●●s Protestantiae ●e●●●●▪ Concinentes Scripturas & Pa●res 〈◊〉 Catholicis propter●a objecta●a●●, quia in 〈…〉 non 〈…〉. T●m 〈…〉 is, de 〈…〉, qui ●●nipulos 〈…〉 C●e●ubinorum su 〈…〉 'em ve●e●anda suffragia, 〈…〉 picula slagitaverit, ad 〈…〉, tuâ operâ illi adsunt. 〈…〉 Christianae per t● armatae; 〈…〉 & ●●●um in Caelis te manentem 〈…〉, & (si qua tibi adeo levis est cura) 〈…〉 Patriae plausum & admirationem: 〈…〉 stare & audire, & gaudio gaudere ●●●●ter vocem sponsi Amico tuo Thomae ex Albiis East-Saxonum. Datum Pridie Kalendas Aprilis 1654. APPROBATIO. LIbrum, cui titulus à Manuel of Controversies, Authore H. T. Viro Docto, cordato, probato, haereo dicere an majore cum gustu perlegerim, an fructu imbiberim; utrumque aequo Lectori ausim promittere: nimirum inveniet, quisquis ille fuerit, Fidem Apostolicam, Catholicam, Romanam, non solum sa●tam-tectam ubique custoditam, sed & Orth●d●xis quidem suaviter reboratam, Heterodoxis autem, cujusvis fuerint maniae, non minus fortiter inculcatam, &, nisi tenebris suis immori velint, meridiana luce irradiatam. Habent in hac sylva Fideles, hinc gladium quo hostes feriant, scutum inde quo sese protegant, ubique armaturam fidei qua ignea Inferni tela, modo frangant, modo propellant, semper ipsi incolumes extinguant: sed & habent Sectarii ex Scripturis, Conciliis, Patribus Collyria quibus oculos inungant; vident tela sua facta es●e sagittas parvulorum, aut fracta aut retorta, semper cassa: quare vel nova cudant vel lassum Brontem Steropemque relinquant. Velim magis, arma animosque submittant, veritati magnae, praevalenti cedant, Matrique Ecclesiae ac Deo sese suosque concilient. Prodeatitaque saeculi nostri Monit●rium Aureum, & non imprimatur cuntaxa●, sed & manibus omnium prematur, teratur, quibus vel veneranda arridet Authoritas, vel constat Ratio, vel quibus denique cordi salus eterna est: sic censet, sic optat Ed. Daniel, S. Theologiae Doctor ejusdemque Professor. Datum Duaci Kal. Maiis, Anno salutis humanae, 1654. A Table of the Contents of the several Articles. THe true Church of God demonstrated by her continued succession Article 1. pag. 1 That Protestants have no continued succession Art 2. p. 43 The Catholic Church's visibility asserted Art 3 p. 53 The true Church demonstrated by her unity and universality Art 4. p. 61 The Church's infallibility demonstrated Art 5 p. 68 The true Church demonstrated by her Sanctity and Miracles Art 6. p. 8● The Pipes supremacy asserted Art 7. p. 90 Of Apostolical Tradition Art 8. p. 103 Of Schism and Heresy Art 9 p. 121 Of the real and substantial presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Blessed Sacrament; wherein the captious Objections of Dr. Taylor are fully answered Art 10. p. 127 Of Transubstantiation Art 11. p. 182 Of Communion under one kind Art 12. p. 209 Of the unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass Art 13 p. 221 Of the Liturgy and public prayer in an unknown tongue Art 14. p. 236 Of Sacramental Confession and Absolution Art 15. p. 244 Of Purgatory Art 16. p. 252 Of Prayer for the dead Art 17. p. 258 Of Indulgences Art 18. p. 266 Of sin, both mortal and venial Art 19 p. 275 Of the worship and Invocation of Angels and Saints Art 20. p. 284 Of Relics Art 21. p. 300 Of sacred Images Art 22. p. 307 Of Free will Art 23. p. 324 Of saving or justifying Faith Art 24. p. 333 Of the merit of Works Art 25. p. 344 Of Vows Art 26. p. 353 Of the possibility of keeping the Commandments Art 27. p. 361 Of the Sacraments Art 28. p. 368 The Appendix, wherein an unauthentick citation out of Spelman, de Conciliis, (which is vainly made use of by Dr. Hammond and others, to defend their party from Schism▪ and to prove the nonsubjection of the ancient Britan's to the Sea of Rome) is clearly confu●ed p. 401 ERRATA. PAge 6. l. 13. Felix. p. 11. l. 21. Altar. p. 24. l. 1. 900. p. 27. l 8, 9 Lateran Council under P. Nich. 2. Anno 1057 l. 10 penances. & l. 16. Simeon. p. 33. l. 4. Suso. p. 54. l. 18. (his Church) p. 58. l. 26. connexion. p. 59 l. 11. parity. p. 83. l. 13. Ephes. 5. 27. p. 85. l. 9 multitude. & l. 27. Mark 16. 17. p. 86. l. 12. Assissium. p. 109. l. 5. I frame my. p. 119. l. 12. all divinely. p. 123 l. 23. defined. p. 141. l. 4. lively. p. 160. l. 21. 1 Cor. 11. p. 168, l. 8. bring. p. 172. l. 13. do not you. p. 187. l. 2. fore no. p. 190. l. 14. the bread his body. p. 199. l. 5. time being. p. 238. l. 8. you all to▪ p. 277. l. 20. the last. p. 372. l: 17. salvation is necessary, as. & l. 21. deal is necessary. p. 407. l. 14. bfudddod. A MANUEL OF CONTROVERSIES. ARTICLE I. The true Church of God demonstrated by her continued Succession. OUr Tenet is, That the Church now in Communion with the Sea of Rome, is the only true Church of God: which we prove thus. The Argument. 1. Major. That is the only true Church of God, which has had a continued Succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time. 2. Minor. But the Church now in Communion with the Sea of Rome, and no other, has had a continued Succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time. 3. Conclusion. Therefore the Church now in communion with the Sea of Rome, and no other, is the true Church of God. The Major, or first Proposition, is proved out of the Prophets and promises of Christ. My Spirit which is in thee, and my words which I have put into thy mouth, shall not departed out of thy mouth, and out of the mouth of thy seed for ever. Isa. 59 21. Arise, be illuminated, O Jerusalem, because thy light is come, etc. and the Gentiles shall walk in thy light, etc. and thy Gates shall be open continually day and night, they shall not be shut, that the strength of the Gentiles may be brought to thee, etc. Isa. 60 1,3,11. Upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, I have appointed Watchmen all the day, and all the night for ever, they shall not hold their peace. Isa. 62. 6. An everlasting Covenant shall be to them, I will found them, and multiply them, and give my Sanctification in the midst of them for ever, Ezech. 37. 26. All Nations, Tribes, and Tongues, shall serve him, his power is an eternal power that shall not be taken away, and his kingdom shall not be corrupted, Dan. 7. 13,14. Go ye, teaching all Nations, baptising them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, etc. And behold I am with you all days, even to the cousummation of the world, S. Math. 28. 20. I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclite, that he may abide with you for ever, the Spirit of truth, S. John 14. 16. Christ gave some Apostles, A MANUEL OF CONTROVERSIES. ARTICLE I. The true Church of God demonstrated by her continued Succession. OUr Tenet is, That the Church now in Communion with the Sea of Rome, is the only true Church of God; which we prove thus. The Argument. 1. Major. That is the only true Church of God, which has had a continued Succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time, and shall have from hence to the end of the world. 2. Minor. But the Church now in Communion with the Sea of Rome, and no other, has had a continued Succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time, and consequently shall have to the end of the world. 3. Consequence. Therefore the Church now in communion with the Sea of Rome, and no other, is the true Church of God. The Major, or first Proposition, is proved out of the Prophets and promises of Christ. My Spirit which is in thee, and my words which I have put into 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, from hencesorth, and for ever, saith the Lord, Isa. 59 21. And again, Arise, be illuminated, O Jerusalem, because thy light is come, etc. and the Gentiles shall walk in thy light, etc. and thy Gates shall be open continually day and night, they shall not be shut, that the strength of the Gentiles may be brought to thee, and their Kings may be brought, etc. Isa: 60. 1. 3. 11. Upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, I have appointed Watchmen all the day, and all the night for ever, they shall not hold their peace, Isa. 62. 6. An everlasting Covenant shall be to them, I will found them, and multiply them, and give my Sanctification in the midst of them for ever, Ezechiel 37. 26. All Nations, Tribes, and Tongues shall serve him, his power is an eternal power that shall not be taken away, and his Kingdom shall not be corrupted, Dan. 7. 13, 14. Go ye teaching all Nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, etc. And behold I am with you all days, even to the cousummation of the world,. S. Mat. 28. 20. I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclite, that he may abide with you for ever, the Spirit of truth, S. John 14. 16. Christ gave some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastors, s●●● Doctors, to the consummation of the Saints, etc. unt●● we all meet in the unity of Faith, etc. that now we b● not children wavering and carried about with every wind of doctrine, Ephes. 4. 11, 12, 13, 14. The minor, or second Proposition of the Argument is proved by this ensuing Catalogue of th● Roman Churches chief Pastors, Councils, Nations converted, and public Professors of h●● Faith. From the year of Christ 30. Chief Pastors. General Councils. 30 Our B. Saviour Jesus Christ. The Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem, S. Peter presiding, Acts 15. 34 S. Peter Apostle. 69 Linus. 80 Cletus. 93 Clement. From the year 100 103 An●cletus. 112 Euaristus. 121 Alexander. 132 Sixtus I 142 Telesphorus. 154 Higinius. 158 Pius 1. 165 Anic●tus. 175 Soter. 179 Eleutherius. 194 Victor. In this first Age or Century after Jesus Christ, we found the primacy in S. Peter, as is manifest by the said Council in the Acts, where (after a serious debate, whether the Jewish Ceremonies aught to be imposed on the Gentiles) S. Peter defined in the Negative, saying; Men, brethrens, you know that of old, God amongst us chose, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the Word of the Gospel, and believe, and God who knoweth the hearts gave testimony, giving to them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us, and hath put no difference between them and us, by faith purifying their hearts; now therefore why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the necks of the Disiples, which neither our Forefathers, nor we have been able to hear? Acts 15. 7, 8, 9, 10. S. James (who was Bishop of the place) seconding by his sentence what Peter had decreed. All the multitude (saith S▪ Hierome) held their peace, and into his (Peter) sentence, James the Apostle, and all the Priests did pass together, Epist. 89. to August. ●. 2. Peter (saith he in the same place) was Prince and Author of the Decree. That S. Peter translated his Chair from Antioch to Rome, is proved. First, because he remained not always at Antioch, as all that Church acknowledgeth, nor did she ever challenge the first Chair in any General Council, as appears in the Counsels. Secondly, by the Decrees of Counsels, Popes, and other Fathers, giving the primacy to the Roman Church. The Council of Sardis (An. Dom. 400. Western Fathers 300. Eastern 76.) decreed, That in cases of Bishops for the honour of S. Peter's memory, it should be lawful to appeal from whatsoever other Bishop to the Bishop of Rome, Can. 3. The Council of Chalcedon (An. Dom. 451. Fathers 600.) We throughly consider truly, that all primacy and chief honour, according to the Canons, is to be kept for the Archbishop of old Rome. Action 16. And in the relation of the said Council to Pope Leo, We have confirmed (say they) the rule of the 150. Fathers in the first Constantinopolitan Council Anno 381. which hath commanded, that after th● most holy and Apostolic Sea (of Rome) the Constantinopolitan should have honour. Pope Antherus, Anno 238. (being asked by the Bishops of Bettica and Toletum, whether it were lawful for a Bishop to be changed from one City to another?) answered affirmatively, as Peter (Prince of the Apostles▪ was changed from Antioch to Rome. Decret. 7. q. ● And S. Greg. says, He knows no Bishop but is subject to the Sea of Rome, Epist. 62. Catholic Professors to the year 100 THe B. Virgin, S. John Baptist▪ S. John Evangelist, etc. Ma●tha, Magdalen, S. Paul, S. Steven, Timothy, Barnabas, Tecla, Dennis, Martial, Ignatius, Clement, etc. The Church was spread in this Age over all those Countries to which S. Paul wrote his Epistles; as also France, Spain, England, etc. See Baronius. Catholic Professors to the year 200. EVstachius, Hermes, Getulius, Policarpe, Concordius, Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Iraeneus, Vincen●●us, Potentianus, Sophia, Fides, Spes, Charitas, S. Fe●city, with her seven children, Lucius King of ●ngland, etc. The Apostles Canons define, That if any Bishop ● Priest (the Oblation (Mass) being made) shall not communicate, he should be excommunicate, as giving suspicion of him who hath sacrificed, that he hath not ●t rightly offered. Can. 9 approved in the sixth General Synod. From the year of Christ 200. Chief Pastors. General Council●. 204 Zepherinus. 221 Calixtus. 1. 227 Vrbanus. 1. 223 Pontianus. 238 Antherus. 239 Fabianus. 254 Cornelius. 255 Lucius. 257 Stephanus. 1. 260 Sixtus. 2. 261 Dionysius. 1. 273 Faelix. 1. 275 Eutychianus. 284 Caius. 296 Marcellinus. The second and third Ages, (whether by reason of the Churches great persecutions, or th● not stirring of any famous Heretics) produced no Counsels, yet a Succession of Popes, Martyrs and Confessors we have, which is sufficient for ou● purposes? The Decrees of Popes in these Ages. Anacletus Decreed, That Priests, when they sacr●fice to our Lord, must not do it alone, but have wi●ness with them, that they may be proved to have sacrificed perfectly to God in sacred places, etc. so the Apostles have appointed, and the Roman Church holds. 1. Epist. de consecrat. d. 1. c. Episcopus. And in the end of the same Epistle; If more difficult questions shall arise, let them be referred to the Apostolic Sea of (Rome) for so the Apostles have ordained by the command of our Lord. An. Dom. 101. Alexander decreed, That Bread only, and Wine mingled with water, should be offered in the sacrifice of the Mass. Epist. Orthod. de consec. d. 2. c. in Sacrament, Sixtus decreed, That the sacred mysteries (the B. Eucharist) and sacred Vessels should not be touched, but by sacred Ministers, and that the Priest beginning Mass, the people should sing Holy! Holy! Holy! etc. in his Epist. to all the faithful of Christ, Anno Dom. 129. Telesphorus commanded the seven weeks of Lent to be fasted, Epist. Decret. Anno Dom. 139. Pius in his Epistle to the Italians, enjoined penance for him, by whose negligence any of the Blood of our Lord should be spilt. q. 1. c. Qui compulsus. An. D. 147. Anicetus tells us, That James was made Bishop of Jerusalem by S. Peter, James and John, in his decretal Epist. to the Bishops of France, and citys Anacletus for it. Epist. 2. dist. 25. c. Prohibet fratres. Soter decreed, That no man should say Mass after he had eaten or drunk. De consec. dist. 1. c. illud. Zepherinus decreed, That the greater causes of the Church are to be determined by the Apostolic Sea, because so the Apostles, and their Successors had ordained. Epist. to the Bishops of Sicily, 217. These were all Popes of Rome, but no true Protestants, I hope. Catholic Professors to the year 300. SImplicius, Callepodius, Abdon, Sennen, Pamachius, Tyburtius, Valerianus, Marcellinus, Dorotheus, Gordianus, Pudentiana, Triphon, Blasius, Maximianus, Clemens, Barbara, Agatha, Apollonia, Cyprianus, Hippolytus, Gregorius, Thaumaturgus, Laurentius, Tharsus, Cecilia. Victorius, Nemesius, Olympius, Adrianus, Georgius, Pantaleon, Agnes, Barlaam, Gereon, with his companions, Cosmas, Damianus, Mauritius, with the Theban Legion, etc. Catholic Professors to the year 400. DOmnus with 2000 Martyrs, Lucianus, Theodorus, Paul the first Eremite, Jacobus Nissibitanus, Spiridion, Macharius, Nicholaus, Helena (the Mother of Constantine the Great) Constantine (the first Christian Emperor) Marcus, Arethusius, Nycetas, Theodorus, Antonius, Hilarion, Athanasius, Paulus Constantinopolitanus, Hilarius, Martianus, Basilius, Hieronimus, Epiphanius, Patianus, Ambrose, Cyril of Jerusalem, etc. Nations converted. Dacians, Gebes, Bessi●es, Scythians, Morines, Armenians, Huns, Indians, Ethiopians, etc. From the year of Christ 300. Chief Pastors. General Counsels. 304 Marcellus. The 1. Nicene Council (Fathers 328.) approved by Pope Sylvester, An. Dom. 325. against Arrius. 309 Eusebius. 312 Melchiades. 314 Sylvester. Authors, Cedrenus, Potius, Socrates, Eusebius. 336 Malchus. 337 Julius. The 1. Constantinopolitan Council (Fathers 150.) Pope Damasus presiding, Anno Dom. 381. against Macedonius. 352 Liberius. 358 Faelix. 2. 367 Damasus. 385 Siricius. Authors, Socrates, Photius, Baronius. 398 Anastasius. 402 Innocentius I The 1. Epbesine Council, (Fathers 200.) Pope Celestine presiding, Anno Dom. 431. against Nestor. 417 Sozimus. 419 Bonifacius. 1. 424 Celestinus. 1. 432 Sixtus. 3. Authors, Nicephorus, Baronius. 440 Leo Magnus. 461 Hilarius. The Chalcedon Council, (Fathers 600.) Pope Leo presiding, Anno Dom. 451. against Eutyches. 468 Simplicius. 483 Faelix. 492 Gelasius. 1. 497 Anastasius. 2. Authors, Leo, Epist. 50. Baronius, etc. 499 Symmachus. Anno Dom. 500 The 1. Nicene Council defined against Arrius, That the Son of God is consubstantial to his Father, and true God. 2. That he who holds the Sea of Rome, is the Head and chief of all the Patriarches, seeing he is the first, as Peter, to whom power (Ecclesiastical) is given over all Christian Princes, and all their people, etc. and whoever shall contradict this, is excommunicated by the Synod. Can. 39 Arab. 3. That by Baptism a man is freed from the servitude and corruption of sin, l. 3. decre●. 4. That the Lamb of God, which takes away the sins of the world, is placed on the sacred Table (the Author) to be sacrificed by the Priest unbloudily, and that we receiving his precious body and blood, do believe these things to be signs of our Resurrection, l. 3. decret. de Divina mensa. It decreed, That a Bishop dying, notice shall be given of his death, to all Churches and Monasteries in the Parish, that prayer be made for him, c. 65. Arabico. And, that Deacons (who have no power to offer Sacrifice) aught not to give the Body and Blood of Christ to Priests, who have such power, Can. 14. The 1. Constantinop. Council defined against Macedonius, who denied the Holy Ghost to be God, and decreed the Bishop of Constantinople to be chief, next the Bishop of Rome. The 1. Ephesine Council defined against Nestor, who denied the B. Virgin to be the Mother of God, c. 1. 2. 3. 4. It defined, that S. Peter was the Head and Prince of the Apostles, and that the Power of losing and binding sins, was given by our Lord to S. Peter, who (in his Successors) lives and exercises Judgement to this very time, and always, A●●. 3. The Council of Ca●cedon defined against E●tyches and Dioscorus, who denied two natures in Christ, affirming, that the human nature was changed into the Divinity. In the third action of this Council, Pope Leo is called Universal Archbishop and Patriarch of old Rome, and sentence is pronounced against Dioscorus in the names of Leo, and S. Peter, to acknowledge Leo to be S. Peter's Successor. The Eleberine Council in Spain, subscribed by Osius, and others, who were present at the first Nicene Council▪ defined, that Bishops, Priests, and Deacons should abstain from their wives, or else be degraded, c. 33. Age the 4. The 2. Council at Arles under Pope Sylvester defined, that no man, who was married, could be made a Priest, unless a conversion w●re promised. Can. 2. Catholic Professors to the year 500 SEverinus, Tigrius, Exuperius, Eutropius, S. John Chrysostom, Paulinus, Mauritius, S. Augustine, Maximus, Sofimus, Vincentius Lyrinensis, Jacobus P●rsa, Alexius, S. Cyril of Alexandria, Vrsulae with 11000▪ Virgins, Prosper, Honoratus, Palladius, Bonifacius, Euthimius, Simon Stelites, Chrysologus, Patricius, Eugenius, Fulgentius, Bo●tius, Epiphanius Tycinensis, Severinus, etc. The Scots converted by Palladius, the French by S. Remigius and Ved●stus. 4979. Martyrs of Africa, and many others. From the year of Christ 500 Chief Pastors. General Counsels. 514 Hormisda. 524 Joannes 1. The 2. Constantinopolitan Council, Pope Vigilius presiding (Fathers 165. Anno Domini 553.) against Anthimius, and Theodore. 526 Faelix 4. 530 Bonifacius 2. 532 Joannes 2. 535 Agapetus. 537 Sylverius. 540 Vigilius. Authors, Zonorus, Nicephorus, and Baronius. 556 Pelagius 1. 560 Joannes 3. 573 Benedictus. 1. 578 Pelagius. 2. 590 Gregorius Magnus. This 2. Constantinopolitan Council defined, That our Lord Jesus Christ crucified in the flesh, is both the true Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity. Can. 10. against Peter the Arch▪ bishop of Constantinople, who held, That the whole trinity was crucified for us, as appears, Acts 1. It defined, One Divine Nature to be in all the three Persons▪ Can. 1. Two Nativities in Christ. c. 2 One only Person to be in Christ, though two distinct Natures, against Anthimius and Theodore. Can. 4. 5. It defined against Theodore, That Christ was not troubled with passions of the mind, or concupiscenses of the flesh. Can. 12. In this Age, the third Councils of Carthage decreed, That the Sacraments of the Altar (Mass) should not be celebrated, but by such only as were fasting. Can. 29. It approved the whole Catalogue of Canonical Books by name, as they are now published in our Bible, and approved by the Catholic Church, (except only Baruch▪ which is not named, because an Appendix to Jeremy, whose Secretary he was) Can. 47. This Council was subscribed by S. Augustine, and approved in the sixth General Synod. In this Age, the Milevitan Council defined, That whoever denies children newly born to be baptised, or sayas they contract nothing of original sin from Adam, which may be cleansed by the Laver of Regeneration, etc. Anathema. c. 2. it was subscribed by S. Augustine. In this Age the Caesaraugustan Council decreed, That Virgins (who had vowed themselves to God) should not be veiled, till after forty years' probation. In this Age Pope John 1. decreed, That Mass aught not to be celebrated, but in places consecrated to our Lord, unless great necessity should enforce it. In his Epist. to the Bishops of d●vers places, giving this reason, Because it is written, see thou offer not thy Holocausts in every place, but in the place which thy Lord thy God hath chosen, Deut. 12. An. 525. For as no others but Priests consecrated to our Lord, aught to sing Masses, and ●ffer Sacrifices to our Lord upon the Altars, so in no other but consecrated places. De Consecrat. dist. 1. c. Sicut non alii. Catholic Professors to the year 600. GErardus, Genou●●a, Columbus, Oportuna, Germanus Parisiensis, Mary of Egypt, Brigitta, Simeon Salus, Leander, S. Benedict. (institutor of the Holy Order of Benedictine Monks) Rupertus, Maurus, Placidus, Arnulphus, Radegundis▪ Leonard, Columbanus, John Climachus, Isaac, Hermenigildus, Fortunatus, Agricola, Bonifac●us, Victor, Elutherius, Gregorius Turonensis, etc. Nations converted. S. Augustine the Monk, sent by Pope Gregory, converted England. The Northern Picts, Goths, Bavarians, and Burgundians, were also converted in this Age. From the year of Christ 600. Chief Pastors. General Counsels. 605 Sabinianus. 606 Bonifacius 3. The 3. Constantinopolitan Council. Fathers 289. Pope Agatho presiding. An Dom. 680. against the Monotholites. 615 De●sdedit. 618 Bonifacius 4. 626 Honorius. 639 Severinus. 640 Joannes 4. 642 Theodorus 1. Authors, Cedrenus, Baronius, etc. 649 Martinus 1. 654 Eugenius. 655 Vitalianus. 669 Adeodatus. 676 Domuus 1. 678 Agatho. 683 Leo 2. 684 Benedictus 2. 685 Johannes 5. 686 Conon. 688 Sergius. In this 6. Age, in the 3. Council of Constantinople, celebrated in Trullo, were condemned, Sergius, Paulus, Petrus, Cyrus, and Theodore, who most impiously taught, but one will and operation to be in Christ. It defined, under Anathema, That all things should be held, which had been defined in the first six General Councils, together with 85. Canons, called the Apostles Canons, and certain other Provincial Councils there specified. Can. 1. 2. It defined, That no Priest, Deacon, or Subdeacon, after they had taken Orders, could marry, c. 6. and this in conformity to the Apostles Canons, (Can. 27.) where they commanded, That none but Lectors and Cantors should marry, after they had received Orders. It decreed, that grapes (an abusive custom in some places) should not be given to the people, together with that unbloudy Sacrifice of the Oblation. Can. 28. de consec. distinct. 2. Verbo didicimus. It decreed, That water aught to be mingled with the Wine in the unbloudy Sacrifice of the Mass, according to S. James the Brother of our Lord, and Bishop of Jerusalem in his mystical Sacrifice delivered to us (say they) in writing. De consecrat. distin. 1. verbo Jacobus, c. 32. Contrary to the Heresies of the Hydroparastes, who consecrated in water only, & of the Armenians, who did it in wine only. It decreed, That we aught to give inferior adoration to the Cross, and forbade it to be made on pavements, for reverence sake. Can. 73. It decreed, That such as have received power from God to lose and bind, aught attentively to consider the quality of the sin, and the disposition of the sinner, that so they may apply a fit remedy for the disease, jest, if they judge of the sin without difference, they hinder the health of the sick part, Can. 102. This required confession, and a particular knowledge of the sins to be absolved. It decreed, that a Christian adoring only God his Creator, may invocate Saints, that they would vouchsafe to pray for him to the Divine Majesty. C. 7. Catholic Professors to the year 700. ANastasius, Persa, Walburga, Attala, Eustatius, Joannes Elimosinarius, Isidorus, Claudius, Theodorus, Arnulphus, Ald●gund, Eligius, Severus, Caesarius, Maximus, Oswaldus, Odoenus, Lambertus, Guagericus, Anhelmus, Betulphus, Berta, Cunibertus, Aidanus, Cuthbertus, Julianus, Marinus, Eugenius, the two Edwaldies', Andonius, Damianus, Tienenfis, Killianus, Joannes Bergoniensis, Cedda, Projectus Paulinus, with divers others. Nations converted. The Flemins converted by Eligius, the Westphalians by the two Edwaldies', the Franconians by Killianus; multitudes of the Spaniards by Andonius▪ the Frisians by Willebrord. From the year of Christ 700. Chief Pastors. General Councils. 702 Johannes 6. The 2. Nicene Council; Fathers 350. Pope Adrian presiding: An. Dom. 787. against Image-breakers. 705 Joannes 7. 708 Sisimus. Constantius. 714 Gregorius 2. 731 Gregorius 3. Authors, Sedrenus, Zonoras', Baronius▪ 742 Zacharias. 752 Stephanus 2. Stephanus 3. 757 Paulus 1. 768 Stephanus 4. 772 Adrianus. 796 Leo 3. This second Nicene Council in the second Action, approved the Epistle of Pope Adrian to Tarasius the Patriarch, in which he teaches the Roman Church to be the Head of all Churches. In the third Action it receives and approves the Apostolical Tradition of the Church, by which veneration and worship of the Saints is taught, viz. as the servants, children, and friends of God; With these also (say they) we worship the relics of Martyrs, and holy Images of Christ and his Saints, since we know (according to the sentence of Basil the Great) honour exhibited to the image, redounds to the prototype. In the sixth Action Tom. 1. it declares the Constantinopolitan Synod (under Le● the Heretical Emperor) which condemned images, to be no true Synod, because neither the Pope, nor his Legates, nor the Eastern Patriarc h● were present at it. In the seventh Action, it approves the first six General Councils, defining all to be Heretics whom they condemn for such: as also that the images of Christ, the B. Virgin, the Angels and all the Saints aught to be dedicated and kept in the holy Temples of God, that by them we might come into the memory of the prototypes. It defines likewise, that we may give the said images a salutation or honorary worship, not that true Latria (or Sovereign honour) which we give to God only; so the Discipline of our Forefathers, or Tradition of the Catholic Church teacheth. Thus the Council. And again, We confess with one consent, that we will keep Ecclesiastical Traditions, whether by writing, or custom, being in force, and decreed, etc. Who shall dare to think or teach otherwise, or (after the custom of wicked Heretics) violate Ecclesiastical Traditions, let him be excommunicate, Acts the 7. p. 686. Tom. 3. In the same Age the Council of Se●'s decreed, That it was a dangerous thing to be in that error, that nothing is 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 are to he holden without all doubt. Decret. 5. Catholic Professors to the year 800. VEnerable Bede, Bonitus, Grimaldus Guthalchus, Joannes Damascenus, G●rmanus, Winocus, Hermingildus, Bonifacius, Plectrudis, Lioba, jodocus, Odillia, Gertrudis, Hubertus, Lullus Burchardus, and many others. Nations converted. The Hassites, Thuringians, Erphordians, and Cattians, converted by Boniface the English Monk; the Lombard's by Sebaldus; the Jews in the City of Berito by the bleeding of a Crucifix, which was stabbed by them, the blood whereof cured diseases; the two Saxon Dukes, Withkindus and Albion converted by a miraculous sight of the B. Sacrament. From the year of Christ 800. Chief Pastors. General Councils. 816 Stephanus 5. 817 Paschasius 1. 824 Eugenius. 827 Valentinus. 328 Gregorius 4. The fourth Constantinopolitan Council, (Fathers 101.) Pope Adrian presiding, An. Dom. 869. against Photius. 844 Sergius 2. 847 Leo 4. 855 Benedictus 3. 858 Nicolaus 1. 868 Adrianus 2. Authors, Nicephorus, Platina, Baronius. 873 Joannes 8. 883 Martinus 2. 884 Adrianus 3. 885 Stephanus 6. 891 Formosus. 897 Bonifacius 6. 900 Stephanus 7. Romanus. In this fourth Constantinopolitan Council Photius was condemned for usurping the Chair of Constantinople, and expelling Ignatius the lawful Bishop; as also for disobeying the authority and Decrees of the Apostolic Sea of old Rome, Action 1. In this Council they recited the Acts of a Synod, made by Adrian Pope of Rome, upon the very intrusion of Photius into that Chair; and in Adrian's third address to the Synod, his words are, We have read that the Bishop of Rome hath judged the Bishops of all Churches, but we have not read that any one hath judged him. In the same Epistle was read the definition of Pope Adrian in the said Roman Council, against that unlawful Council at Constantinople, called by Photius (Michael the tyrant being Emperor) and all the Acts thereof, condemning them to the fire, etc. The whole Epistle was approved and ratified with a new Anathema by this Council, Action 7. It condemned the said Photius and his Council, against Images, Action 8. It commanded the definitions against Photius and his Councils to be observed, Can. 1. It defined, That the Images of Christ and his Saints are to be worshipped with a certain relative worship, Can. 3. It declared Photius never to have been a Bishop, Can. 6. It decreed, That temporal Princes aught to honour the holy patriarchs, and especially the most holy Pope of old Rome, next the Constantinopolitan, than the Patriarch of Antioch, and lastly of Jerusalem. Can. 21. It defined under Anathema, That no temporal Prince, or Lay▪ man, should meddle in the election or promotion of Patriarches, Metropolitans, or Bishops, as having no power at all therein, Can. 22. It approved all the seven former General Councils. It anathematised Photius for the causes , Can. 6. Catholic Professors to the year 600. SAbinus, Ansgratius, Ludgerus, Gerfridus, Geroldus, Joannicius, Ida, Nic●tas M●nolphus, Withgungus, Adelardus, Mervardus, Rumoldus, Ausgarus▪ Rembertus, Withinus, Atalphus, Seinandus, and many others. Nations converted. The Danes and Swedes converted by Ansgratius, the Bulgarians by Joannicius, the Rugians by the Monks of Corbeia; the Moratians by Withgungus, the Russites by a Priest sent by the Emperor Basilius. From the year of Christ 900. Chief Pastor's. General Councils. 901 Theodorus 2. joannes 9 905 Benedictus 4. 907 Leo 5. 608 Christopherus. Sergius 3. 910 Anastasius 2. 912 Laudo. johannes 9 928 Leo 6. 929 Stephanus 8. 931 joannes 11. 936 Leo 7. 940 Stephanus 9 943 Agapitus 2. 956 joannes 12. 965 Benedictus 5. 966 joannes 13. 972 Domnus 2. 973 Benedictus 6. 975 Benedictus 7. 984 joannes 14. 985 joannes 15. 995 joannes 16. 996 Gregorius 5. 999 Sylvester 2. In this tenth Age, or Century, I found no General Council, nor yet Provincial, in which any controversy of moment was decided, a Succession of Chief Pastors, and some Nations converted we have. Catholic Professors to the year 1000 O Do Cluniacensis, Wenc●sla●s, Adalricus, Bruno Coloniensis, Guibertus, Majolus, Dunstanus, Romoaldus, Elphegus, Adelherdes, Wolfangus, Poppo, Berualdus, Adelbertus, Aegidius, Tusculanus, and many others. Nations converted. The Polonians converted by Aegidius Tusculanus, sent by Pope John 13. The Sclavonians converted by Adelbert; the Hungarians converted by another Adelbert. From the year 1000 Chief Pastors. General Councils. 1003 Joannes 17. Joannes 18. 1009 Sergius 4. 1012 Benedictus 8. 1024 Johannes 19 1034 Benedictus 9 1044 Gregorius 6. 1047 Clemens 2. 1048 Damasus 2. 1049 Leo 9 1055 Victor ●. 1058 Stephanus 10. 1059 Nicolaus 2. 1061 Alexander 2. 1073 Gregorius 7. 1086 Victor 3. 1088 Vrbanus 2. 1090 Paschalis 2. In this eleventh Age▪ about the year 1049. Berengarius an Archdeacon of Ghent, began to broach his Heresy concerning the B. Sacrament, affirming it to be only a sign, or figure of the Body and Blood of Christ, not his true Body and Blood; for which he was condemned in the Council of Vercellus, under Pope Leo 9 1053. As also in the Roman Council under Pope Gregory 7. Anno 1073. where he abjured his Heresy in open Council, and died a Catholic, after divers penance done for his sin. See Guli●lmus Bibliothecarius, l. de gestis Anglorum. Catholic Professors to the year 1100. ODilo Cluniacensis, Henricus the Emperor, Kunigund●● his wife, Colomanus, Petrus Damianus, Oddas, Simeo the Eremite, Brado, Dominicus, Loricatus, Gothardus, Edwardus, Wigbertus, Lanfrancus, Gerardus Gaudanensis, Anselmus, Stanislaus, Answerus, Godfridus Ambianensis, Ivo, Bruno Carthusianus, Hugo Cluniacensis, Hugo Gratianopolitanus, etc. The Vindicians and Prussians converted. From the year 1100. Chief Pastors. General Counsels. 1118 Gelasius 2. 1. Lateran Council. (Fathers 300.) for instauration of Discipline, Pope Calixtus 2. presiding. Anno 1122. 1119 Calixtus 2. 1125 Honorius 2. 1130 Innocentius 2. Authors Sugerius, Platina, Onuphrius, Baronius. 1143 Celestinus 2. 1144 Lucius 2. 1145 Eugenius 3. 2. Lateran Council (Fathers 1000▪) for the right of the Clergy. Innocent the 2. presiding. Anno 1139. 1154 Anastasius 4. 1155 Adrianus 4. 1160 Alexander 3. Authors, Platina, Onuphrius, Baronius. 1182 Lucius 3. 1185 Vrbanus 3. The 3. Lateran Council (Fathers 300) for reformation, Pope Alexander the 3. presiding. An. Do. 1179. 1187 Gregorius 8. 1188 Clemens 3. 1191 Celestinus 3. Authors the same, as before. 1198 Innocentius 3. The two first Lateran Counsels defined little in matters of controversy. The third condemned Waldensis the Merchant of Lions, who taught the Apostles were Laymen, that Laymen and women might consecrated and preach, that Clergymen aught to have no possessions or properties, that oaths were unlawful in all cases, that Priests and Magistrates by mortal sin fell from their dignity, and were not to be obeyed, etc. His Tenets were here defined against, and he himself anathematised. Catholic Professors to the year 1200. AGnes Romana, Noribertus, Malachias, Bernardus Abbas, Gulielmus Dux Aquitaniae, Gerardus, Hildigardis, Thomas Cantuariensis, Hugo Lincolniensis and others. Nations converted. The Pomeranians and Norvegians converted by one Nicholas a Monk, who was afterwards Pope, and called Nicolas the third. From the year of Christ 1200. Chief Pastors. General Councils. 1216 Gelasius 2. The fourth Lateran Council (Fathers 1285.) Pope Innocent the third presiding. Anno 1215. 1222 Gregorius 9 1241 Celestius 4. 1242 Innocentius 4. 1254 Alexander 4. Authors, Onuphrius, Platina, Genebrard, and Spandanus. 1261 Vrbanus 4. 1265 Clemens 4. 1271 Gregorius 10. Innocentius 5. 1276 Adrianus 5. Joannes 20. 1277 Nicolaus 3. The Council of Lions. (Fathers 100) Pope Gregory the 10. presiding. Anno 1274. against the Grecians. 1281 Martinus 4. 1285 Honorius 4. 1288 Nicolaus 4. 1294 Celestinus 5. Authors, Guli●lmus de Nangis, Onuphrius, Platina, Spondanus. 1295 Bonifacius 8. The fourth Lateran Council defined in the profession of faith, 1. That all men at the Resurrection shall receive according to their merits, whether good or evil. 2. That the universal Church of the faithful is one out of which no man is saved. 3. That the true Body and Blood of Christ is in the Sacrament of the Altar, under the forms of Bread and Wine, the Bread being transubstantiated by the Divine Power into the Body, and the Wine into the Blood. 4. That no man can make this Sacrament but a Priest, rightly ordained by the Keys of the Church, which Jesus Christ himself gave to the Apostles and their Successors. 5. That Baptism profits little ones, as well as those, who are of riper years unto salvation. Can. 1. It condemned the Heresy of Abbas joachim, who denied the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be one highest thing, essence, or nature, though three distinct persons. Can. 2. It condemned all such for Heretics, as erect themselves against the faith by them expounded in the first Canon. Can. 3. It defined, That all the faithful should at lest once a year confess their sins to their own Parish▪ Priest, or to some other by his approbation, and that they should receive the B. Eucharist at Easter. Can. 21. extra de poenitentia. The council of Lions defined, That the Holy Ghost proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but one, not by two spirations, but by one. This hitherto (saith the council) the holy Roman Church (the Mother and Mistress of all Churches) hath preached and taught, This the unchangeable and true sentence of the Orthodox Fathers, as well Greek as Latin holdeth. Can. 6. de Sum. Trinitate & fide Catholica. Catholic Professors to the year 1300. S. Dominick and S. Francis, Institutors of their holy Orders of Friars▪ Maria Oguiaca, Christina Mirabilis, Eugelbertus Coloniensis, Petrus Mediolanensis, Luitgardis, Elizabeth Lantgranensis, Antonius Paduensus, Gulielmus Bononiensis, Hyacinthus, Alexander de Hales, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura, Nicolaus Novesiensis, Hedingis, Medardes, Nicolaus Tolentinas, Mech●ildis, Gertrudis▪ Angela de fulgineo, and many others. Nations converted. The Livonians converted by Medardes, the Lituanians by the Knights of S. Mary, the Emperor Cassanes, with innumerable Tartarians, converted also in this Age. From the year 1300. Chief Pastors. General Councils. 1303 Benedictus 9 The Council of Vienna, (Fathers 300.) Pope Clement 5. presiding. An. Dom. 1311. 1305 Clemens 5. 1316 joannes 21. 1334 Benedictus 10. 1343 Clement 6. Authors, Platina, Onuphrius, Spondanus. 1352 Innocentius 6. 1362 Vrbanus 5. 1371 Gregorius 11. 1378 Vrbanus 6. 1389 Bonifacius 9 This Council defined Baptism to be necessary as well for infants, as those of riper age. Habetur in Clementina, de Sum. Trinitate & Fide Catholica. It condemned the Begardes and Beguines, who held carnal lust done out of temptation to be no sin, and that we aught not to show reverence at the elevation of the Body of Christ, etc. Habetur in Clementina, ad nostrum de haereticis. Catholic Professors to the year 1400. IVe Jurisconsulius, Rochus, Christina, Sumlensi● Venturinus Rergomensis, Gertrudis de Est●n, God▪ fridus Eptingensis, Henricus Supo, Catharina Senensis, Albertus Alobrogensis, Andreas Fesulanus, Gerardus Groet, and many others. Nations converted. Azatines, Emperor of the Turks, the Isles of the Canaries, the revolted Lit●anians, the Cunians, the Bosnians, the Lipuensians, the Patrinians, and the Sclavonian Nations converted by the means of Pope Clement the 6. and Lewis King of Hungary. From the year of Christ 1400. Chief Pastors. General Councils. 1404 Innocentius 7. The Council of Constance An. 1415. against John Wickl●ff, John Husse, and Hierome of Prague, Pope John 22. and Martin the 5. presiding. 1406 Gregorius 12. 1409 Alexander 5. 14010 Joannes 22. 1417 Martinus 5. 1430 Eugenius 4. 1447 Nicolaus 5. 1455 Calixtus 3. The Council of Florence (Fathers 145.) Pope Eugenius 4. presiding. All. 1439. against many heresies. 1458 Pius 2. 1464 Paulus 2. 1471 Sixtus 4. 1484 Innocentius 8. Authors, Palmerinus, Volateran, Platina, Spondanus. 1492 Alexander 6. The Council of Constance defined against, and anathematised John Wickliff, John Huss, and Hierom of Prague, for teaching, 1. That all Priests and Magistrates fell from their dignity by any mortal sin, and aught not longer to be obeyed. 2. That the Body and Blood of Christ are not really present in the Sacracrament. 3. That God must obey the Devil. 4. That it is against Scripture for Priests to have any possessio●s. 5. That temporal Lords might take away Church-livings at their pleasure. 6. That all things happened by inevitable necessity, etc. Sess. 8. It defined, That Communion under one kind was sufficient to salvation; and Heresy, to say, that a tyrant Prince might lawfully be killed by his own sub●ect. Sess. 13. The Council of Florence defined, That the souls of such as die in state of grace, not having fully satisfied for their sins by worthy fruits of penance, are purged with purging pains. And, That the holy Apostolic 〈◊〉 and Roman Bishop hath a primacy over all the world, and is the Successor of S. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Head of the whole Church. In decret. Eu●●nii Pap. 4. It defined, That by the force of the words of Consecration, the substance of the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ, and the substance of the Wine into his Blood, and that whole Christ is under either kind, and every particle of either kind, if divided. It defined, the Books of the Maccabees, etc. Canonical. In decret. Unionis. The Grecians, Jacobites, Armenians, and Patriarch of Constantinople subscribed this Council, and were reunited to the Church of Rome. Catholic Professors to the year 1500. COlecta, Vincentius, Valentinus, Bernardinus Senensis, Joannes Capistranus, Laurentius, Justinianus, Antonius Florentinus, Didacus ab Ascala, Andreas Chias, Maria Toletana, Dominicus Pisciensis, Margarita Ravennatensis, Nicolaus Eremita, Jacobus Pic●nus, Jacobus Alemannus, Columba, Osanna Mantuana, and many others. Nations converted. The G●mog●sians, the people of the Kingdoms of Betonine, Guinea, Angola, and Congo converted in this age. From the year of Christ 1500. Chief Pastors. General Councils. 1503 Pius 3: Julius 2. The last Lateran Council, Pope julius 2. and Leo 10. presiding. An. Dom. 1512. I found not the certain number of the Fathers; it was a General Council. 1513 Leo 10. 1522 Adrianus 6. 1523 Clement 7. 1534 Paulus 3. 1550 julius 3. 1555 Marcellus 2. Paulus 4. 1560 Pius 4. The Council of Trent, Pope Paul the 3. and Pius 4. presiding against Martin Luther, and his fellow. Protestants. An. 1546. 1566 Pius 5. 1572 Gregorius 13. 1585. Sixtus 5. 1590. Vrbanus 7. Gregorius 14. 1591. Innocentius 9 1592. Clement 8. 1605 Leo 11. Paul 5. 1620 Gregorius 15. 1623. Vrbanus 8. 1645 Innocentius 10. now living 1654. The last Lateran Council defined, The soul of man immortal, and that there be as many human souls as bodies, anathematising all such as obstinately defend or hold the contrary. Sess. 8. What the definitions of the Council of Trent are I shall not need to relate, they are conformable to those of all precedent General Councils, for us, and against Sectaries, as our adversaries well know, and cannot deny. Catholic Professors to the year 1600. CAtharina Genovensis, Franciscus à Paula, Andreas ex Olivo, Franciscus Zimondus, Gentilis Ravennatensis, Ignatius Loiola, Franciscus Zaverius, Faelix Capucinus, Carolus Borromeus, Antonius Pestana, Edmundus Campianus, Philippus Nereus, Caesar Baronius, Gulielmus Alanus, etc. Nations converted. Great multitudes were converted in this Age, both in Italy, France▪ Spain, Germany, Polonia, India, japonia, China, by Priests, and Religious of the Roman Church: and likewise some considerable persons of the English Nation, even in the heat of persecution. I have omitted multitudes of Provincial Councils, all establishing and defining our Tenets over the whole world, a sure eviction of the consent of Nations, as well as Ages, in our behalf. Now let any rational and disinteressed man be judge, whether the Fathers of these foresaid councils were true Protestants or Roman Catholics, (that is, whether they have taught and defined, Protestant, or Roman Catholic Doctrines) and doubtless, he will say, Roman Catholics: And so by consequence were all the Ages and Countries which have received, and approved them for Orthodox, by humbly submitting to their Decrees, to wit, all Ages, since Christ's time: Therefore let no Protestant, or other Sectary delude himself, and his ignorant and credulous followers, with a pretence to Councils, seeing there is no one to be found for them (speaking of General and ecumenical Councils) which has defined, or taught their Negative Doctrines, but all have more or lesle condemned them, according to the Heresies than emergent. So impossible a task it is for them, to make a Catalogue of their Chief Pastors and Councils in all Ages, which notwithstanding must, and will be always required of them, to the eternal confusion of their novelties. Fathers for the Church's continued Succession. IN the second Age Irenaeus. Where is it than, that a man shall found such Pastors as S. Paul teacheth us, when he says, God hath placed in his Church, first Apostles▪ secondly Prophets, thirdly Doctors, etc. There than, where the gifts of our Lord are placed, must we seek for the truth, amongst whom the Succession of the Church from the Apostles, and the purity of Doctrine is maintained in its integrity. lib. 4. ca 45. In the third Age Tertullian. What the Apostles taught, I will prescribe aught not otherwise to be learned, than by those Churches which the Apostles founded, lib. praescrip. c. 21. And again, What I believe, I received from the present Church, the present Church from the Primitive, that from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, c. 37. In the same Age Origen. In our understanding Scripture, we must not departed from the first Ecclesiastical Tradition, nor believe otherwise, than as the Church of God hath by Succession delivered to us. In his 27▪ Treatise on the 23. of S. Mat. In the same Age S. Cyprian. How can he be acknowledged for a true Pastor, who without succeeding to any one, gins from himself, Ep. to Magnus. In the fourth age S. Athanasius. Behold we have proved the Succession of our Doctrine, delivered by hand to hand, from Father to Son, but as for you (Arians) new Jews, and children of Caiphas, what Progenitors can you show for your speeches? in the Decree of the Nicene Synod against the Arians. In the same Age S. Pacian. For myself, holding myself secure, upon the Succession of the Church, and contenting myself with the peace of the ancient Congregation, I have not learned any studies of discord Epist. 3. In the fifth Age Optatus Melevitanus, reckons ●p the Bishops from S. Peter to Siricius than Pope, saying to the Donatists, Show the original of your Chair, you who challenge the holy Church to yourselves. lib. 2. con. Parn. In the same S. Augustine. The Succession of Priest's, from the very Seat of Peter the Apostle, etc. to the present Bishopric, holds me in the Church. Co●●▪ F●●d. Ep. ca 4. Number the Priests (says he) even from the Seat of S. Peter, that is the Rock, which the Gates of hell overcome not. And in another place, If the Church shall not continued here on earth to ●he end of the world, to whom did our Lord say, Behold I am with you to the consummation of the world? Lib 3. d● bapt. count. Don. ●n the same Age Vincentius Lyrin●usis. Faith is that which than hast received, not that which thou hast devised, a thing not of private usurpation, but of public Tradition, whereof thou ought'st not be the Author, but conserver, etc. in his admonition against Heresies ca 27. Objections against the Church's continued Succession solved. Ob. ELias complained that he was left alone, 3 King. 19 therefore the Church than failed. Answ. He spoke figuratively, for God himself told him in the same chap. v. 18. that he had 7000. at that time in Israel (where he was) who had not bowed their knees to Baal: and in the Kingdom of Juda there was than public profession of the true Religion in Jerusalem. Paralip. 22. 14. 15. so that consequence is false. Ob. The Arian Heresy infected the whole world. Ergo, etc. Answ. You mistake, the fury of that lasted not full four years, viz. from the Council of Ariminum, to the death of Constantius and that only in the Eastern Churches, the Western feeling little or nothing by it. S. Augustine answers the Donatists objecting the same, That even the Canonical Scriptures have this custom, that the word seem● to be addressed to all, when it reaches home only to some few. Epist. 48. Ob. S. Hier●me says, The whole world groaned and wondered to se● itself become Arian (in his book against Luciferius.) Answ. If she wondered, she knew not when it was done; if she groaned, she approved it not being done; therefore the mayor part were still Catholic. Let S. Hierome answer for himself. The Bishops (saith he against Luciferius) that did the fact at Ariminum were deluded, (viz. by the new Creed there made, which might have born a good sense) few defending the fact, & some lamenting it. And S. Augustine tells us, that the Church than appeared in her most constant members, Athanasius and others. Epist. 48. Ob. The Church will fail in the time of Antichrist, christ, according to that, unless there come a revolt first, etc. 2 Thes. 23. Answ. Not, she will not; she shall than s●ffer great persecution, Apoc. 20. 8. and therefore shall be to suffer. Many will revolt, all shall not. Ob. What if men would not persever? how than? you hold ●●ee▪ will I hope? Answ. With S. Augustine to the Donatists, as if the Holy Ghost were ignorant what would be the of men, which yet foreseeing, he foretold, That the Church of Christ should endure for ever. De V●it. Eccles. ca 12. ARTICLE II. That Protestants have no continued Succession. THE ARGUMENT. 1. THe true Church of God hath had a continued Succession from Christ to this time, and shall have from hence to the end of the world, as hath been proved. 2. But the Protestant Church (and so of all other Sectaries) hath not a continued Succession from Christ to this time. 3. Therefore the Protestant Church is not the true Church of God. The minor (which only remains unproved) is cleared by the concession of our most learned adversaries, who freely and unanimously confess, That before Luther made his separation from the Church of Rome, for 900. or 1000 years together, the whole world was Catholic, and in obedience to the Pope of Rome, there being no Protestant's any where to be found, or heard of. Let therefore our very enemies be our Judges, Deut. 32. v. 31. John Calvin. All the Western Churches have defended Papistry. Respon. ad Ve●sipell. p. 154. Hospinian. Luther's separation was from all the world. Epist. 141. White. Popery was a Leprosy, breeding so universally in the Church, that there was no visible company of men appearing in the world free from it. Defence c. 37. p. 136. Bennet Norton. The whole Christian world knows▪ that before Luther, all Churches were overwhelmed with more than Cimmerian darkness. Treatise of the Church. p. 145. Bancroft. The Priests, and all the people too were drowned in Popery. Censure 4. Jewel. The whole world, Princes, Priests, and people, were overwhelmed with ignorance, and bound by ●ath to the Pope. Sermon on Luke 11. Chamierus. Apostasy averted the whole Body from Christ. Epist. 49. Brochard. When the first assault was made upon the Papacy by Luther, the knowledge of Christ was wanting in all, and every of his members. On the 2. Rev. pa. 41. Whitaker. In times passed no Religion but the Papistical had place in the Church. Controversy 4. q. 5. c. 3. Bucer. All the world erred in that Article of the Real Presence, p 660. Calvin. They made all the Kings and people of the earth drunk, from the first to the last. Institu. b▪ 4. c. 18. par. Perkins. During the space of 900. years the Popish Heresy had spread itself over the whole world. Exposit. Symb. p. 266. Bale. From Phocas (who lived A●●. Dom. 602.) till the renewing of the Gospel, the Doctrine of Christ was in lurking holes. Centur. 1. p. 47. 65. Simon Voyon. Wh●n Boniface was installed▪ than was that universal Apostasy from the Faith, which was foretold by Paul Catalogue. Doctor▪ Ep. to the Reader. Bibliander. It is without all question, that from the time of Gregory the Great, the Pope is Antichrist, who with his abominations hath made drunk all Kings and people, from the highest to the lowest. In orat. ad principes Germaniae. c. 72. Hospinian hath the very same expression. Hist. Sacrament. l. 2. A second Argument. 1. WIthout a continued number of Bishops, Priests, and Laics, succeeding one another in the profession of the same Faith, from Christ and his Apostles to this time, a continued Succession cannot be had. 2. But Protestants have no continued number of Bishops, Priests, and Laics succeeding one another, from Christ and his Apostles to this time, in the profession of the same Faith or Tenets, the 39 Articles, or any other set number of Tenets, expressly holding and denying all the same points. 3. Therefore Protestants have no continued Succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time. The major is manifest, because it proceeds from the definition to the thing defined. The minor is proved, because Protestants have never yet been able, nor ever will, to assign any such number of men, whom they have succeeded in their 39 Articles, or Luther in his Augustan Confession, when he revolted from the Catholic Church, not nor yet one single Diocese, or Bishop. If any man pretend to such a Catalogue, let him name none but only such, as held explicitly the 39 Articles, all granting and denying the same points, that the late Protestants of England granted and denied, or that our new Reformers deny and grant; for if they differ from them in any one material point, they cannot be esteemed Protestants. Let him not name the Waldenses, for they held the real presence, that the Apostles were Laymen, that all Magistrates fall from their dignity by any mortal sin, that it is not lawful to swear in any case, etc. Illiricus in Catalogue. Waldens. Confess. Bohem. ●. 1. and Waldo, an unlearned Merchant of Lions, lived but in the year 1160. Let him not name the Hussites, for they held Mass, Transubstantiation, and seven Sacraments with us. See Fox in his Acts. protest. Apol. Tract. 2. ●. 2. Sect. 4. 5. They held, the universal Church consisted only of the predestinate, That all the works of the predestinate are virtues, and that they cannot fall from the Faith, they held all the errors of John Wickliff, and were condemned with him in the Council of Constance. Sess. 6. 7. and 15. Let him not name the Albigenses; for they held all marriages to be unlawful, and all things begotten ex coitu, to be unclean. S. Bernard Homil. 66. in Cantica▪ They held two Gods, a good and an evil, teaching, that the evil God made all visible things, they rejected the Old Testament. Rogerus Hoveden. ex actibus Tolosanis▪ An. 1178. and Rainerus. c. 6. Let him not name the Catharistes or Puritan Waldenses, for they held, that the Devil made the world, and denied the resurrection. Rainerus. c. 6. parag. 5. p. Secta Catharorum. Let him not cite the Wicklefians, for they held, That all things came to pass by fatal necessity, that Princes and Magistrates s●ll from their dignity and power by mortal sin. Concil. Const. c. 8. Let him not name the Grecians, for they rejected the Communion of Protestants. Censur. Eccles. Orientalis. They were at lest 700. or 800. years in the Communion of the Roman Church, as witness the first eight General Councils, all held in Grece, and approved by the Popes of Rome. The first revolt was made by the Grecians, denying the procession of the Holy Ghost from God the Son, they were united again to the Church of Rome in the council of Florence Sess. last. they held Transubstantiation, seven Sacraments, unbloudy Sacrifice, prayer to Saints, and for the d●ad. censur. Eccles. Orientalis. c. 7. 10, 12, 13, 21. Let him not name the Egyptians, for they held Transubstantiation, and unbloudy Sacrifice, as is manifest by their Liturgies, but denied the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son; and held but one will in Christ. Godingus. l. 1. c. 28. de rebus Abyssinorum. Let him not cite the Armenians, for they hold but one nature in Christ, and that his flesh was changed into the Divinity. Euthimius in his panop. part. 2. tit. ●0. they were condemned by the Council of Calced. Acts 5. Protestant's pretence to the Fathers of the first 500 years is very idle, because were it true, as it is most false, that those Fathers were Protestants, yet could not that suffice, to prove them a continued Succession of 1600. years. Secondly, because those of the sixth Age must needs know better what was the Religions and Tenets of them, who lived in the fifth Age, by whom they were instructed, and with whom they daily conversed, than our Protestant's can now do, who have protested on their salvation, that it was the very same with theirs, received from them by word of mouth▪ and so from age to age: and finally because: A third Argument. 1. If our Tenets in which we differ from Protestants, and are opposed by them, be taught and approved by the Fathers of the first 500 years, than it is wholly impossible they should be for Protestants, and against us. 2. But our Doctrines (in which we differ from Protestants, and are opposed by them) are taught & approved by the Fathers of the first 500 years. 3. Therefore it is wholly impossible the Fathers of the first 500 years should be for them, and against us. The major is manifest of itself, the minor is proved; first, by what has been already cited out of those Fathers, as also by what shall be cited out of them in my ensuing arguments. Secondly▪ by the ingenuous confession of our Adversaries. Fulk; I confess▪ Hierome, Austin, Ambrose, etc. held the Invocation of Saints. Riot. Briston. p. 36. Kemnitius. Most of the Fathers did not dispute, but avouch, that the souls of Martyrs heard the Petitions of those who prayed to them; They went to the Monuments of Martyrs, and invocated Martyrs by name. Examine. Concil. Trident. par. 3. p. 200. Whitguift; All the Bishops and learned Writers of the Greek and Latin Church too, for the most part, were spotted with the Doctrines of Free will, Merit, Invocation of Saints. in his defence p. 473. Calvin; It was a custom 1300. years ago to pray for the dead, but all of that time, I confess, were carried away into error. Institut. b. 3. c. 5. parag. 10. Whitaker; It is true, which Calvin and the Centurists have written, That the Ancient Church did err in many things, as touching Limbo, , Merit of works, etc. contro. 2. q. 5. c. 7. Peter Martyr; As long as we stand to the Councils and Fathers, we shall remain always in the same errors. De voto. colum. 1559. Duditius; If that be true which the Fathers have professed with mutual consent, it is altogether on the Papists sides; Apud Bezam Epist. 1. Raynolds; If all the Fathers held a point n●w in question, and not only held it, but also taught, not darkly, but plainly, etc. this consent of theirs were unsecure; Confess. c. 5. divis. 1. Jewel; The way of finding truth by God speaking in the Church and Councils is very uncertain, and in a manner fanatical. Apolog. part. 4. p. 117. Therefore the Fathers of the first five hundred years are not for Protestants, but for us; therefore Protestants are utterly at a loss in the point of a continued Succession. Objections solved. Ob. IN all the ages before Luther, Protestants had a Church, though it were invisible. Answ. This is a mere Midsummer-nights dream, that a Church (which is a Congregation of visible men preaching, baptising, and converting Nations) should be extant for a 1000 years, and yet be all this while invisible, neither to be seen nor heard of in the world. Ob. The Church in communion with the Sea of Rome was the true Church, till she Apostatised and fell from the Faith. Answ. If she were once the true Church, she is and shall be so for ever; she cannot fail, as hath been proved, nor err in faith, as shall be proved hereafter. Ob. The Catholic Succession was our Succession for the first five centuries. Answ. You may as well tell me of a white Blackmoore; a Catholic is not a Protestant, nor a Catholic Succession a Protestant Succession. Who ever heard of a Protestant Pope? the Catholic Church was always governed by a Pope in the first five centuries, as now it is, and hath defined our Tenets, and condemned yours, as you have seen. It is the very essence of a Protestant (as a Protestant) to protest against the Catholic Church, as Lutherans and you have done. Ob. We protest only against her errors. Answ. Yes against manifest revealed Verities, (as hath and shall be proved) and the very fundamentals of our Faith. Ob. S. Augustine, S. Hierome, and many others, are divided in their opinions, whether Linus or Clement immediately succeeded S. Peter. Answ. Be it so, yet they all agreed in this, that the Succession was morally continued, to which it is a thing indifferent, whether Clement immediately succeeded him, as he well might, being his Scholar, or first Linus, than Cletus, and than Clement, which is now the more common opinion of the Church. ARTICLE III. The Catholic Church's visibility asserted. OUr Tenet is, That the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God, hath had not only a continued, but also a visible Succession from Christ to this time, etc. which we prove thus. 1. A society of men, which hath always in it exterior consecration and Ordination of Ministers, preaching, baptising and administering Sacraments, must of necessity be always visible. 2. But the Church of Christ is a society of men, which hath always in it exterior consecration and ordination of Ministers, preaching, baptising, and administering Sacraments. 3. Therefore the Church of Christ must of necessity be always visible. The major is proved by evident reason, because those are all outward and sensible actions, which are inconsistent with an invisible society of actors. The minor is proved by Scripture, Go ye teaching all Nations, baptising them etc. And, behold I am with you all days; etc. S. Mat. 28. v. 20. He gave some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, and other some Pastors, and Doctors to the consummation of the Saints, Ephes. 4. 11, 12. A second Argument. 1. A light always shining to the world, and a City so seated on a hill, that it cannot be hid, must needs be always visible. 2. But the Church of Christ is a light always shineing to the world, and a City so seated on a hill, that it cannot be hid. 3. Therefore the Church of Christ must needs be always visible. The major is manifest by the very terms. The minor is proved by Scripture; The mountain of the House of our Lord shall be prepared on the top of mountains, Isa. 2. 2. You are the light of the world, a City seated on a hill cannot be hid, S. Matth. 5. 14. He hath put his Tabernacle, his Church, in the Sun, Psal. 18. 4. Fathers for the Church's visibility. IN the second Age Irenaeus; Where is it than, that a man shall found such Pastors: as S. Paul tells us of, when he says, God hath placed in his Church first Apostles, etc. 4. Ephes. l. 4. c. 45. In the third Age Origen; The Church is full of brightness, even from East to West. Homil. 3. on S. Mat. In the same Age S. Cyprian; The Church being clothed with the light of our Lord, spreads its beams through the whole world. De unit, Eccles. In the foutth Age S. chrysostom, It is easier, that the Sun should be extinguished, than that the Church should be obscured. Homil. 4. on Isay 6. In the fifth Age S. Augustine, The Church is seated on a mountain, and cannot be hid, etc. they are blind that see not so great a mountain, that shut their eyes against a light set on a Candlestick. Lib. 3. con: Parmenian. And again, The Church hath this most certain mark, that she cannot be bid. con. Petilian. c. 104. Objections solved. Ob. THe Church is believed, therefore not seen. Answ. She is believed in the sense of her Doctrines, and to be guided to all truth by the Holy Ghost, but seen in her Pastors outward Government and preaching; wherefore I deny the consequence. Ob. The Woman (the Church) fled into the Wilderness, Apoc. 12. 6. Answ. But is followed, and persecuted by the Dragon, v. 17. therefore visible. Ob. The Church of the predestinate is invisible. Answ. There is no such thing as a Church of the predestinate, Christ's Church is the Congregation of all true Believers, as well reprobate as predestinate: There is in his floor both wheat and chaff, S. Mat. c. 3. and in his field both corn and tares, which shall grow together till the harvest (the day of Judgement) S. Mat. c. 13. The predestinate are as visible as the reprobate; 'tis true indeed, their predestination is invisible, and so is also these men's reprobation. ARTICLE IU. The true Church demonstrated by her Unity and Universality. VNity being essentially presupposed to Universality, I thought it not improper to join these two in one Article. Now that the church of Rome is both perfectly one, and also universal for time and place, is thus demonstrated. The Argument for Unity. 1. The Church of Christ is one body, one fold, or flock (of which he himself is the supreme invisible head, and the Pope his Deputy on earth the visible, or ministerial.) 2. But the Roman Catholic Church, and no other, is this one body, one fold, or flock. 3. Therefore the Roman Catholic Church, and no other, is the Church of Christ. The major is proved, We are one bread one body, as many as participate of one bread, 1 Cor. 10. 18. He hath made him (Christ) Head over all the Church, which is his body, Ephes. 1. 22, 23. There shall be made one fold, and one Pastor, Joh. 10. 16. I besee●h you that you all speak one thing, and that there be no Schisms among you, but that you be perfect in one sense, and one judgement, 1 Cor. 1: 10. The multitude of believers had one heart, one soul, Acts 4. 32. Christ prayed, that his Disciples might be one, S. Joh. 17. 11. I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Nicene Creed. The minor is made evident (even to the weakest understanding) by the present manifold Schisms and divisions, which are now among Protestants, and all other Sectaries, as well in Doctrine as Government, whereas Catholics are perfectly one, both in Discipline and Doctrine, all the world over, even to the lest Article or point of Faith, being all united to one supreme invisible Head, Christ Jesus, and all subordinate to one visible and ministerial Head, the Pope, his Vicar on earth. We all resolve ourselves in points of Faith into one safe and most unchangeable principle, I believe the holy Catholic Church; we look on her, as the immediate and authorised proponent of all revealed Verities, and the infallible Judge of controversies; God himself being the prime Author, and his authority the formal motive, and object of our Faith. A second Argument for its Unity. 1. AS a natural unity and conversion of the parts among themselves, and to the Head, is necessary for the being and conservation of a natural body: So the spiritual unity and connexion of the members amongst themselves, and to the Head, is necessary for the being and conservation of a mystical body. 2. But the Church of Christ (as I have proved) is a mystical Body. 3. Therefore a spiritual unity and connexion of the members amongst themselves, and to the Head, is necessary for the being and conservation of the Church of Christ. The major is proved by the purity of reason, which is between a natural and mystical body; for as a natural body must needs die, if all its parts, by which it should subsist, be torn and divided from one another; so also a mystical body perishes, if all its members be divided from one another, and from the head (whence it hath its spiritual life and motion) by Schism and Heresy. The Argument for Universality. 1. TO be universal for time and place, is nothing else, but to be coexistent with all time, and to be spread or diffused over all places. 2. But the Church of Christ, from the time he founded it, hath been coexistent with all time, and shall be to the world's end, and hath, and shall be spread over all Nations. 3. Therefore the Church of Christ is universal (or Catholic) for time and place. The major is proved, because the definition, and the thing defined are convertible. The minor is proved by Scripture, for time thus, Go ye▪ etc. and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world, S. Mat. 28. 20. He gave some Apostles, etc. to the consummation of the Saints, Ephes. 4. 12, 13. The Paraclete shall abide with you for ever, S. John 14. 15, 16. He (Christ) shall reign in the House of Jacob ●o●ever, and of his Kingdom there shall be no end, S. Lu. 1. 33. For place thus; All Nations whatsoever thou hast made shall come and adore before thee O Lord, Psal. 85. 9 All Nations shall flow unto it, Isa. 2. 2. Go ye teaching all Nations▪ etc. S. Mat. 2●. 20. Their sound went out over all the earth, etc. I resume the Argument, and make it thus. 1. That Church which is not universal (or Catholic) for time and place, is not the Church of Christ. 2. But the Protestant Church (and the like may be said of all other Sectaries) is not universal (or Catholic) for time and place. 3. Therefore the Protestant Church is not the Church of Christ. The major hath been proved before. The minor is proved, because before Luther, (who lived little above sixscore years ago) there were no Protestants to be found in the whole world, as hath been proved by us, and confessed by our adversaries. To which you may add, they have never yet been able to convert any one Nation from Infidelity to the Faith of Christ, nor ever had communion with all Nations, nor indeed any perfect communion among themselves; therefore they cannot be the Catholic Church. Fathers for Unity and Universality. IN the second Age Irenaeus; We must obey those Priests that are in the Church, those that have a succession from the Apostles, etc. and all the rest who have departed from the original Succession (where ever they be assembled) to have suspected as Heretics, or Schismatics, and all these fall from the truth, l. 4. c. 43. In the third Age Origen; Let the Doctrine of the Church be kept, which is delivered from the Apostles by order of Succession, and remains in the Church to this very day. praefat. in lib. periarchon. In the fourth Age Lactantius; It is only the Catholic (or universal) Church, that hath the true worship and service of God, etc. from which whoever departs hath no hope of life, l. 1. c. ult. In the same Age S. Cyril of Jerusalem, The Church is called Catholic (or universal) because it is spread over all the world from one end to the other. Cataches. 18. In the fifth Age S. Austin; We must hold the communion of that Church, which is called Catholic, both by her own and strangers, l. de vera relig. And again, Whoever is divided from the Catholic Church, how laudable soever he seems to himself to live, etc. he shall be excluded from life. Epist. 152. Objections solved. Ob. THe Roman Catholic Church is a particular Church, therefore it is not Catholic or Universal. Answ. I distinguish your antecedent, the Roman Church, as taken only for the congregation of Rome, or Italy, is a particular church, I grant, as taken for the whole collection of churches, holding communion with the Sea of Rome, I deny it: For so it is an universal church, containing all particular churches, as all the parts are contained in the whole, and in this acception also it is called the Roman Church, because the particular Roman Church is the Mother Church, and hath a power of Headship and Jurisdiction over all the rest. Ob. How can a church of one denomination be universal? Answ. I have told you already, by the extent and latitude of her power, which is over all. So a particular man is called a General, by reason of his power over all the Army. Ob. You communicate not with us, and many others; therefore your communion is not Catholic or Universal. Answ. I grant the antecedent, but deny the consequence, for universal communion requires not communion with all particular Sects or persons, but only with all true Believers, not, A man that is an Heretic, after the first and second admonition avoid, Titus 3. 10, 11. ARTICLE V The Church's Infallibility demonstrated. OUr Tenet is, That the Roman Catholic Church is the highest visible Judge of controversies, and that she is infallible, both in her propositions, and definitions of all points of Faith; having a power from God to oblige all men to believe her, under pain of damnation; proved thus. The first Argument for her infallibility. 1. No man by hearing (or believing) Christ, can hear an ●rrour in Faith. 2. But every man by hearing the church hears Christ. 3. Therefore no man by hearing the Church can hear an error in Faith, therefore she is infallible. The major must be granted, otherwise you charge Christ to be the Author of damning lies. The minor is proved; He that heareth you (the Church) heareth me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth me, S. Luk. 10. 16. The consequences are both unavoidable. A second Argument for her Infallibility. 1. NO man can be damned for not believing an error in faith. 2. But every man shall be damned for not believing the Church. 3. Therefore no man can believe an error in faith by believing the Church. The major is proved, because otherwise God were a tyrant, in damning us for not believing a lie, which contradicts himself. The minor is as evident; He that will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publican, S. Mat. 18. 18. He that knoweth God, heareth us, and he that heareth us not, is not of God; in this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error, 1 John 4. 6. Go ye preaching the Gospel to all creatures, etc. He that believeth not shall be condemned, S. Mark 16. 16. A third Argument for her Infallibility. 1. IF Christ be always with his Church, and have made her the pillar and firmament of truth, against which the gates of hell (Heresies) shall not prevail, and given her the Holy Ghost to assist her to all truth, so that her definitions in an approved General council are the very dictates of the Holy Ghost; than is it impossible the church should err in Faith. 2. But all this Christ hath done for his church. 3. Therefore it is impossible the church should err in Faith. The sequel of the major is manifest by the very terms of the supposition. The minor is proved; Go ye teaching all Nations, etc. and behold I am with you all days, (he is with her teaching) S. Mat. 18. 20. The house of God, which is the pillar and firmament of truth, 1 Tim. 3. 15. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it, S. Mat. 16. 18. He will give you another Paraclete that he may abide with you for ever, etc. He shall teach you all things, and suggest to you all things whatsoever I shall say to you (all points of Faith) S. John 14. 26. He shall teach you all truth (not errors) S. Joh. 16. 13. It hath seemed good (say the Apostles in council) to the Holy Ghost, and to us, Acts 15. 28. The consequence is confirmed, because were not the church infallible in things of faith, we could have no infallible assurance at this distance, What were the Word of God, what not; or what the true sense and meaning is of any one book, or chapter in the whole Bible, nor consequently of our salvation, since without faith it is impossible to please God, Heb. 11. 6. The fourth and last Argument for her Infallibility. 1. THe church hath a power from God, to oblige all men under pain of damnation to believe her in her Proposals and definitions of Faith. 2. But she could not have such a power from God, unless she were infallible in her Proposals and definitions of Faith. 3. Therefore she is infallible in her Proposals and definitions of Faith. The major is proved by all those texts , in the first and second argument, as also by the councils of all ages, which command all men under pain of damnation to believe and subscribe to her Decrees and definitions of faith, which hath accordingly been done, both by the Fathers, and all true believers. The minor is proved by reason, because it were not consistent with the justice, mercy, or veracity of God, to give a fallible and erring Judge such a power in things of that high consequence. An Argument for the Churches Supreme power of Judicature. 1. THat is the supreme Judge in every cause, who hath an absolute power to oblige all dissenters to an agreement, and from whom there can be no appeal in such a cause. 2. But the Catholic Church hath an absolute power to oblige all that disagree in controverted points of Faith, nor is there any appeal from her decision. 3. Therefore the Catholic Church is supreme Judge in controverted points of faith. The major is manifest by induction in all Courts of Judicature; the minor hath been proved above, by the first, second, and fourth arguments. Fathers for this point. IN the second age Irenaeus, Where the Church is, there is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of God is, there is all grace, l. 3. c. 40. And again, We must believe those Priests that are in the Church, those that have a succession from the Apostles, who together with Episcopal power, have according to the good pleasure of the Father received the certain gift of truth, l. 1. c. 49. and▪ 62. The Church shall be under no man's judgement, for to the church all things are known, in which is perfect Faith of the Father, and of all the dispensation of Christ, and firm knowledge of the Holy Ghost, who teacheth all truth. In the third age Origen, That only is to be believed for truth, which in nothing disagrees from the tradition of the church. And in our understanding Scripture, etc. we must not believe otherwise, than as the church of God hath by succession delivered to us. Praefat. in lib▪ Periarch. In the same age S. Cyprian, The Spouse of Christ cannot be defiled with adultery, she i● pure and chaste, De unitat. Eccles. And a little after, Whoever divides from the Church, and cleaves to the adulteress, is separated from the promises of the church: he cannot have God his Father, that hath not the Church his Mother. And again, To Peter's Chair, and the principal church, infidelity or false faith cannot have access, Epist. 55. In the fourth age Lactantius Firmianus: It is only the Catholic Church that hath the true worship of God, this is the wellspring of truth, the dwelling place of faith, etc. l. 3. c. ult. In the same age S. Cyril of Jerusalem: The Roman Faith commanded by the Apostles cannot be changed, l. 3. c. 4. in apolog. count. Ruffin. In the fifth age Vincentius Lyrinensis: All those that will not be accounted Heretics, must conform themselves to the decrees of ecumenical councils, l. advers. hae●es. c. 41. In the same age S. Augustine: I know by divine revelations, that the Spirit of truth teacheth it (the church) all truth▪ l. 4. de Baptism c. 4. And again, To dispute against the whole church is most insolent madness. And I myself would not believe the Gospel, were it not that the authority of the church moves me to it, cont. Epist. fundam. c. 5. I now resume the principal argument, and retort it thus upon our adversaries. 1. The Catholig●e church is infallible in her proposals and definitions of faith. 2. But the Protestant church (and the like of all other Sectaries) is not infallible in her proposals or definitions of faith. 3. Therefore the Protestant church is not the Catholic church. The major hath been fully proved before: The minor must be granted by our adversaries, because they have no other way to excuse themselves from being Heretics in their revolt from our church, but by falsely pretending the whole church erred in faith, and taught idolatry and superstition for 900. or a 1000 years together, till they began their blessed reformation: a most blasphemous evasion (as hath been proved before) by which they have excluded themselves from all possible assurance of true faith or salvation; and therefore to arrogate infallibility to themselves, which they deny to the whole church, were a most frontless impudence. Note here for your better understanding this whole question, that when we affirm the church is infallible in things of faith, by the word (Church) we understand not only the church diffused over all the world, unanimously teaching, whose doctrines of faith we hold to be infallible, but also the church represented in a council perfectly ecumenical (that is to say, called out of the whole world, and approved by the Pope) whose definitions of faith we hold to be infallible. Objections from Scripture and Reason solved. Ob. ALl the Israelites adored the golden calf, therefore the whole church erred. Answ. Moses and the Levites did not, who were many thousands, Exod. 32. Numb. 3. 39 therefore both those Propositions are false. Ob. The Jews council erred in condemning Christ. Answ. Not wonder it was not perfectly ecumenical, for Christ himself was than Head of the church on earth, and the highest authority was in him, not in the Jews council; and if the Jews church could err, it doth not follow that the church of Christ can; for it was built (as S. Paul says) on better promises. Ob. S. Peter erred in faith, when S. Paul contradicted him to the face. Answ. Not, it was only in a matter of fact or conversation, according to Tertullian, l. praescrip. c. 23. by withdrawing himself, and refusing to eat with the Gentiles for fear of the Jews, Gal. 2. 12. Ob. Christ blamed the incredulity of his Disciples in not believing his Resurrection, S. Mark 16. 14. Answ. He only blamed their slowness in believing it, not any error in faith, or loss of faith in them, seeing they had it not before, for they understood not what Christ had said to them of it, as appears S. Lu. 18. and S. John 20. they did not know all points of faith at once, but by degrees. Ob. Every man is a liar. Answ. In his own particular be it so, yet the Holy Ghost can and will teach the church all truth, he is no friend to truth that contradicts it: and albeit man of himself may err, yet by the Holy Ghost he may be guided so, that he err not. Ob. Try all things, hold fast that which is good, 1 Thes. 5. Believe not every Spirit, but try the Spirits, if they be from God, 1 Joh. 4. Answ. Try them by the church's authority and Apostolical tradition, that is the touchstone, not the dead letter, human reason, or the private Spirit. Ob. The church may err, at lest in point● which are not fundamental. Answ. All that God hath revealed is fundamental, at lest for the formal motive of belief, to wit, the divine authority revealing (though not always for the matter) and if it be once sufficiently proposed to us by the church, as so revealed, we are than bound to believe it; so that their distinction of fundamentals and not fundamentals, is idle: Besides, if the church be infallible in fundamentals, than Protestants are Schismatics at lest, in revolting from her for points not fundamental, or necessary to salvation, and sin against charity, by accusing us of idolatry. Ob. Those things only are fundamental which are absolutely necessary to salvation, and every man is bound explicitly to know and believe. Answ. If this were true, the Bible, or written Word (which you will have to be the only rule of faith and Judge of controversies) were not a fundamental; for faith depends not essentially on writing, but on hearing: Many were good Christians and saved, before any of the new Scripture was written, or received among them, the first Gospel not being written till seven or eight years after the death of Christ. Ob. In Gregory the Greats time the Discipline and Doctrine of the church was altered and corrupted. Answ. That cannot be, for from S. Gregory the Greats time to this day, even the lest substantial part of either hath not been lost, or changed, as is visible in all the councils, Liturgies, and constitutions of the church. Ob. That which may hap to any one particular man or church, may hap to all: But it may hap to any one particular man or church to err in faith, therefore to all. Answ. I distinguish the first Proposition, that which may hap to one, may hap to all, in a divisive sense I grant, in a collective I deny, and so granting the second Proposition, I deny the consequence; for it proceeds from a divided to a compounded sense, and is as equivocal as this: That which may hap to any one egg in the Parish, may hap to all; but it may hap to any one egg in the Parish to go into your mouth at once, therefore it may hap to all the eggs in the Parish to go into your mouth at once. Ob. The Apostles were not each of them to depend on the decrees of the church. Answ. True, the church was to depend on them, as on the first Masters and Proposers of faith, who had each of them a peculiar prerogative of divine assistance, and infallibility in matters of faith, yet were they each consonant to other in all their doctrines of faith, and whatever was taught by any of them, was steadfastly believed by all. Ob. The church hath now no new revelations, nor can she make any new points of faith, therefore we are not bound to believe her definitions. Answ. I grant the antecedent, but deny the consequence; for though she can make no new points, yet she can explicate the old, and tender that clear, which was before obscure, and can define against new Heresies. Ob. The spiritual man judgeth all things, 1 Cor. 2. 15. Answ. By the rule of Apostolical Tradition, I grant, by human reason or the private spirit I deny, and such a spiritual man is in the church, as a part in the whole, not out of it, with Sectaries. Ob. Right reason is the only Judge of controversies, therefore every man's private reason must be Judge for himself. Answ. The antecedent I have already sufficiently refuted, and I also deny the consequence, as the most gros● and unreasonable assertion of all others, (though Mr. Chillingworth's chief ground) which appears thus; First, as contradicting the Word of God, wherein we are taught, That the things which are of God, no man knows but the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2. 11. No man can say our Lord Jesus (with true faith) but in the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. 12. 3. By gr●ce we are saved through faith, and that not of ourselves, for it is the gift of God, Ephes. 2. 8. We are not sufficient to think any good thing ourselves, as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, 2 Cor. 3. 5. We must captivated our understanding to the obedience of faith. Secondly, because divine revelations are not to be admitted, or rejected, for their seeming consonancy or repugnance to every man's private reason; but for the authority of the church proposing, as the immediate motive, and the authority of God revealing, as the highest motive of our faith, into which it is ultimately resolved; nor can any thing be more rational▪ than to captivated and even renounce private reason, where God the Author of reason commands it. Thirdly, because if every man's private reason is to judge for himself in matters of Religion, than all the Heresies that ever yet▪ were in the world, were good and sound doctrines; for there was never any Sect of Heretics, who did not pretend both to reason and Scripture for their Tenets (how damnable soever) and some of them, such as were unanswerable by human reason, setting aside the church's authority and Apostolical tradition. For who can prove by private reason, or by all the reason of man against the Arians, that a spiritual and indivisible substance (such as God is) could beget a natural Son of himself, without a mother? or against the Sabellians and Trinitarians, That the same indivisible Essence or Divine Nature can be at once in three distinct Persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? or against Nestor and Eutiches, That one person can subsist in two different natures, the divine and human in Christ, which notwithstanding are high fundamentals in Christianity. In all these, and many others, private reason must either bend the knee, and be captivated to faith, or become Atheism. Finally, because if private reason were the only Judge of controversies, it would evidently follow, the General councils of all former ages, (which have commanded all persons under pain of damnation to obey their definitions, and submit to their Decrees) were the most tyrannical and unjust Assemblies that ever were, in usurping such a power over men's consciences, and consequently that there neither is, nor ever was any such thing on earth, as a church (or obliging guide in matters of faith) and church-government. Ob. You therefore believe the church to be infallible, and whatever else you believe, because you judge it reasonable to believe it, and your very act of faith itself is an act of reason; therefore reason is the only Judge of controversies. Answ. The discourse and approbation of reason is always a previous and necessary condition, to our deliberate and rational acts of faith, and the very acts themselves are acts of reason, not discoursing, but simply assenting: All this I grant, yet I deny your consequence, because our acts of faith are not ultimately resolved into private reason (which often is enforced to captivated) but into the authority of God revealing▪ and the church proposing. I believe it (saith Tertullian) because it is impossible (viz. to human reason.) Ob. There is no Apostolical Tradition for the church's Infallibility. Answ. Yes, a more universal one, than for the very Canon of Scripture itself: (which notwithstanding you believe on that score, if at all) For there is not any one book, either of the Old or New Testament, which hath not been rejected by some Heretic or other: if therefore it be sufficient proof of an universal tradition for the whole Canon of Scripture, that some one or two General Councils only have set down the number and names of all the books of Scripture, though not without some variety, and that the Fathers have given testimony to them, some to some books, some to others, but few to all, and that the church in after▪ ages hath accepted them for such, how much more universal is the tradition for the church's infallibility, which is virtually decided and attested by the Anathema's, and definitions of all the General Councils that ever were, condemning all who did not humbly obey and subscribe to them, every decision being attested by all the Fathers, (no one contradicting or condemning the stile) and most unanimously accepted by the whole church of after ages. Objections from Fathers and Councils solved. Ob. THe Council of Frankford condemned the second Nicene Council for giving Sovereign honour to Images, as you may see in the preface of the Caroline books. Answ. The second council of Nice allows no such honour to images, but only a salutation or honorary worship, not true Latria (or Sovereign honour) which it defines to be due to God only, Acts 1. 7. The Caroline books are of no authority, they say that council was not approved by the Pope, which is false, and that it was held at Constantinople in Bythinia, whereas Constantinople is in Thrace. Ob. The Lateran Council under Pope Leo 10. Sess. 11. defined, a Pope to be above a Council, and the Council of Constance Sess. 4. defined a council to be above a Pope. Answ. Neither part was ever yet owned by the church for an ecumenical decree or definition, and if it were, it would be answered, that the Lateran Council defined only a Pope to be above a Council taken without a Pope, or not approved, and that the Council of Constance only defined a Council approved by a Pope, to be above a Pope without a Council, which definitions are not contradictory, not more than to say, one part of any thing is bigger than another, and the whole bigger than both; so that from hence it cannot be inferred, that either Council erred; nor was either decree approved by the Pope. Ob. The Council of Basil defined, That a Council was above a Pope. Answ. The Decree was not approved, nor any other of that Council, but only such as concerned Church-benefices. See Eugenius with Turrecremata. l. 2. c. 100 Ob. The Council of Ariminum defined Arianism. Answ. It did not, and that equivocal decree which was there made, was never approved by the Pope; and the Fathers themselves, (who were deluded by the Arians, with words that bore a double sense, when they perceiv●d the fraud) lamented, and renounced the fact. Ob. The Council of Trent erred, by adding to the Canon of Scripture. Answ. It did not: The third Council of Carthage approved all the same books by name, excepting Baruch, whom they comprised with the Prophet Hieremy, whose Secretary he was, and this 1200. years ago. Ob. The Fathers erred some in one thing, some in another. Answ. A part, I grant, all together (speaking of any one age) I deny, and they all submitted to the church; and so do likewise our Schoolmen, who differ only in opinion concerning School-points undefined, not in faith. Ob. S. Austin tells S. Hierome, that he esteems none but the writers of the Canonical books to have been infallible in all they writ, and not to err in any thing. Answ. Neither do we, we esteem not the writers of Councils infallible in all they writ, nor yet the Councils themselves, but only in the ecumenical decrees, or definitions of Faith. Ob. S. Augustine Epist. 112. says, We are only bound to believe the canonical Scriptures, without dubitation; but for other witnesses, we may believe, or not believe them, according to the weight of their authority. Answ. He speaks in a particular case, in which nothing had been defined by the church; namely, Whether God could be seen with corporal eyes? but the Decrees of general councils are of divine authority, as we have proved; and therefore according to S. Augustine, to be believed without dubitation. Ob. S. Athanasius (in his Epistle to the Bishops of Africa) tells the Arians, they in vain ran about to seek councils, since the Scripture is more powerful than all councils. Answ. He says it was vain for them, who had rejected the general council of Nice, nor doubt we but the Scripture hath in many respects a pre-eminence above the definitions of general councils, and a higher degree of infallibility, yet these also are infallible in points of faith. I conclude this Article with that Decree of the council of Basil, The Catholic Church is enriched with so great privilege by Christ our Saviour, etc. that we firmly believe she cannot err in those things which are necessary to salvation, Anno Dom. 1431. respons. Synod. de authoritate Consilii Generalis. ARTICLE VI The true Church demonstrated by her Sanctity and Miracles. OUr Tenet is, That the Roman Catholic Church is known, and evidently distinguished from all false Churches, not only by the marks and properties by us premised, but also by her sanctIty and power of doing miracles; and is proved thus. THE ARGUMENT. 1. THat is the true Church, and lawful Spouse of Christ, which is eminent for Sanctity of Discipline and Doctrine, and for Miracles. 2. But the Roman Catholic Church, and no other, is eminent for Sanctity of Discipline and Doctrine, and for Miracles. 3. Therefore the Roman Catholic Church, and no other, is the true Church, and lawful Spouse of Christ. The mayor for Sanctity is proved by that Article of the Apostles Creed, I believe the holy Catholic Church, as also by these texts of holy Scripture; Christ gave himself for his Church, cleansing her by the laver of water (Baptism) in the Word, that he might present her to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, but that she might be holy and unspotted, Ephes. 26. 27. These things ye were (saith S. Paul) but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God, 1 Cor. 6. 10. A good tree brings forth good fruit, by their fruit ye shall know them, S. Mat. 7. 17. 20. Straight is the gate, and narrow the way which leads to life, etc. If thou wilt be perfect, go and cell all thou hast, and give to the poor, etc. and come and follow me, S. Mat. 19 21. There be Eunuches who have gelded themselves for the Kingdom of heaven, he that can take, let him take, S. Mat. 10. 12. Obey your Prelates, and be subject to them, etc. Heb. 13. 17. Now that the Roman Catholic Church hath abounded with, and brought forth Saints in all ages (which is a pregnant and convincing proof of our second Proposition) is manifest by the Chronicles and Martyrologies of the whole Christian world. S. Augustine, and his fellows, who converted England, when they were received into Canterbury (saith Hollinshed part 1. p. 100) began to follow the trade of the Apostles, exercising themselves in continual prayer, fasting, watching, and preaching, despising all worldly things, and living in all points according to the doctrine which they taught. S. Francis, S. Bennet, and S. Dominick, were all eminent for sanctity of life, as the Magdeburgian Centurists confess, Centur. 13. col. 11. 79. but I never yet heard of any Protestant Saints in the world: Add hereunto what the Catholic Church teaches, That the Commandments are possible, nay must be kept; she teaches the necessity of contrition, confession, and satisfaction, with many other penal practices of self-denial; she teaches obedience to Priests and spiritual Pastors, in things belonging to the soul, and the Government of the church; she teaches much fasting, prayer, and mortification; she exhorts to good works, voluntary poverty, chastity, and obedience. The contrary to all which holy doctrines are taught by Protestants, and other Sectaries. Her churches are open, and divine Service said not only on all Sundays and Holy days, but every day in the week, and that the greatest part in the forenoon▪ There is five times more preaching and catechising, and ten times more fasting and praying in the Catholic Church, than in the Protestant; her Sacraments are more and more frequented, and instead of an innumerable multitudes of religious men and women that are in the Catholic Church, who have freely forsaken all things to follow Christ, and totally relinquished the richeses, pleasures, and preferments of this life to serve him the remainder of their days, in vows and practices of holy poverty, obedience, and chastity▪ Protestant's have an innumerable company of Sects and Sectmasters, that daily spring out of their stock, such as are continually broaching new heresies, and always at defiance one with another. The mayor, as to the power of miracles, is proved by these promises of Christ, He that believeth in me, the works that I do, he shall do, and greater, S. John 14. 10. Those that believe in me, these signs shall follow, in my Name they shall cast out devils, they shall lay hands upon the sick, and they shall be whole, S. Mark 6. 17. The minor is proved by these ensuing undeniable testimonies; first Protestants, and other Sectaries pretend, that miracles have ceased ever since Christ and his Apostles time, because they and their Sect-masters have never yet been able to do any, a sure conviction that they want this Mark. Secondly, histories (as well of enemies as friends) have recorded many famous miracles wrought in all ages by the Catholic Church. The Magdeburgian Centurists, although Protestants (such is evidence & force of truth) have recorded many great miracles done by Catholics in their 13. c. of every century for 1300. years together after Christ. S. Francis of Assisinna, fifteen days before his death, had wounds freshly bleeding in his hands, feet, and side, such as Christ had on the Cross and this by miracle, Ma●. Paris. pag. 319. One Paul Form having stolen two consecrated Hosts of the B. Eucharist out of a church, s●ld one of them to the Jews, who out of malice and contempt stabbed it, saying, If thou be the God of the Christians, manifest thyself, whereupon blood miraculously issued out of the Host, for which fact 38. of them were burnt at Knoblock in Brandenburg, and all the rest of the Jews were banished out of that Marquisate. This is recorded by Pontianus in his fifth book of memorable things, and by John Mandevil a Protestant, in his book de locis communibus▪ pag. 87. as also by Osiander. Epist. 116. p. 28. notwithstanding this confession of adversaries, I will also add some Fathers. Fathers for this point. IN the third Age S. Cyprian, A certain woman (saith he) when she would with unworthy hands have opened her coffer, wherein was the holy thing of our Lord (the B. Eucharist) fire sprung up, whereby she was so terrified, that she durst not touch it. Sermon de lapsis. In the forth age Optatus relates how the Heretics caused the Eucharist to be thrown to dogs, which dogs thereupon all raging tore their Masters in pieces, as guilty of the holy Body. l. 2. contra Donatist. In the same Age S. Gregory Nyssen recounts how S. Gregory Neocesa●iensis by his faith and prayers removed a mountain to make room for the foundation of a church, according to that promise of Christ; If you have faith as a Mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, remove from hence thither, and it shall be done, and nothing shall be impossible to you. S. Mat. 17. 20. for which miracle he was called Thaumaturgus, in l. de vita S. Gregor. Nicephorus hath recorded the same miracle, l. 6. c. 7. In the same Age S. chrysostom affirms, that not only the relics of S. Peter anid Paul did miracles, and cured diseases, Acts 5. 12, 15, 19 but also the relics of many other Saints; and he exemplifies in S. Babilas the Martyr, whose miracles he records, l. de Babil. Martyr. tom: 5. inferring from thence against Infidels, that Christ is God; who hath wrought such wonders by the dust of his servants. In the same Age S. Ambrose reports, That his Brother Satyrus was miraculously preserved from drowning in a shipwreck by the B. Sacrament of the Eucharist, which he had fastened in a stole about his neck. Funeral Oration on the death of Satyrus. c. 7. In the fifth Age S. Augustine, having recounted many miracles wrought at S. Stephen's Monument, which he himself was an eye-witness of, affirms at length, that if he should record all that he knew to have been done, he must fill books. l. de civitat. Dei 22. c. 8. Objections solved. Ob. MIracles have ceased eversince Christ and his Apostles▪ Answ. You contradict the plain promises of Christ made to his church without limitation, as also the Histories and Records of all Christendom. Ob. Signs and miracles were given to unbelievers, not to believers, therefore they are now unnecessary. Answ. Not, they are not, for they very much confirm the immediate care and providence of God over his church, they excellently demonstrate his omnipotence, and there be many disbelievers still, the more's the pity. Ob. Why do not than your Priests do miracles? we would be glad to see some of their doing. Answ. Because of your incredulity, as o● Saviour told the Jews, S. Mat. 17. 19 yet they do many in God's appointed time and place, (as the Records of the church will testify) though not to satisfy your sinful curiosity. See Francis à S. Clara in his Paralipomena, who recounts many great and evident miracles. ARTICLE VII. The Pope's Supremacy asserted. OUr Tenet is, That the Pope, or Bishop of Rome, is the true Successor of S. Peter, and Head of the whole Church of God, which hath in part been proved already, by our Catalogue of Chief Pastors, (who were all Popes of Rome) and by the Councils of all Ages, approved by them, and owning them for such, and is yet farther proved thus. The first Argument. 1. THe Foundation hath a pre-eminence of firmitude and stability before the rest of the building which is founded on it, and the Shepherd is Head of his Flock, and above his Sheep. 3. But S. Peter, next after Christ himself, was the foundation of the whole church, and Pastor of the whole flock. 3. Therefore S. Peter next after Christ, had a pre-eminence over the whole church, and was Head of the whole flock, and above all the other sheep, of which number were the rest of the Apostles. The major is proved, because the foundation supporteth the rest of the building; (We are built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief Cornerstone, Ephes. 2. 20.) and the Shepherd hath a power to feed and govern his whole Flock. The minor is proved, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church, S. Mat. 16. 18. (the whole was built on him) and for a reward of Peter's special dilection, (for he loved Christ more than the rest of the Apostles) he said to him; Feed my lambs, feed my lambs, feed my sheep. S. John 21. 16, 17, 18. (a Commission to feed all without exception.) Another Argument. 1. HE that is by God's appointment to confirm others in the Faith, and is generally set before others in the Scripture, must needs be greater than those others in power and dignity. 2. But S. Peter by our Saviour's own appointment. was to confirm the Apostles in the Faith, and is generally preferred before them all in holy Scripture. 3. Therefore S. Peter was ●●ve the rest of the Apostles in power an● dignity, and therefore the Head and Primate of the rest. The major is proved, because the stronger is not confirmed by the weaker, nor the lesle worthy to be set before the more worthy, generally speaking. The minor is proved, I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not; and thou being at length converted, confirm thy Brethrens, S. Lu. 22. 31. The names of the twelve are these, the first Simon, who is called Peter, etc. S. Mat. 10. 2. S. Mark ●. S. Lu. 2. and Acts the 1. What hath been said to prove S. Peter's primacy, proves olso the primacy of his Succefsour, the Pope of Rome. Fathers for this point. IN the first Age S. Dionysius, the Areopagite affirms, That he and Timothy were both present at the B. Virgi● Mary's death, to behold that Body 〈◊〉 gave the beginning of life; and that there was ●l●o present, both James the Brother of our Lord, a●● Peter the Supreme, and most ancient top of Divines: He is cited by S. John Damascen, Orat. 2. de dormit, deipar, sub finem. In the second Age Irenaeus; All Churches round about aught to resort to the Roman Church, by reason of her more powerful principality, l. 3. c. 3. And again, The Roman Church is the greatest and most ancient, founded at Rome by S. Peter, and S. Paul, l. 3. cont. Valent. c. 3. In the third Age Origen; When the chief charge of feeding Christ's sheep was given to S. Peter, and the Church founded upon him, etc. there was required of him the confession of no virtue, but of charity. in c. 6. Epist. ad Roman. In the same Age S. Cyprian; We hold Peter the Head and Root of the Church. Epist. ad Julian. And in another place, he calls the Church of Rome S. Peter's Chair. Epist. 55. In the fourth Age S. Basil calls S. Peter, That blessed one, who was preferred before the rest of the Apostles. Sermon de Judicio Dei. In the same Age S. Athanasius; Thou art Peter, and upon thy foundation the Pillars of the Church, that is the Bishops, are fortified. in Epist. ad Felicem. In the same Age S. Epiphanius; He chose Peter to be the Captain of his Disciples, Haeres. 51. In the same Age S. Cyril of Jerusalem, Peter the Prince (saith he) and most excellent of all the Apostles. Cateches. 2. In the same Age S. chrysostom; The Pastor and Head of the Church was once a poor Fisherman. Homil. 55. in Matthaeum. In the same Age Ecumenius; Not James, but Peter riseth up, as being both more servant, and also the Precedent of the Disciples. in ●. ●. Actorum. In the same Age Optatus Milevitanus; In this Chair sat Peter the Head of all the Apostles. l. 2. cont. Parmen. In the same Age Eusebius Emissenus, He first committed his lambs, afterwards his sheep to Peter, because he made him not only Pastor, but Pastor of the Pastors. Sermon de Nativ. S. Jo. In the same Age S. Ambrose; Andrew first followedour Saviour, yet Andrew received not the primacy, but Peter. in 2 Cor. 12. In the fifth Age S. Augustine speaking of S. Peter's penance, says, He cures the whole body's disease in the very Head of the Church. Serm. 12. de 4. temporibus. And again, Peter the Head of the Apostles, the Gate-keeper of heaven, and the foundation of the Church. Epist. 86. And in another place, Of whom Peter the Apostle, by reason of the primacy of his Apostleship, bore the person etc. Tract. ultimo in joannem. The first Nicene Council defined, That he, who holds the Sea of Rome, is the Head and chief of all the Patriarches, se●●ng he is the first, as Peter, to whom power is given over all Christian Princes, and all their people, as he who is the Vi●ar of Christ our Lord over all people, and the universal Church of Christ, and whoever shall contradict this, is excommunicated by the Synod. Can. 39 Arab. The Council of Chalcedon; We throughly consider truly, that all primacy, and chief honour, is to be kept for the Archbishop of Old Rome. Action 16. See more above in the Councils. Objections solved. Ob. had power over Christ himself, Thou shouldest not (saith he) have any power against me, unless it were given thee from above, Jo. 19 11. therefore temporal Princes are above the Pope. Answ. I distinguish your antecedent, he had a power of permission over Christ, I grant; a power of jurisdiction, I deny, and so do all good Christians. Nor is your consequence lesle to be denied, speaking of spiritual things, and things belonging to Church-Government, in which we only defend the Pope's Supremacy, and that without all prejudice to Princes and chief Magistrates in their supremacy of temporal affairs. Ob. S. Paul says, At Caesar's Judgment-seat I stand, where I aught to be judged, etc. I appeal to Caesar: therefore the Emperor is above the Pope. Answ. S. Paul appealed to Caesar, as to a Judge of fact, not of right, so that your consequence is false. Ob. The Kings of the Gentiles overrule them, but you not so, S. Lu. 22. 25. Answ. Christ there forbids spiritual superiors to lord it over inferiors, so the Greek word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) signifies, yet he there expressly mentions a greater and a lesser, a superior and inferior among them. Ob. Christ is the foundation (of the Church) and other foundation no man can lay, 1 Cor. 3. 11. Answ. Other principal foundation no man can lay, I grant, other subordinate, I deny; for he himself hath laid Peter (Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church, S. Mat. 16. 18.) and the rest of the Apostles, were built on the foundation of them all, though not equally, Ephes. 2. 20. Ob. S. Cyprian (de unit. Eccl.) says, The Apostles were equal in dignity. And S. Hierome affirms the Church was equally founded on them all. l. count. Jovin. Answ. They were equal in their calling to the Apostleship, I grant, in their power of Government and Jurisdiction, I deny: And the Church was equally founded on them all before a Head was constituted, I grant; after a Head was constituted, I deny, and so do those Fathers; S. Cyprian saying in the same place, Tha● Christ disposed the Origen of Unity beginning from one, (Peter.) And S. Hierome tells us, He chos● one of the twelve, that a Head being constituted, the occasion of Schism might be taken away. Ob. One body with two heads is monstrous. Answ. Not if one be principal, and the other subordinate, or ministerial only, as in our present case. So Christ is the Head of the man, and the man of the woman, 1 Cor. 11. without any monstrosity. Ob. S. Gregory rejects the name of Universal Archbishop as Antichristian. l. 7. indict. 2. Epist. 96. Answ. He rejects it as it excludes all other● from being Bishops, I grant; as it only signifies one to be supreme, and above all others, I deny, and so doth he himself, saying in the same book (Ep. 62.) If there be any crime found in Bishops, I know no Bishop but is subject to the Sea Apostolic. And l. 4. indict. 13. Epist. 32. The care and principality of the Church hath been committed to the holy Apostle, and Prince of the Apostles S. Peter, yet is not he called Universal Apostle, as if there were no other Apostle but he. You see in what sense he rejects the word (Universal.) Ob. The first Constantinopolitan Council, and the Council of Chalcedon, decreed the Constantinopolitan Sea to be equal with that of Rome. Answ. In certain privileges, I grant, in original Authority or Jurisdiction, I deny, and so does the said Council of Chalcedon, saying, We throughly consider truly, that all primacy and chief honour is to be kept for the Archbishop of Old Rome. Action 16. nor was that Canon of the Council of Constantinople ever approved by the Pope, though it owned the Church of Rome to be the Sea Apostolic, and sought but primacy in the second place, and after it. Ob. The Council of Nice says, Let the ancient custom be kept in Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Alexandria hath power over all those, because the Bishop of Rome also hath such a customs▪ Can. 6. Answ. The Bishop of Rome had a custom to permit such a power to the Bishop of Alexandria; the Greek Text says, Because to the Bishop of Rome also this is accustomed, which argues him to be above the other. Ob. The Emperors heretofore called and presided in General Councils. Answ. They called them instrumentally, I grant; by way of spiritual Jurisdiction, I deny. And they presided also in them for peace, and ornament, true; for definition or judgement, 'tis most false: That always was reserved to the Popes, I will not sit among them as Emperor (saith Constantine in his Epist. to Pope Leo about the sixth General Council) I will not speak imperiously among them, but as one of them, and what the Fathers shall ordain, that I will execute. Emperors subscribed councils, not in order to constitution, but execution. God (saith Constantine to the Nicene council) hath made you Priests, and given you power to judge us, but you may not be judged of m●n. In Rufino. Ob. What think you of Pope Joan? was she an Universal Bishop also? Answ. I think him rather a particular fool, who can believe so gross a fable: 'Twas the credulous relation of one Martinus Polonus, ● silly man, (the only Author for it, though Protestant Writers have falsely cited others) who hath sufficiently discredited his own Narration; For he tells you, she was born at Mounts in England; (there having never been any such place heard of) and that she was bred up at Athens, an University not than in being, but destroyed many years before, a pretty likely tale. Ob. You Roman Catholics, as I have heard, (if the Pope excommunicate a Tyrant or Heretical Prince) hold it lawful for his own subjects to kill him. Answ. You have heard a loud slander, we abominate and detest the Doctrine. It is defined by the council of Constance, and therefore of faith with us, That 'tis Heretical, to affirm it lawful for a Subject to kill his Prince upon any pretence whatsoever. Sess. 15. Answ. Mariana the Jesuit printed the Opinion. Answ. True, by way of Problem he did; but his book was condemned, and publicly burnt by a Provincial council of his own Order. Ob. At lest you hold, the Pope can dispense with your Allegiance to Princes, and if he dispense, you are not bound to keep any Faith with them, or any Heretics. Answ. We hold, That our allegiance to Princes is not dispensible by any authority on earth; and are as ready to defend our Prince, or civil Magistrate, with hazard of our lives and fortunes, even against the Pope himself, if he invade them, as against any other enemy. We esteem ourselves obliged to keep Faith even with Infidels: And the council of Trent hath declared, That to violate any lest point of public Faith given to Heretics, is a thing punishable by the Law of God and man. Sess. 15. 18. What this or that particular Doctor may hold, or the Pope's flatterers, if he have any, adds nothing to the Creed of Catholics, nor is it justly chargeable on the whole church. We conclude this whole Treatise of the church by way of corollary, with one short Argument. 1. That is the true Church▪ and no other, to which all these foresaid marks and properties plainly agreed (viz. a continued Succession from Christ to this time. 2. Visibility▪ 3. Unity. 4. Universality. 5. Infallibility. 6. Sanctity. 7. The Power of Miracles, and to be governed by one Supreme Head, and he a Bishop.) 2. But all these foresaid marks and properties agreed plainly and undeniably to the Roman Catholic Church, and no other, as hath been proved. 3. Therefore the Roman Catholic Church, and no other, is the true Church. Having thus charactered and pointed out the Church, we come now to vindicate her particular and most principal Doctrines from all aspersions cast on her by Heretics. And for our clearer performance of this task, we shall first show you the Church's Rule of Faith, by which she hath conserved herself infallible, and in the purity of Apostolical Doctrine, to this time, and shall do so to the world's end. ARITCLE VIII. Of Apostolical Tradition. OUr Tenet is, That the true Rule of Christian Faith is Apostolical Tradition; or a delivery of Doctrine from Father to Son, by hand to hand, from Christ and his Apostles, and that nothing aught to be received as Faith, but what is proved to have been so delivered, which we prove thus. The first Argument. 1. That is now the true Rule of 〈◊〉 which was the essential means of planting and conserving it at first. 2. But Oral and Apostolical Tradition, not written books, was the essential means of planting and conserving it at first. 3. Therefore Oral and Apostolical Tradition, not written books, is the true Rule of Faith. The major is proved, because the Rule of Faith must be immutable, and the same in all Ages, as the Faith itself is. The minor is proved, because the first Gospel was not written till eight years after the death of Christ, or thereabouts; in which space the Apostles had preached, and planted the Faith of Christ in many Nations, over almost all the world. Add to this, that many Ages were passed before all the books of Scripture were dispersed and accepted for Canonical by the whole Church; so that when any difference arose in points of Faith among the Christians of the first Age, they were not to inquire what had been written▪ ●u● whether the Apostles had 〈…〉. A second Argument. 1. That is the true Rule of Faith, by which we may infallibly be assured, both what Doctrines Christ and his Apostles taught, and what books they wrote, and without which we can never be infallibly assured of those things. 2. But by Apostolical Tradition we may infallibly be assured, both what Doctrines Christ and his Apostles taught, and what books they wrote, and by no other means. 3. Therefore Apostolical Tradition is the true Rule of Faith. The major is manifest, because in the Doctrines which Christ and his Apostles taught, and the books which they wrote, are contained all things that are of faith; therefore the infallible means of knowing them, is the infallible and true rule of Faith. The minor is proved; because a full report from whole worlds of Fathers, to whole worlds of Sons, of what they heard and saw, is altogether infallible, since sensible evidence in a world of eye-witnesses, unanimously concurring, is altogether infallible, how fallible soever men may be in their particulars; and such a report, such an evidence, is Apostolical Tradition, for all the Doctrines Christ and his Apostles taught, and all the books they wrote; therefore infallible. A third Argument. 1. If Christ and his Apostles have given to the Church of the first Age [together with all points of Faith] this for the Rule of Faith, that nothing on pain of damnation aught to be delivered for Faith, but what they had received from them as such, than it was impossible that they should deliver any thing for Faith to the second age, but what they had received from them as such, and so from age to age to this time. 2. But Christ and his Apostles did give the Church of the first age [together with all points of Faith] this for the Rule of Faith; that nothing on pain of damnation aught to be delivered for Faith, but what they had received from them as such. 3. Therefore it was impossible that the Church of the first age, should deliver any thing to the Church of the second for Faith, but what they had received as such from Christ and his Apostles, or consequently, that they should err in Faith. The major is proved; because to make her deliver more for Faith than she had received in this supposition, the whole Church must either have forgotten what she had been taught from her infancy in matters of salvation, and damnation, which is impossible in a whole world of ear and eye-witnesses, as hath been showed; or else the whole Church must have so far broken with reason, which is the very nature of man, as to conspire in a notorious lie to damn herself, and her posterity, by saying she hath received such or such a point for Faith, which in her own conscience she knew she had not so received; and this is more impossible than the former, even as impossible, as for men not to be men; as shall be showed in the next argument. The minor is proved by these positive texts of Scripture. Therefore Brethrens stand ye fast, and hold the Traditions which ye have learned, whether by word, or by our Epistle, 2 Thes. 2. 15. Th●se things which ye have been taught, and heard, and seen i● me, those do ye, Phil. 4. So we have preached, and so ye have believed, 1 Cor. 14. 15. How shall they believe in whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a Preacher? Rom. 10. 17. The things that thou hast heard of me before many witnesses, the same commend thou to faithful men which shall be fit to teach others also, 2 Tim. 2. 2. If any man shall preach otherwise than ye have received, let him be Anathema, Gal. 1. 9 Although we, or an Angel from heaven preach to you, besides that which we have preached to you, be he Anathema, Gal. 1. 8. The last Argument for Tradition. 1. To make a whole world of wise and disinterested men break so far with their own nature, as to conspire in a notorious lie to damn themselves, and their posterity (which is the only means remaining to make an Apostolical Tradition fallible) such a force of hopes or fears must fall upon them all at once, as may be stronger than nature in them. 2. But such a force of hopes or fears can never fall on the whole world or Church at once, which is dispersed over all Nations. 3. Therefore it is impossible for the whole world, or Church at once, to conspire in such a lie, or consequently to err in Faith. 'Tis the assurance of this impossibility that moves the Church of the present age to resolve her Faith and Doctrines into the precedent age, and so from age to age, from sons to fathers, up to the mouth of Christ and his Apostles teaching it, saying; We believe it, because we have received it. But if we refer the whole trial of Faith to the arbitrement of Scripture, I see nothing more evident, than that this one Argument ad hominem gives the cause into our hands, since it clearly proves either many controverted Catholic Doctrines are sufficiently contained in Sripture, or many Protestant ones are not: and thus I prove my discourse. ALl Protestant Tenets (say you) are sufficiently contained in Scripture; but many Catholic Doctrines (say I) denied by Protestants, are as evident in Scripture, as divers Protestant Tenets; therefore many Catholic Doctrines denied by Protestants are sufficiently contained in Scripture. He that has hardiness enough to deny this conclusion, let him compare the texts that recommend the Church's authority in deciding controversies, and expounding Articles of Faith, with those that support the Protestant private spirit, or particular judgement of discretion; let him compare the places that favour Priestly absolution, with those on which they ground the necessity (not to stand upon the lawfulness) of Infant Baptism; let him compare the passages of the Bible for the Real presence of our Saviour's body in the Eucharist, for the primacy of S. Peter, for the authority of Apostolical Traditions, though unwritten, with whatever he can cite, to prove the three distinct persons in the B. Trinity, the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, the procession of the Holy Ghost from both; the obligation of Sunday instead of the Sabbath, so expressly commanded in the Moral Law; and when he has turned over all his Bible as often as he pleases, I shall offer him only this request, either to admit the argument, or teach me to answer it. The same Syllogism may with equal evidence be applied to the negative, as well as positive doctrines, on either side. All Catholic points denied by Protestants, are sufficiently (say you) condemned in Scripture: But many points embraced by Protestants, are as clearly (say I) condemned in Scripture, as divers they deny in opposition to Catholics; therefore many points embraced by Protestants, are sufficiently condemned in Scripture. Where does the Bible so plainly forbidden Prayer for the Dead, as this darling error and fundamental principle of Protestancy, that any one, however ignorant, however unstable, aught to read the holy Scriptures, and unappealably judge of their sense by his private interpretation? where is it so plainly forbidden to adore Christ in what place soever we believe him to be really present, as 'tis to work upon the Saturday? Thus if the Bible be constituted sole Rule of Religion, Protestants clearly can neither condemn the Catholic, nor justify their own. Testimonies of Antiquity for Tradition. IN the second age Irenaeus. If the Fathers had left us no Scripture at all, aught we not to follow the order of Traditions l. 3. c. 4. In the third age Tertullian. What I believe I reo●ived from the present Church, the present Church from the Primitive, that from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ. l. de praescrip. c. 21. 37. In the same age S. Cyprian. Know that in offering the Chalice (viz. by mingling water with Wine) we are admonished to observe our Lord's Tradition. In the same age Origen. In our understanding Scripture, we must not departed from the first Ecclesiastical Tradition. Tract. 27. in c. 23. S. Matthaei. In the fourth age S. Athanasius. This Doctrine we have demonstrated to have been delivered from hand to hand, by Fathers to Sons, l. 1. de decret. Concil. Niceni. In the same age S. chrysostom. It is evident that the Apostles did not deliver all things by writing, but many things without, and these be as worthy credit as the others. On 2 Thes. 2. In the same age Epiphanius. We must use Traditions, for the Scriptures have not all things. Haeres. 61. In the fifth age S. Augustine: The Apostles commanded nothing hereof (Rebaptisation) but that custom which was opposed against Cyprian in it, is to be believed to proceed from their Tradition, as many things are which the whole Church holds, and are therefore well believed to be commanded by the Apostles, though not written. l. 5. de baptism. c 23. The second Nicene Council defines thus: Whoever shall dare to think otherwise, or teach after the custom of wicked Heretics, to violate Ecclesiastical Traditions, let him be Anathema. Act. 7. p. 686. Anno Dom. 781. The Council of Sens thus. It is a dangerous thing to be in that error, that nothing aught to be admitted which is not in Scripture; for many things were delivered from Christ to posterity by the hands of the Apostles, from mouth to mouth, etc. which are to be held without all dubitation. Decret. 5. Objections solved. Ob. YOu have made frustrate the Commandment of God for your Tradition, S. Mat. c. 15. v. 4. Beware jest any man deceive you by vain fallacy, according to the traditions of men, Col. 2. Answ. These texts are both against the vain Traditions of private men, not against Apostolical Traditions. Ob. There is no better way to decide controversies, than by Scripture. Answ. Than by Scripture expounded by the Church, and according to the rule of Apostolical tradition, I grant: than by Scripture according to the dead letter, or expounded by the private spirit, I deny. For so (as Tertullian says) there is no good got by disputing out of the texts of Scripture, but either to make a man sick or mad. De prescript. c. 19 Ob. All Scripture divinely inspired is profitable for teaching, for arguing, for reproving, and for instructing in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, instructed to every good work, 1 Tim. 3. 16, 17. therefore Traditions are not necessary. Answ. S. Paul speaks only there of the old Scripture, which Timothy had known from his childhood, (when little, if any, of the new could be written) as is plain by the precedent verse, which we acknowledge to be profitable for all those uses, but not sufficient; neither will any more follow out of that text, if understood of the new Scriptures: so that your consequence is vain, and of no force. Ob. If any one shall add to those, God shall add to him the plagues written in this Book, Apoc. 22. 18, 19 Therefore it is not lawful to add Traditions. Answ. It follows immediately, And if any one shall diminish from the words of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, vers. 19 By which S. john evidently restrains that text to the book of his own Prophecies only; which is not the whole rule of faith, and therefore by that you cannot exclude either the rest of the Scriptures or Apostolical Traditions from that Rule. Ob. We may have a certain knowledge of all things necessary to salvation, by the Bible, or written Word only. Answ. Not▪ we cannot; for there have been, are and will be infinite disputes about that to the world's end, as well what books are canonical and what not, as what the true sense and meaning is of every verse and chapter. Nor can we ever be infallibly assured of either, but by means of Apostolical Tradition: so that if this be interrupted, and have failed for any one whole age together (as Protestants pretend it did for many) the whole Bible, for aught we know, might in that space be changed and corrupted: nor can the contrary ever be evinced, without new revelation from God; the dead letter cannot speak for itself. Ob. Many other signs also did jesus in the sight of his Disciples, which are not written in this book, but those are written, that you may believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that believing, you may have life in his name, S. John 20. 30, 31. Therefore S. Johns Gospel contains all things necessary to salvation. Answ. I deny your consequence; for S. john omitted many things of great moment, as our Lord's Prayer, and his last Supper, which are both necessary to be believed. And though he say, These things are written that we may believe, and have life, he says not that these things only were written, or are sufficient for that purpose, which is the thing in question; so that he excludes not the rest of the Gospels nor Apostollical Traditions. And it is no unusual thing in Scripture to ascribe the whole effect to that which is but the cause in part; thus Christ promiseth beatitude to every single Christian virtue, S. Matth. 5. and S. Paul, salvation to every one that shall call on the name of our Lord, or confess with his mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe that God hath raised him from the dead. Rom: 10. 4. 9, 10. yet more than this is requisite to salvation. Ob. S. Luke tells us, He hath written of all those things which Jesus did and taught. Acts. 1: 1. Therefore all things necessary to salvation, are contained in his Gospel. Answ. He writ of all the principal passages of his life and death, I grant, (and that was the whole scope or intent of the Evangelists) of all absolutely which he did and taught, I deny; for in the same chapter he tells us, that during the forty days which Christ remained with them after his Resurrection, he often appeared to them, instructing them in the things concerning the Kingdom of God, very few of which instructions are mentioned by S. Luke, nor does he or any other of the Evangelists say any thing in their Gospels of the coming of the Holy Ghost, or of the things by him revealed to the Church, which were great and many, according to that; I have many things to say to you, but you cannot now bear them, but when the spirit of truth cometh he shall teach you all truth, etc. and the things that are to come he shall show you, S. john 16. 12, 13, 14. Add to this, That, if all things which Jesus taught and did, should be written, the whole world would not contain the Books, S. john c. 21. v. last. therefore your consequence is false, and that saying of S. Luke is to be limited. Ob. At lest the whole Bible contains all things necessary to salvation, either for belief or practice for all forts of men whatsoever, and that explicitly and plainly. Therefore the Bible is the rule of faith. Answ. I deny both antecedent, and consequence. The three Creeds are not there; the four first Counsels are not there; there is nothing expressly prohibiting Polygamy or Rebaptisation, nor expressly affirming three distinct Persons in one divine nature, or the Son's Consubstantiality to the Father, or the procession of the H. Ghost from both, or that the H. Ghost is God, or for the necessity of Infant▪ Baptism, or for changing the Saturday into Sunday, etc. all which notwithstanding are necessary to be known for the whole Church, and to be believed by us in particular (as Protestants will acknowledge) if they be once sufficiently proposed to us by the Church. Nor is it sufficient, we believe all the Bible, unless we also believe it in the true sense, and be able to confute all Heresies out of it, (I speak of the whole Church) which she can never do, without the Rule of Apostolical Tradition, in any of the points forementioned. Ob. Doubtless for speculative points of Christian doctrine, Books are a safer and more infallible way, or rule, ●hen oral Tradition. Answ. You are mistaken; Books are infinitely more liable to casualties, and corruptions, than Traditions, as well by reason of the variety of languages into which they are translated, as the diversity of Translations; scarce any two Editions agreeing, but all pretending one to mend the other; besides the multiplicity of Copies and Copyists, with the equivocation, and uncertainty of dead, and written words, if captiously wrested, or literally insisted on, who can prove any one Copy of the Bible to be infallible, or uncorrupted, (those that were written by the Apostles own hands, we have not) or who can convince, that any one text of the Bible can have no other sense or meaning, than what is convenient for his purpose, insisting only on the dead Letter? all which dangers and difficulties are avoided by relying on Apostolical Tradition, which binds men under pain of damnation, to deliver nothing for faith, but what they have received as such by hand to hand from age to age, and in the same sense in which they have received it. Think me not foolish (says S. Augustin) for using these terms; for I have so learned these things by Tradition, neither dare I deliver them to thee any other way, than as I have received them. l. de utilit. cred. c. 3. As to your difficulty of speculative points, I answer, That the whole frame of necessary points of Christian doctrine was in a manner made sensible and visible by the external and uniform practice of the Church. The incarnation and all the mysteries thereof, by the holy images of Christ erected in all sacred places; the passion by the sign of the Cross used in the Sacraments, and set up in Churches. The death of Christ by the unbloudy sacrifice of the Mass, which is a lively commemoration of it. The Trinity and Unity, by doing all things in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, etc. Now who can doubt, but that oral tradition thus seconded by the outward and uniform practice of the whole world, is a much safer and more infallible rule, for conserving revealed veritles, than books, or dead letters, which cannot explicate themselves. Ob. If all things necessary to salvation be not contained in the whole Bible, how shall a man ever come to know, what is necessary to be known, either by the whole Church in general, or by himself in particular? Answ. For the whole Church in general, she is obliged to know all timely revealed verities which are necessary to the salvation of all mankind, she being made by Christ the depository of all, and having the promise of divine assistance to all. And for each particular man, so much only is necessary to be believed, as is sufficiently proposed to him by the Church, and her Ministers, for the Word of God, or would at lest be so proposed, if he himself were not in fault; all which we may easily come to know, by means of Apostolical tradition, without which we can have no infallible assurance of any point of Christian doctrine. Ob. You dance in a vicious circle, proving the Scripture and the Church's infallibility by Apostolical tradition, and tradition by the Scripture and the Church's infallibility. Answ. Not: We go on by a right rule towards heaven. We prove indeed the Church's infallibility, and the credibility of the Scriptures by Apostolical tradition, but that is evident of itself, and admits no other proof. When we bring Scripture for either, we use it only as a secondary testimony, or argument ad hominem. ARTICLE IX. Of Schism and Heresy. NOthing entrenching more on the rule of Faith, or the authority of the Church, than Schism and Heresy: We shall here briefly show what they are, and who are justly chargeable therewith. OUr Tenet is, That not only Heresy (which is a wilful separation from the Doctrine of the Catholic Church) b●e also Schism (which is a separation from her government) is damnable and sacrilegious, and that most Sectaries are guilty of both. The Argument. 1. All such as are wilfully divided both from the doctrine and discipline of the Catholic Church are Schismatics and Heretics, and consequently in a damnable state. 2. But most Protestants and other Sectaries are wilfully divided both from the doctrine and discipline of the Catholic Church. 3. Therefore they are Schismatics and Heretics, and consequently in a damnable state. The major is manifest out of the very notion and definition of schism and heresy; the sequel of it is proved thus by Scripture. A man that is an Heretic after the first and second admonition avoid knowing that he that is such an one is subverted and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgement, Titus 3. 10. There shall be lying masters which shall bring in Sects of perdition, and deny him that bought them, the Lord, bringing upon themselves speedy perdition, 2 S. Pet. 2. 1. S. Judas calls them raging waves of the Sea, foaming out their own confusion; wand'ring stars, to whom the storm of darkness is reserved for ever, Epist. v. 13. I beseech you, brethren, observe these who make schisms and scandals contrary to the doctrine which you have been taught, and avoid them, for such men serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by kind speeches, and blessings, seduce the heart of the simple, Rom. 15. 17. Woe to the world because of scandals, for it must needs be that scandals come, but notwithstanding w●e to that man by whom scandals come, S. Mat. 18. 7, 17. If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the Heathen, and the Publican, S. Mat. 18. 18. If any obey not our word, do not company with him, that he may be confounded, 2 Thes. 2. 14. The Minor is proved, because Luther and his fellow Protestants divided themselves from the communion of all Churches, therefore from the communion of the Catholic Church, and that as well in points of doctrine, as matters of government, as plainly appears by all we have said, and is yet confirmed, because when they began their separation, Luther in Germany, Tyndall in England etc. the Catholic Church was in most quiet possession of her Tenets, in perfect peace and unity, her Doctrines and government being the very same they had been, not only to the time of Gregory the great (as Protestants confess) but to the very time of the Apostles, as is manifest both by the public Liturgies, Counsels, and Records of all Ages, in which no one Doctrine of Faith, or substantial point of Discipline, than professed by the Roman Catholic Church, and opposed by Protestants, had ever been censured and condemned as heretical or schismatical, but all for the most part actually designed and established against ancient heretics, as you have seen in the Councils. Fathers for this Point. IN the 2. Age Irenaeus: God will judge those who make schisms in the Church, ambitious men, who have not the honour of God before their eyes, but rather embracing their own interests than the unity of the Church, for small and light causes divide the great and glorious Body of Christ, etc. for in the end they cannot make any reformation so important, as the evil of schism is prejudicious. l. 4 c 62. In the third age S. Cyprian: Do they think Christ is amongst them when they are assembled out of the Church of Christ? Not, though they were drawn to torments and execution for the confession of the name of Christ▪ yet this pollution is not washed away, not not with blood; this inexpiable and inexcusable crime of schism is not purged away even by death itself. De unit. Eccles. In the fourth Age S. chrysostom; There is nothing so sharply provokes the wrath of God, as the division of the Church, insomuch that though we should have performed all other sorts of good things, yet we shall incur a punishment not lesle cruel, by dividing the unity of the Church, than those have done, who pierced and divided Christ's own Body. In Ephes. Hom. 11. In the same Age Optatus; The unity of the Episcopal Chair is the prime endowment of the Church. L. 2. In the fifth Age S. Augustine; If any man be found separated from her (the Church) he shall be excluded from the number of Children, neither shall ●e have God for his Father, that would not have the Church for his Mother: and it will nothing avail him to have rightly believed, or to have done never so many good works without this conclusion of the sovereign good, de Symbol. ad Catechum. l 4. c. 10. And again, Whosoever hath charity is assured, but as for charity, no man transpor●eth that out of the Church, in Psalm. 21. And in another place, Out of the Church an Heretic may have all things but salvation; he may have the Sacraments, he may have the Faith and preach it, etc. only salvation he cannot have, sup. gest. Emar. And to the Donatists he says, You are with us in Baptism, in the Creed, and in the other Sacraments of the Lord, but in the spirit of unity, in the bond of peace, and finally in the Catholic Church you are not with us, Epist. 48. Objections solved. Ob. WE separated only from the Church of Rome's errors. Answ. Yes, from her Catholic and Apostolical Doctrines: She doth not err in Faith, as hath been proved. I answer therefore with S. Augustine to the Donatists▪ ● object to you the crime of schism, which you will deny, and I will presently prove, because you do not communicate with all nations, count. Petil. Add, not nor with any Nation before Luther. Ob. We refused only the Church of Rome's innovations and superstitions. Answ. You slander. Her Discipline and Doctrines were the same than, that they had been in all precedent ages. Did the Church perish (saith S. Augustine to the Donatists) or did she not? If she did, what Church than brought forth the Donatists? (or the Protestants?) If she did not, what madness moved you to separate yourselves from her, on pretence of avoiding the communion of bad men? l. 1. cont. Gaudent. c. 7. And again; We are certain no man can justly separate himself from the communion of all Nations, (yet Martin Luther and Mr. Tyndall did it) Epist. 48. And in another place; All separation made before the drawing the n●t on the shore (at the day of judgement) is damnable, and the sacrilege of schism, which surpasseth all other crimes. L. 2. cont. Epist. Parmen. Ob. We did but separate from the particular Church of Rome. Therefore not from the whole Church. Answ. I told you in the question of the Churchs' Universality in what sense the Church of Rome is Universal or Catholic, and in what sense she is particular, take it in which acception you will, your consequence is false, for whosoever separates from an acknowledged tr●● member of the Catholic Church (and such the Church of Rome than was in her particular) he consequently separates from the whole, and is an heretic, or schismatic. ARTICLE X. Of the real and substantial presence of Christ's Body & Blood in the Sacrament of the B. Eucharist. IN this most important controversy of the B. Eucharist, or Sacrament of our Lord's Supper, our Tenet is; 1. That it is a Sacrament; a visible sign, type, figure, or symbol of the true Body and Blood of jesus Christ, as also of his death and passion. This is agreed upon by all, and therefore not to be disputed. 2. That it is not an empty sign, type, figure, or symbol only (as Sectaries pretend) but also the very natural and substantial Body and Blood of jesus Christ, true God and Man, under the said outward signs and symbols of bread and wine; Which we prove thus, against Doctor TAYLOR, and his adherents. The first Argument. We receive in the B. Sacrament of the Eucharist the same Body which was given and broken for us, and the same blood which was shed for the remission of our sins. But the body which was given, and broken for us, and the blood which was shed for the remission of our sins, was the true natural & substantial body & blood of Jesus Christ, and not an empty sign or symbol only of it. Therefore we receive in the B. Sacrament of the Eucharist, the true natural and substantial Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and not an empty sign or symbol only of it. The major is proved by the plain words of th● Institution. This is my Body, S. Matth. 26. 27. S. Mark 14. 22. This is my Body which is given for you, S. Luke 22. 19 This is my Body which shall be delivered for you, 1 Cor. 11. 24. This is my blood of the new Tostament, which shall be shed for many to the remission of sins, S. Mat. 26. 28. S. Mark 14. 24. This is the chalice the new Testament in my blood which shall be shed for you, S. Luke 22. 20. This chalice is the new Testament in my blood, 1 Cor. 11. 25. The minor is proved; Christ gave himself for his Church, Ephes. 5. 26. He entered by his own blood into the Holies, Heb. 9 12. To say Christ gave a fantastical body for us, or shed any other than his true natural Blood for the remission of our sins, is the Manichean Heresy, long since condemned; nor is it lesle an Heresy to say, He gave only common bread, or shed only common wine, (being made sacred signs and symbols) for the remission of our sins. A second Argument, proving that the words of Institution aught to be taken literally and properly. All those plain texts of the Gospel, which are not there expressed to be figurative, and being literally and properly understood imply no sin or contradiction, aught to be understood literally and properly. But these plain texts of the Gospel, This is my body, this is my blood, S. Math. 26. 27. 28. are not there expressed to be figurative, and being literally and properly understood, imply no sin or contradiction. Therefore these Affirmative texts of Scripture, This is my body, this is my blood, aught to be understood literally and properly. The mayor I take for a Rule admitted by Protestants and is proved, because otherwise it were not possible to prov● by Scripture, that any one text of the Gospel aught to be taken literally and properly which our adversary's cannot in their Principles allow. The minor is also manifest for the first part, to whosoever shall peruse the text, there is no mention of any figure in it. And the second part I prove thus; because it was possible to Christ to verify those affirmatives in the literal and proper sense of the words if he had so pleased, by changing the Bread and Wine into his own Body and Blood, as our very adversaries themselves grant, although they obstinately contest he hath not done it; therefore these affirmatives, being literally and properly understood, imply no sin or contradiction; for sin and contradiction are not possible to Christ, who is by essence, Truth and Sanctity. That our adversaries grant this change possible to Christ, is proved by these ensuing testimonies. Luther says: What proof hav● they (the Sacramentaries) to prove these propositions contradictory; Christ is in heaven, and Christ is in the Supper? The contradiction is in their carnal imagination, not in faith, or in the Word of God, Tom. Wittenberg. an. 1557. defence. verbi Coenae, pag. 388. You hear where all Doctor Tailor's pretended contradictions are, if Martin Luther, that first and greatest light of true Protestancy, be worthy to be judge. John Calvin says, We do not dispute what God can do, but what he will, Init. Institut. Jewel confesses, God is able by his omnipotent power to make Christ's Body present without place or quantity, in his Reply against Harding, pag. 352. Cranmer confesses, That Christ may be in the bread and wine, as also in the doors that were shut, and stone of the sepulchre, in his answer to Gardner and Smith, pag. 454. Whitaker says, That Christ can make the bread his Body we grant, only show that he will do it, and the controversy is ended, in his Answer to Reyner, pag. 192. John Fox saye●, That Christ abiding in heaven is not let, but that he may be in the Sacrament also. Acts and Monum. pag. 998. Melanct hon says, I had rather die, than affirm with the Zwinglians, that Christ's Body can be but in one place. Epist. ad Martinum Gerolitium. Doctor Taylor himself says, God can do what he pleases, he can change or annihilate every creature, and altar their manner and essence; in his Book of the real and spiritual presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, pag. 244. He can indeed make a body to be a spirit, pag. 213. And again, Let it appear that God hath affirmed Transubstantiation, and I for my part will burn all my arguments against it, and make public amendss, pag. 240. Fairly promised, Doctor, I subsume. But he hath plainly affirmed the real and substantial presence of his Body and Blood in the Sacrament; as hath been proved both from the institution and possibility, and shall be proved from the performance, and reasonableness of it. Therefore recall your arguments against it; together with that long impertinent catalogue of seeming contradictions, and impossibilities, which you have maliciously heaped together etc. merely to scandalise and turn the brain of an unlearned Reader. Your own friends, that are Scholars, have long since detected the nullity of them, and your own conscience tells you, that you have drawn them all from this false supposition, That Christ's Body hath situall and local extension in the Sacrament, which you know we deny; the manner of being is spiritual and Sacramental. A second proof that those affirmatives, This is my Body: This is my Blood, imply no sin or contradiction, is made from the solution of your Objections. A third Argument. Ma. All which Christ hath plainly and expressly said in Scripture, aught to be understood by us in the literal and proper sense of the words. Mi. But Christ hath plainly and expressly said in Scripture, that what he instituted at his last Supper, was his true natural Body and Blood. Cons. Therefore it aught to be understood by us in the literal and proper sense of the words. The major is confessed by Doctor Taylor, saying, Let it appear that God hath expressly said it, etc. and there is no more to be said in the business, all reasons brought against it are but sophisms, pag. 189. and for this only reason he concludes, the mystery of Christ God and Man, and the mystery of the Blessed Trinity aught to be understood in the literal and proper sense of the words, although more seeming contradictions and impossibilities are brought against it, than against Transubstantiation, pag. 200, etc. The minor is proved from the promise of Christ, thus. Ma. The flesh which Christ gave for the life of the world, was his true natural Body and Blood, in the literal and propersense of the words. Mi. But Christ hath plainly and expressly said in Scripture, that what he instituted at his last Supper, was the flesh which he gave for the life of the world. Cons. Therefore Christ hath plainly and expressly said in Scripture, that what he instituted at his last Supper was his true and natural Body and Blood, in the literal and proper sense of the words. The major hath been proved above by all those texts cited in the first argument. The minor is proved. The bread which I will give (at his last Supper) is my flesh for the life of the world, S. John 6. 51. Another Argument in proof of this verity. Ma. The Body which Christ gave for us, and the Blood which he shed for the remission of our sins, was his true natural Body and Blood, in the literal and proper sense of the words. Mi. But Christ hath plainly and expressly said in Scripture that what he instituted at his last Supper was the Body which he gave for us, and the Blood which he shed for the remission of our sins. Cons. Therefore Christ hath plainly and expressly said in Scripture that what he instituted at his last Supper was his true natural Body and Blood in the literal and proper sense of the words. The major is manifest, and must be granted by all, unless perhaps we may dare to say, that mere symbols, signs and figures only of his Body and Blood were given for us and shed for the remission of our sins, which God forbidden. The minor is proved, by the texts above cited, nor will it be tedious to repeat them, to the conusion of our enemies. This is my Body. This is my Blood which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins, S. Mat. 26 27, 28. This is my body which is given for you. This is the chalice the new Testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you, S. Luke 22. 20. This is my Body which is broken for you, (so the Greek text hath it.) This chalice is the new Testament in my blood, 1 Cor. 11. 25. Broken, that is, sacrificed, saith John Calvin and Chamier on that place. Now let Doctor Taylor at his leisure bring the Antithesis of these Affirmatives ou● of the mouth of Christ, viz. This is not my body: this is not my blood: this is not my body which is given for you: this is not my blood which is shed for you. Or these at lest, which are his very Theses. This only signifies my body: this only signifies my blood: this is only a sacred sign, type, or figure of my body: this is only a sacred sign, type, ●r figure of my blood: which he can never do so long as Christ is Christ, and Gospel Gospel. These are not the words of God, but the words of men, of Doctor Taylor, and John Calvin, what we assert is from the mouth of Christ, the Doctor is not able to deny it; but openly, to my best judgement, condemned himself, and his own cause, by making an ingenious confession, that if the words of the institution be taken literally and properly, they prove our Tenet, and therefore he endeavours to detort them to an improper figurative sense. This is, (that is saith he) This signifies, this represents my body, what is this else but to confess the Scripture, which is the only judge with him, to have given sentence on our side, at lest in all the principal and essential places, that appertain to this controversit? what shall become than of his spurious doctrine, which is supported only by the fancy of his and M. Calvins idle brain? the Church having long since condemned it. He is not able to produce one General Council, or the consent of any one whole age, or yet the sentence of any ancient Father not wrested and depraved, for his Apocryphas, This only signifies my body: this only signifies my blood: this is only a sacred sign, type, or figure of my body, etc. But we can cite him many for our Canonical; This is my body: this is my blood. This is my body which is given for you, etc. This is my blood which is shed for you: which being done, I think, It is concluded, against the Manichees. Note here for your better understanding the precedent argument as also the words of consecration, that the Pronoun ●oc, or this (when it is made the subject of a Proposition, in which substance is predicated of substance, especially if the proposition be practical, and make what it signifies, as here it does) signifies only substance indeterminately, till the predicate be also added, to determine it to this or that particular substance, according to that Axiom of Philosophy, the subjects are such as they are permitted to be by their predicates; this is the literal and proper acception of the word hoc, or this. Secondly, the verb est, or is, signifies in its literal and proper acception the real identity of the predicate with the subject. Lastly, the words Corpus meum, my body, or Sanguis me●●, my blood, spoken by Christ, or in the person of Christ, signify in their literal and proper acception, the true natural body and blood of Christ. By this you plainly understand the literal and proper sense of those words, This is my body, this is my blood: that is to say, This substance contained under the species, or outward form of bread, is my natural body. This substance contained under the species or outward form of wine is my natural blood. This is that which we believe it to be; and this is that which Christ hath plainly and expressly affirmed it to be, as hath been proved. Qu●re. When is this change of the bread & wine into the body & blood of Christ effected? Answer. Immediately after the words of consecration are completed, and by force of the words. You reply. Doctor Taylor says, We cannot prove by any good reason, that those words, This is my body, this is my bleud, etc. are the essential words of consecration, and efficient of the whole change, S. Matth. 26. Answ. Yes we can. First, by the Church's authority, affirming it to be so. She is a competent Judge in the case (being the Mistress of Apostolical traditions) and better worthy our belief than D. Taylor. Secondly, Because generally speaking in all miraculous and substantial changes made by the Word of God, those words only are efficient of the change, which signify the change, as appears in these in stances. Let the light be ●●d●, and the light was made: Let the firmament be th●●, etc. Young man I say to thee arise. I will, be thou healed, etc. and many others. Now that these are the only words in S. Matthew, which signify the substantial and miraculous change made in the Sacrament, is proved thus; because the precedent words, He took bread, blessed it, broke it & gave it to his Disciples, are all indifferent to a substantial or accidental; to a miraculous or moral change, and therefore cannot signify or 'cause the change there made, but are a disposition only to it; the following words, suppose it already made, therefore it is most consonant to reason as well as to authority, that these words only, should be essential to, and efficient of, such miraculous change, nor am I able easily to guests what good meaning the Doctor had in starting this difficulty, unless it were to let himself and all men lose to infidelity in this so holy and necessary a point; for if it be altogether uncertain what the true words of the form are, whether any of the Evangelists have delivered them to us or not; (as this Doctor insinuates pag: 67. 68 69.) than is the Sacrament altogether uncertain. If the words of the institution subsist not, the thing instituted cannot subsist. If there be no true form, there can be no true Sacrament; but it should seem he cares not, so he may prejudice the Catholic Church, though he ruin Christianity by doing it. A fourth Argument from Reason. To make the signs and figures of a thing more excellent & noble than the thing itself, is to detract from the wisdom and providence of the workman. But Doctor Taylor makes the signs and figures of the Sacrament, more excellent and noble than the Sacrament itself. Therefore he detracts from the wisdom and providence of the workman, that is to say of Christ himself, ordaining it. The major is proved, because to make words more excellent and noble than conceits or things; shadows, than substances; or the means more excellent and noble than the end, were a preposterous way of working, and contrary to the rule of true wisdom and providence. The minor is proved, because, if the Sacrament were nothing but a sacred sign, type, or figure only of Christ's Body and Blood (as Doctor Taylor teaches,) than the signs and figures of the old Law were more excellent and noble than it. The Manna for example, which was a sign or figure only of the Sacrament, would be more excellent & noble than the Sacrament itself, as having a more excellent manner of signifying, because that was made by Angel's ministry, and had twelve special miracles upon record belonging to it, this hath no miracle at all belonging to it in D. Tailors threadbare way, and is composed by the hands of sinful men. It is no miracle for signs to signify. Again the Paschal Lamb was a more timely type or figure of our Redeemer & his passion, flesh of flesh, blood of blood, killing of killing, and that Lamb without spot of our innocent Saviour, than is their consecrated bread and wine, if it be only a mere sign or figure, as he pretends, but in our way the case is far different; it being the fountain of all grace and miracles, and far excelling the types and figures of it. A fifth Argument from Reason. What no rational or prudent man would ever do, were great blasphemy to charge Christ with doing. But no rational or prudent man would ever seal or complete his last will and testament with figurative, equivocal, and improper words. Therefore it were great blasphemy to charge Christ with doing it. Therefore these words, This is my Body, This is my Blood, with which Christ sealed and completed his last will and testament, are not figurative, equivocal, and improper, but to be taken in the literal plain and proper sense, and consequently convince the real presence of Christ's true natural Body and Blood under the signs. The major is more manifest than to need proof. The minor is proved, because that were a certain way to set his posterity at variance about it, which no rational or prudent man would ever willingly be guilty of. You will tell me here perhaps to make all whole again, that Doctor Taylor asserts the real spiritual presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament pag. 7. Nay that his Body and Blood are there really, substantially, corporally, verily and indeed, pag. 18. That body which was broken, that Blood which was poured forth, page 19 That Body that was crucified the same do we eat. ibidem. So far we all agreed. Answ. Stay, friend, not too much of agreement neither, that he asserts those words I am not ignorant, but how he asserts the thing signified by the words, let disinteressed Christians judge. He affirms Christ's Body to be really present, but denies the reality of his body to be present, is not this, to be his real Body and not to be his real Body? to be really present, and not to be really present? He says. It is substantially present in the signs, and consequently in the mouths of the receivers. (He citys the Church of England's Catechism for it, pag. 8.) and yet the substance of his Body is neither in the signs nor in their mouths, not nearer than the right hand of the Father in the imperial heaven. Is not this again to be the substance of his Body, and not to be the substance of his Body? to be substantially in the signs? and not to be substantially in the signs? His true body, he assures you, that which was given, broken, and crucified for us, is in the Sacrament corporally, verily, and indeed, and yet indeed his true body neither is nor can be there at all. It is in every consecrated Host, which are as many as there ●e Comunicants, and that really, substantially, corporally, verily, and indeed; and yet the reality, substance, and verity of his body cannot be in two places at once, not not by God's omnipotency, without a multitude of contradictions and grand impossibilities; he can demonstrate it as he thinks, to common sense, and reason. If this be not to be, and not to be in many places at once, according to the same substance, reality, and entity; than sense is nonsense, and reason stupidity. If this be not a gin to catch woodcocks for the Devil, than the Devil never went a birding. If this I say, be not a list of grosser contradictions and impossibilities (how ever smoothly patched together) than all those seeming one's wherewith he chargeth us, than white is black, and good evil, than to be, and not to be, (although affirmed of the same thing, in respect of the same thing, and at the same time) are not contradictory. Ob. You do not distinguish, betwixt the being of a thing, and the manner of its being. Answ. Yes I do; but your Doctor will not understand, that any real manner of being, which a body hath, must of necessity presuppose the real being or entity of the said body. A thing cannot be there after any real manner, where its real being or entity is not, for Peter to be in any place sitting or standing, in a corruptible or incorruptible manner of being, must of necessity presuppose the real being, or entity of Peter in that place. So Christ's body cannot be said to be really, where the real being or entity of his body is not, nor substantially or in a substantial manner, where the substantial being, or entity of his body, is not etc. not nor yet spiritually, without abuse of terms, because to be any where, even spiritually, or in a spiritual manner, without dependence on the understanding (as Christ's body is in the Sacrament) must of necessity presuppose, the real being, or entity of the thing, there. A man's Soul is in his body spiritually, or in a spiritual manner of being, yet can it not be said to be so there, longer than the real being, or entity of his Soul is in his body; If that be driven thence by death, neither any real sign of it, as heat, motion etc. nor your beliveing they to be there, (or all the friends he hath) can make it to be really and truly there. You reply, the Doctor affirms Christ's body to be in the Sacrament, really, substantially, corpoyally etc. as in a sign, figure, or symbol only. Answ. He does indeed, by which he very grossly abuses terms, and contradicts his own affirmatives in the very state of the question, because by this he affirms it to be there not more, then a But of Sack is in a bush of Jvy at the Tavern door, or the King's head in the Picture on the signpost, these are signs, figures, or symbols of Sack and the King's head, yet who ever should seriously and obstinately affirm, that a But of Sack is really, substantially, corporally, and verily in the Jvy bush, or the King's head in the Picture on the sign post, would worthily be esteemed to have more Sack than reason in his head, and not much more brains, than the head upon the sign Post, yet D. Taylor affirms the Sacrament to be the body and blood of Christ, really, substantially, corporally, etc. although it be but a mere sacred sign or figure of it, according to his doctrine, and this must pass for sound and sober Christian doctrine, but not with any sound, or sober Christians. You reply yet, that when he calls the Sacrament the body and blood of Christ really, substantially, and corporal●y, his meaning only is, That it is a real, substantial, and corporal sign of his body and blood, as he himself expounds it; and therefore may be called his body and blood. The sign in Scripture is sometimes called by the name of the thing signified. So the Rock is called Christ. And the Rock was Christ. Answ. This is still a very Juggle, an implicatory abuse of terms. The Sacrament as it is a sign, figure, or symbol precisely, is not a real, corporal, or substantial, but only a moral or artificial entity, made by the imposition and agreement of reason, the whole reality, body and substance of bread was presupposed to it, and nothing was added by its being made a sign, but only a relation or order of reason. So that an artificial corporal sign is something like a substantial shadow; that is to say, a body without body; a substance without substance, a contradiction. His meaning therefore is, if he dare speak it, that it is real and substantial bread and wine, and a sign only, an artificial sign of the true body and blood of Jesus Christ, which is notoriously false, as hath and shall be proved, for after consecration it is not longer real and substantial bread and wine, but the real and substantial body and blood of Christ, under the outward forms of bread and wine, and in this sense it may be truly called the body and blood of Christ, really, substantially, corporally, verily and indeed; but not in Doctor Tailors chimerical way. To his instance out of Scripture, I Answer, that the sign may be, and is sometimes called by the name of the thing signified, but not with such abusive attributes, as he makes use of. So the Rock is called Christ, but not really, substantially, corporally, verily and indeed, as he calls bread the body of Christ, nor was it ever so expounded by the Church, but figuratively, and typically only. Ob. The true body of Christ is therein effect, that is in order to all the effects and purposes of his death & passion, which is enough to verify his words. Answ. It is not; for so a counter is a pound of money, when it stands for a pound on a table of Arithmetic; So a man's writings are his Lands in effect, that is, in order to effects and purposes, yet no man well in his wits will ever say a counter is a pound of money, or a man's writings his Lands, really, substantially, corporally, verily and indeed, these are as wild expressions as the former; causes are not their own effects, nor effects, causes, as every young Logician can tell you. Nor is there any warrant in all the Gospel, that a mere sign, type or figure of Christ's body and blood, should be his body in effect, or avaliable to us in order to all the benefits and effects of his passion, this is only gratis said by the Doctor. Ob. You urge yet out of S. Paul, that in Christ all the fullness of the divinity is said to dwell corporally. Therefore Christ's body, and blood may be said to be substantially and corporally in the Sacrament, sign, or figure only of his body and blood. Answ. I deny your consequence; the disparity is, 1. That all the substance, and essence of the Divinity is really and truly in Christ; whereas the substance and essence of the Body and Blood of Christ is not at all in the Sacrament, sign or figure, according to your doctrine. 2. That all the substance and essence of the Divinity is in Christ hypostatically united in one person with his human nature, which consists of a real body and soul, and therefore by reason of that union of the natures, and communication of their properties, the Divinity may be truly said to devil in him corporally. But there is no such union of natures, or communication of properties, betwixt Doctor Tailor's Sacrament, and the Body and Blood of Christ: Therefore this instance comes not home to the purpose. Your last shift is (and this no better than the former) to tell us, That the body of Christ is only in the Sacrament, really spiritually, substantially spiritually, corporally spiritually, that is (says he) the reality, substance, and body of Christ is in the Sacrament in the receivers spirit, by virtue of an act of faith, by which he believes it to be there. Answ. You still dance in the same net of contradictions. No act of faith in the receiver can make the reality, substance, and verity of Christ's body and blood to be there truly present, where it implies contradictions to be present, as you affirm it does in the Sacrament. If you believe it to be substantially and corporally, where it is impossible for his substance and body to be, you feed your soul with a false faith. Where is it revealed to us in the Gospel, that Christ's body is in the Sacrament by faith only? What Apostolical Tradition have you for it? or in what country did our Saviour teach it? The chapter and verse could never yet be cited nor ever will; the land is yet unknown; 'tis a mere fiction: take but of the mask from these abusive terms, which was first made by John Calvin at Geneva, but lately furbished up by D. Taylor, to carry on the disguise, and you will clearly see the nakedness of his mock-Sacrament, by the bright-shining lamp of those plain words; This is my body; this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many to the remission of sins, S. Matth. 26. 27, 28. The whole coat, or rather cloak, which he hath made for this divine and holy Body; or to say better, for his own deceitful heresy, is better in the trimming, than the stuff, which argues him to be but a fallacious & superficial workman. Nor has he made it after the true Protestant but rather after the true Presbyter cut. Bishop Andrew's hath given his Prelatique Protestants a much better measure of the real presence, but yet not true in all things neither. The rest of your eloquent and learned Tailor's Arguments you shall found unstitcht in the solution of Objections; Pardon this freedom of expression; for I truly love his person, though unknown, and honour his great literature, looking on him as the very Hector of his Party, and doubtless, — Si Pergamon dextra Defendi possent, etiam hac defensa suissent. Nothing but the badness of so ill a cause could have disparaged him. Nevertheless, I cannot choose but hate & slight his Doctrines, as a mere idle dream, dishonourable to God, and his Church, & destructive to poor ignorant souls. But all this only obiter, and by occasion as it relates to D. Taylor. My design was not in this Work to oppose any man in particular, but to establish Catholic verities, and impugn heresies in general, by drawing a compendious sum of both. Leaving him therefore to his more learned Adversaries, (the Disciples of renowned Bellarmine) whom he by name hath challenged into the lists; I now pursue my Method. Fathers for the real and substantial presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament. In the second Age Justin Martyr; As Jesus Christ incarnate had flesh and blood for our salvation, so are we taught, that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of the same Jesus incarnate. Apolog. 2. ad Antoninum. In the third Age S. Cyprian; The bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples, being changed not in shape, but in nature, by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh. Serm▪ de Coena Dom. In the same Age Origen; Than (in the old Law) the Manna was meat in an Aenigma, but now the flesh of God is meat in specie, as himself says, My flesh is meat indeed. Homil. 7. in Levit. In the same Age Tertullian; The bread taken and distributed to his Disciples he made his body. l. 4. cont. Martion. c. 40. In the fourth Age S. Ambrose; Before it be consecrated it is but bread, but when the words of consecration come it is the body of Christ. l. 4. de Sacrament. c. 5. In the same Age Optatus Melevitanus; What else is the altar but the seat of Christ's body? You have broken the chalices, the bearers of Christ's blood. 6. cont. Parmen. In, the same Age S. Gregory Nyssen; We truly believe, even by the Word of God, that the sanctified bread is changed into the body of God the Word. Orat. Catechis. c. 37. In the same Age S. chrysostom; He that sits above with his Father, even in the same instant of time is touched by the hands of all, and gives himself to all such as are willing to receive him, etc. Whereas Christ leaving his flesh to us, yet ascending to heaven, there also he hath it. L. de Sacerdotio. In the fifth Age S. Augustine; How David could be carried in his own hands we found not, but in Christ we do, for he was carried in his own hands, when, giving his body, he said, This is my body: For than he carried that body in his own hands. In Psalm. 33. concione 1. The first Nicene Council has defined, the Lamb of God to be placed on the sacred table, and to be sacrificed unbloudily by the Priests, and that receiving his sacred Body and Blood, we must believe them to be signs of our resurrection. l. 3. Decret. de divina mensa, an. 325. It defined also, that Deacons who have no power to offer sacrifice, aught not to give the Body and Blood of Christ to Priests who have that power. Can. 14. The Councils above cited will show you more. Objections from Scripture solved. Ob. The pronoun hoc, or this, in that proposition, This is my body, signifies determinately bread, and therefore cannot but make a figurative proposition, for bread is not the body of Christ. Answ. I deny your antecedent, it signifies of itself only substance, without determinating either bread or body till it be determined by the words following, to signify and be the body of Christ, the subject of any proposition is such as it is permitted to be by the predicate. For example, when I say, this, or this is, as yet the word (this) signifies nothing determinately, but when I say, this is paper, this is ink, this is a good hand; now it is determinated to signify, paper, ink, a good hand; and not till now, wherefore your consequence is also false, Christ did not say, this bread is my body, but, this (that is the substance contained under these accidents) is my body, which is true in the literal and proper sense of the words. Ob. If the word hoc, or this, do not signify, and demonstrate bread, the proposition is identical, and nugatory, and signifies no more, than my body is my body, ergo. Answ. I deny your antecedent, there is an accidental difference betwixt the subject and the predicate in the manner of signifying, which sufficeth to a formal predication. Ob. The pronoun demonstrative hoc, or this, must needs demonstrate something than present, when it is uttered, ergo. Answ. I deny your antecedent, speaking of any determinate thing, things past, and to come, may be demonstrated as well as things present; for example, This is my commandment, that you love one another, joan. 15. there, this, demonstrats a thing to come; So likewise in our case the demonstrative this, when all the words are uttered, demonstrates the body of Christ which is made by the words; if you will not credit me, believe Chamier a grand Sacramentarian, it is false (says he) even in the pronoun or adverbe demonstrative, that a present thing is required, for that is not always, l. 10. de Eucharist. c. 18. Ob. Those words of S. Luke, 22. 20. This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, etc. which (chalice) shall be shed for you, cannot be literal but figurative, ergo. Answ. We deny not all figures in the mystery, but only such as exclude the verity of Christ's true and natural body and blood; there is a figure in the word, chalice, not excluding but asserting the verity of our Saviour's true, and natural blood; It is the thing containing for the thing contained, and aught to be expounded by the words of S. Matthew, which are plain, literal, and proper, according to that generally received rule; That hard and figurative places of Scripture are to be expounded by plain and easy ones. Add to this, that the thing signified to be shed is evidently the same in both, to wit the true and natural blood of Christ, though the manner of expressing it be divers, literal in S. Matthew, and figurative in S. Luke. So when we say, I drink sack and I drink a cup of sack or in sack, the thing signified to be drunk, is evidently the same in both, to wit sack, though the manner of signifying it be divers. Ob. The Sacrament, ofter consecration, is some times called bread. Therefore it is bread still. Answ. I grant your antecedent, but deny your consequence. It is sometimes called bread, because it was made of bread, and still retains the outward form of bread, though it be now the body of Christ. So Eve when she was now a woman is called a Bone, Genes▪ 2. because God made her of a Rib of Adam. And so a Serpent is called a Rod, because it was made of a Rod. Aaron's Rod eat up all the Magician's Rods, Exod. 7. Ob. It is the spirit, that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, Jo. 6. Therefore Christ did not give his flesh in the Sacrament. Answ. I distinguish your antecedent, The flesh profits nothing, given or eaten in a fleshly and corporal manner, or in dead morsels, as the Capharnaites grossly understood he meant to give it them, I grant; Given or eaten in a spiritual and Sacramental manner, as Christ gave it his disciples and we eat it, I deny; let S. Augustine expound this text; O my good master (saith he) how doth the flesh profit nothing seeing thou sayest, unless one shall eat my flesh and drink my blood he shall have no life in him, doth life profit nothing? etc. what is this than, it profits nothing, but as they understood it, for they so understood flesh as it is borne in the carcase, or sold in the shambleses, not as it is quickened with the spirit. Thus he on this very place. And again, They thought our Lord would cut certain pieces of his body and give it them, and they said, this is a hard speech; but they themselves were hard, not the speech, etc. in Psalm. 98. Ob. The Sacrament is a memorial or memory of Christ, do this for a commemoration of me, S. Lu: 22. 19 Therefore Christ is not really present in it, for memory or commemoration is made of things absent, not present. Answ. What Christ would have us commemorate S. Paul hath taught us, saying: As often as ye shall eat this bread and drink the chalice ye shall declare the death of our Lord until he come, 1. Cor: 11. 26. wherefore, granting your antecedent, I deny your consequence, his death is now 1600. years since and upward; and the same thing in one time or circumstance may be a representation or memory of itself, as in another. His body as unbloodily offered in the Sacrament, is a memory of itself as bloodily offered and dying on the Cross. Ob. His death was future and to come when he ordained the Sacrament at his last Supper. Therefore it could not than be a memory of his death. Answ. I grant your whole argument, the words, Do this for a commemoration of me, immediately follow the words of Consecration, and make this sense, consecrated ye bread and wine into my body and blood, as I have here done, in memory of my death; now 'tis certain, he did not command his Apostles to consecrated than, nor did they ever do it till after his death though he than ordained the sacrifice, and gave them power to do it. The Sacrament is not only a memory of his death, but also of his life, and in this sense, those words might be fulfilled at the last Supper. Ob. Christ calls the cup the fruit of the vine, therefore it is common wine, and not his blood. Answ. I grant your antecedent, but deny your consequence. for the words, I will drink not more of the fruit of the vine, S. Lu. 22. 18. relate to the legal cup, and are set immediately after the division of that, before the Sacramental cup was consecrated, and therefore plainly prove the sacramental cup not to be the fruit of any earthly vine. If you reply, that in S. Matthew they relate to the sacramental cup, and are set immediately after the division of it. I say, by the fruit of the vine, is there signified a celestial fruit, and of a heavenly vine; Such as was to be drunk by them in the kingdom of his Father, there is no Vintner's wine, nor are you ignorant who said, I am the vine. Ob. He that eats my flesh hath life everlasting, S. Jo. 6. 54. Therefore the reprobate, according to your sense, shall have life everlasting, for they eat his flesh in your opinion. Answ. I distinguish your antecedent; He that eats it worthily, that is, with worthy preparation, I grant. He that eats it unworthily, as the wicked do, I deny your antecedent, and consequence also; 'tis the Apostles own distinction, For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself, 1. Cor, 11. 28. Ob. Not as your Fathers did eat Manna and died, he that eateth this bread shall live for ever. S. Jo. 6. 58. Therefore no man can eat the bread there spoken of unworthily, otherways there would be no difference betwixt it and the Manna, for such as eat the Manna worthily had life everlasting. Answ. The disparity is evident, and consists in this, that the principal effect of the Manna, as sacramental, was but a temporal nourishment towards arriving to the land of Promise, even in those who took it worthily, whereas the B. Sacrament of the Eucharist really contains and exhibits the grace it signifies in order to eternal life: besides the words mortui sunt, import not only a bore temporal death, but such as employed an exclusion from ever setting foot on the land of promise. Ob. Christ affirmed bread to be his Body. Answ. Not; he affirmed that which had been bread to be changed into his Body. Ob. What Christ took, he gave; But he took bread into his hands etc. Therefore he gave bread. Answ. I distinguish your major: What he took, he gave; unchanged, or in the same manner he took it I deny: What he took he gave changed, and made his Body, I grant▪ and so agreeing he took bread, I deny your consequence: It is as fallacious a● to say, What I bought, I eat; but I bought raw flesh, Therefore I eat raw flesh. The kitchen-boy will tell you where the fallacy lies. Ob. The Sacrament is as plainly affirmed to be bread, and that three several times in one Epistle, 1 Cor. 10, 11. as 'tis affirmed to be the Body of Christ in the three Gospels. Therefore the balance is equal in respect of Scripture. Ergo. Answ. You will play at small game, rather than not be fencing against the truth; if this were so as you pretend, than nothing at all could ever be proved touching this point, according to your grounds, who will admit no other Judge or Rule than Scripture only; and so the mystery were quite destroyed, and brought to a non liquet; but your antecedent is false, for though S. Paul thrice calls it Bread, yet he no where determines it to be natural or earthly bread, but the contrary. The bread (saith he) which we break, is it not the participation of the body of our Lord? 1. Cor. 10. 16. Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of this bread, and drink of this cup; for he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks Judgement to himself, not discerning the body of our Lord. v. 28. 29. Natural and common bread is not a participation of the body of Christ, it requires no such examine of ourselves to a worthy eating of it, nor can we be damned for not discerning the Body of our Lord in it, where it▪ is not. So that the very circumstance of the text, determines the bread there spoken of to be that Heavenly bread promised in the sixth of S. John. That bread which Paul tells you Christ took and made his body, saying, This is my body which shall be delivered for you, in the same, 6. v. 24. Therefore the balance is far from being equal; where the dispute is, what it is Christ instituted; no other places whatsoever can counterbalance those of the institution, 'tis partial, and irrational, to say they can. Ob Christ says, This is my body which is broken for you (so the Greek text runs) 1. Cor. 11. Therefore he did not give his true natural Body in the Sacrament, because that would not be there naturally broken. Answ. I grant your antecedent, but deny your consequence; and for proof I answer, that though his natural body be there, yet the manner of its being is spiritual & sacramental, and the manner of its breaking follows the manner of its being. The Sacrament is broken naturally and properly, according to the species or accidents of bread, but the body of Christ contained under them is broken only by accident, improperly, and sacramentally. His body is there broken in the sign, not in the substance, and this sufficeth to represent and signify its natural and proper breaking on the Cross. Ob. Our Fathers did all eat the same spiritual food and drunk the same spiritual drink, 1. Cor▪ 10. 3. and S. Austin says, as the Fathers did eat Christ's body, so do we under a divers Sacrament, tract. 26. In Johan. But they only eat and drunk a figure of his Body and Blood, not the very thing itself. Therefore we eat & drink not more. Answ. The Apostle speaks there only of the Jews, and says, they compared among themselves, did all eat of one bread, and drink of one rock, which was a figure of Christ, he does not say they all eat the same spiritual meat, or drunk the same spiritual drink with us (as your objection would pretend) there is no such word in the text. That which we eat and drink was not instituted in their days. They eat and drunk the figures and effects only, we the things figured. The law had but a figure of the good things to come, not the very image of things. Heb. 10. 1. boggle not at the word, image, for 'tis the proper title of Christ, who is the image of God, 2. Cor. 44. It excludes not the verity of his divine, or human nature. He is the very image of God in both, the grand image or word, by which all things were made. S. Jo. 1. besides, all things happened to them in a figure, but to us in verity. To S. Augustine's words, I Answer, they infer but a similitude, not an identity betwixt the Fathers and our eatnig Christ's body: They eat it in effect, by eating the figure only, we eat it in the verity of the thing itself, by eating both the figure, and the thing figured; wherefore, granting your minor, I deny your consequence. Besides S. Austin expressly names divers Sacraments, though both seem bread, so that his meaning concludes somewhat more than bread in our Sacrament. Ob. Whatsoever entereth into the mo●th g●●th into the b●lly and is cast forth into the draught, S. Math. 15. 17. Therefore the Sacrament is not the true body of Christ, but only a figure of it. Answ. Christ speaks there only of what goes into the mouth after a visible and corporeal manner, which ●enders the consequence absurd; His body in the Sacrament hath an invisible and Spiritual manner of being, and is not subject to any alteration, and therefore cannot be changed into draught, as you impiously imagine, and if it could be sent forth that way in some possible case, that would not prejudice the dignity of his person, or reality of his presence in the Sacrament, not more than did the old Heathens blasphemous suppositions of his being eaten by a Bear, or some other wild beast▪ by which they sought▪ to infirm the verity of ●is Incarnation; as you do of his real presence: but all in vain. Ob. Unless I g●e hence the Comforter shall not come unto you, S. Jo. 16. 7. The poor you have always with you, but me you have not always▪ S. Math. 26. 11. Answ. He speaks there only of his withdrawing his corporeal, and visible presence from his Church, which hinders not, but that he may be always with her in a spiritual, invisible & sacramental manner. Ob. We read the verb is, often put for signifies in holy Scripture, as appears by all these places. The seed is the word, the field is the world; the rock is Christ, I am the door, I am the vine, my Father is the husbandman, I am the way; Sara and Agar are the two testaments etc. Therefore is in this proposition, This is my body, may well be taken, for signifies. Answ. I grant your antecedent, but deny your consequence, the disparity is, that in all those instances brought for proof of your antecedent, different and disparate natures are affirmed of one another, which cannot be identified, and therefore must of necessity be figuratively understood, or else the propositions will be false; But when Christ said This is my body, he did not affirm one disparate of another, as hath been proved, the substance contained under those accidents, and signified by the word, this, is really identified, and the same thing with his body, and therefore may, and aught to be understood in the literal and proper sense of the words. But as we look nearer upon the places, we shall discern in the first examples an evident explication of a parable, in the later property and signifying, for the sense is not, I signify a vine, or a door, etc. but I truly am the vine of life, door of heaven etc. and the last of all is purely an interpretation of an Allegory. Objections out of Fathers solved. Ob. TErtullian says on those words, The flesh profits nothing, S. Jo. 6. that is, it profits nothing to give life, d● resurrect. car. ●. 37. Answ. His meaning only is, that it profits nothing, if received without faith and preparation, but if eaten worthily, so it profits much. He that eateth my flesh hath life everlasting, S. Jo. 6. 54. Tertullian denies not this, much less doth he deny it, to be Christ's true flesh. Ob. S. Athanasins says, the things that he speaks are not carnal, but spiritual, for to how many might his body suffice for meat & c? Answ. The manner of their being is not carnal but spiritual, we grant, and this is all he intends, which excludes not the reality, and true substance of his body and blood from being there. And though Christ's body, if eaten in a carnal and bodily manner, like other common meats, could suffice but to a few for food, yet eaten in a spiritual and sacramental manner, it may and does suffice for all the faithful. Ob. Origen says, if we understand those words, unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, &c, Jo. 6. literally the letter kills, in Levit. cap. 10. Homil. 7. Answ. If we understand it literally touching the manner of being or eating which the flesh eaten hath in the Sacrament, it kills, true; for that is spiritual, and sacramental. If we understand it literally, touching the verity and substance of the flesh eaten, I deny it kills; nor doth he affirm it. So it gives life, as hath been proved. Ob. Origen in ●. 5. Math▪ says, that the Sacrament, according to that which it hath material, is cast forth into the draught, ergo. Answ. By that which it hath material, he means only the outward forms, or accidents of bread, which is not against us. If you reply, the accidents of bread cannot be changed into our substance or nourish us. Therefore it can not be Origens meaning, that they only are cast forth into the draught. I deny your antecedent, because the accidents of bread have still the same nature they had before, & therefore as they could naturally be corrupted & changed into our nourishment, whilst they were in the substance, so likewise they may now, & because the quantity hath by force of the miracle of consecration obtained the property of substance, by being itself without a subject, and made the subject of all the other accidents, it may now be changed both into substance and quantity: or how can you prove, but he, who miraculously changed the substance of the bread into his own body, doth also miraculously, at the instant when the accidents are changed, supply substance again to them, by means whereof, the mutation, and nutrition, may be natural? Ob. S. Augustine says, the Sacrament is after a manner the body and blood of Christ, Epist. 23. Answ. That is after a spiritual, and saeramental manner, (yet real and substantial) not after a visible, corporeal, or carnal manner. So he says, that place, (unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood &c,) seems to command a horrible crime (l. de doct. Christ. c. 26) viz. If we understand it to be eaten in a visible and carnal manner as we eat other common flesh, but we understand it not so, as you have often been told. And for the verity of the thing done, S. Augustine is clearly on our side. We receive (says he) with faithful heart and mouth (mark the word mouth) the Mediator of God and men, man Christ Jesus, giving us his body to be eaten, and his blood to be drunk, though it seem more horrible to eat man's flesh than to kill, and to drink man's blood (viz. in a visible and carnal manner) than to shed it, l. 2. cont. adversar. leg. &. Prophet. c. 9 and it is to be observed, that S. Aug. in explicating this Sacrament often applies his speech to the Church, the mystical body of Christ. Ob. S. Augustine brings in Christ himself saying, That which I have spoken, understand ye spiritually, you shall not eat this body which you see, I have commended a Sacrament to you, which being spiritually understood will give you life, in Psal. 98. Answ. By this body which you see, He understands his visible body, or his body in a visible manner of being, that he affirms they were not to eat, and so do we; but the same body being in a spiritual and invisible manner in the Sacrament they were to eat. Christ had commanded it. Take, eat, this is my body, so it is said, that flesh and blood shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, that is, flesh and blood in the state of corruption and mortality shall not, but the same flesh and blood, having put on incorruption, and inmortality, shall. Ob, S. Augustine says, he that disagrees from Christ (viz. by sin) neither eats his flesh, nor drinks his blood, though to his own damnation be daily receive the Sacrament of so great a thing, cited by S. Prosp. Sent. 339. Therefore the body of Christ is not really and substantially in the Sacrament, but by faith only and to the worthy receiver. Answ. S. Augustine means only, that such an one doth not eat his flesh or drink his blood effectually, that is, in order to the effects of grace and life, as worthy receivers do, not that his flesh and blood are not really and orally received by him. Ob. S. Augustine and Rib●ra say that the sign or figure is want sometimes in Scripture to be called by the name of the thing signified or figured. Therefore though the Sacrament be called the body of Christ, it is not really his body, but a sign or figure only of it. Answ. I admit your antecedent, and in this they say not more, than that some places in Scripture are figurative, which we willingly grant, but not all, where fore I deny your consequence, the instances they being are all plainly figurative. Ob. The Fathers often call the Sacrament, a sign, type, figure, or symbol. Answ. True, so do we, but they in no place call it a sign, type, figure, or simbol only, so as to deny or exclude the verity and substance of his body and blood, from being contained under them. Ob. The Fathers say sometimes, that Christ called and confessed the bread and wine to be his body and blood. Answ. They speak of his practic call, or confession, (viz. the words of consecration) by which he made the bread and wine to be his body and blood. Ob. By the council at Constantinople celebrated in Trullo it was decreed, that in the holy mysteries nothing should be offered, but the body of Christ as our Lord himself delivered, bread and wine mingled with water. Answ. This Canon is expressly against you, for it defines, 1. That the oblation in the sacred mysteries, is and aught to be nothing else, but the body of Christ, as our Lord himself hath delivered, this is evident in the words by you objected. Secondly that the necessary and essential matter of which the Sacrament or offering is made, is bread and wine mingled with water, which we acknowledge, not wine only without water, as the Armenian Heretics, (and you Protestants) hold, nor water only without wine, as the Aquarii taught, who were both condemned in that Canon, (and you with them) but wine mingled with water, as the Catholic Church hath ever taught, and practised; if any other matter should be used; but only bread and wine mingled with water, that could not be consecrated, and so something more would be offered than the body of Christ, contrary to our Saviour's institution, and this Canon. If you dream that it is bread and wine still after the consecration, the report of the Canon is sufficient to awake you, it is than nothing else but the body of Christ; Can. 32. I blush to see, you urge this Canon against us; which hath defined it also, to be an unbloody sacrifice. Objections from pretended reason solved. Ob. IT is impossible for the same body to be in many places at once, ergo. Answ. Naturally, and in a corporeal and quantitative manner, I grant; By the omnipotency of God, and in a spiritual or sacramental manner, I deny it, for this is not to be in place properly or by itself, but improperly and by reason of another thing, viz. the quantity and accidents of bread under which it is. Ob. If Christ's body could be in many places at once, it would be divided from it self, which implies a contradiction, ergo. Answ. I distinguish your antecedent, by an division of its own entity, from its own entity, I deny it; that is still one and undivided, in how many places soever it be put, by the and accidental division of the places, in which it is from one another, I grant it; nor is this any contradiction, more than for one place not to be another. Ob. If Christ's body were really in many places at once, it would follow that it might at one and the same time be moved, and not be moved, be moved upward and downward▪ above and below, and round about itself, which are gross contradictions. Answ. It would follow, it might be moved with all those contrary motions at the same time, by itself, properly, and according to the same thing, I deny your antecedent. By accident, improperly, and according to divers quantities or outward forms of bread in which it is, I grant it; nor is this any contradiction. A contradiction is defined to be an affirmation, and negation of the same thing▪ concerning the same thing, according to the same thing, and at the same time, which happens not in our case. So your Soul, though one and indivisible in itself, may in your two hands at one and the same time, be moved, and not moved, be moved upward and downward, above and below, and round about itself, without any danger of a contradiction, viz. by accident and by reason of the divers hands, in which it is so moved, improperly speaking. Do you chafe now not at the bit, and tell me that the Soul is not in two divers places in the two hands; for the whole soul is both in the right hand, and left hand, nay it is whole in every finger of each hand, (it hath no parts) unless perhaps you be wiser, and more an oracle in this point, than the generality of the whole world▪ Philosophers, as well Heathen as Christian) neither is the place of the right hand, the place of the left, not more than the motion of the right, is the motion of the left hand; they may be moved at one and the same time, with the contrary motions of upward and downward, which is not possible in one and the same place, without either penetrating or stopping one another; the example, I believe, is homer than you would have it, or will be able easily to solve. Ob. The Body of Christ was made many hundred years ago by the Holy Ghost: therefore it cannot now be made by the Priest. Answ. It was made a natural Body, and present in the B. Virgin's womb many hundred years since I grant: this hinders not but that it may be made a Sacrament▪ and present under the outward forms of bread and wine, by every lawful Priest, as often as he consecrates and says Mass. Therefore in this sense I deny your consequence. Ob. God cannot make a finite Body remaining finite to be in infinite places at once. Ergo. Answ. I grant all you say, speaking of infinite places in Act: for there is no such thing in nature; nothing can be infinite in Bodies, that implies a contradiction indeed. All that we affirm of Christ's Body in the Sacrament is, that it may be in many places at once, by accident and improperly speaking, by reason of the many consecrated Hosts in which it is: and that it never is actually in so many, but that it may be in more; not that this Potentiality can ever be reduced to an infinite Act. So natural Philosophy teaches, that every least continued quantity is divisible into infinite parts, but withal it demonstrates, that this Potentiality can never wholly be reduced into Act: for than that which is only infinite in Potentiality, would be infinite in Act▪ which is a contradiction. Ob. Christ's Body in the Sacrament may be every where, according to you, which is one of God's properties: Therefore it may be God. Answ. Your antecedent is false; it can be not where, but only in the place of consecrated Bread: And there will always be something else in the world besides that, I warrant you. But to favour your argument all that may be, let us press on the supposition grossly as you do, and I suppose for once, that God will annihilate all other things, and fill the whole corporeal space of the Universe with nothing else but consecrated Hosts, were this enough to make it have God's property, and to be every where as He is every where? Not, nothing lesle: For it would still be limited and finite, and shut up under the accidents of bread; whereas it is God's property to be every where, not as contained, but containing all things, after an infinite, and unlimited manner. Nor is your consequence lesle absurd, seeing nothing may, or can be God, but what is God in Act from all eternity. He is an infinite, uncreated, eternal, and most pure Act, compatible with no Potentiality. Ob. If the same body at the same time, and according to the same thing, could be here (at London) and there (at York) properly speaking; It would be here and not here, there and not there, etc. But the body of Christ in the Sacrament (according to you) at the same time, and according to the same thing, is here (at London) and there (at York) properly speaking. Therefore the body of Christ, in the Sacrament, at the same time, and according to the same thing, is here and not here, there and not there, etc. Answ. I deny first your major, for though to be at London, and not at London, is a clear contradiction, yet to be at London and York at the same time, is as clearly none at all. And secondly I deny both your minor and consequence, for they both proceed on this false supposition, viz. That the body of Christ in the Sacrament, is in place properly and by itself, that is, by the intrinsical determination of its own situal or local extension; which we deny. It is in the Sacrament after a spiritual and sacramental manner of being; and is in place only by accident, or improperly, that is, by the determination of the divers quantities or outward forms of bread, under which it is, and this implies no contratiction, because the affirmation and negation are not verified according to the same thing, but according to those divers quantities or outward forms of bread. You reply, It is determined to be here and not to be here, by its own entity or nature. Therefore according to the same thing. Answ. I deny your whole argument, substance or a spirit is not determined to place, of itself, or by its own entity, but by reason of some accident. It is the common opinion amongst wise men (says Boetius) that incorporeal things be not in place. l. an. omne quod est bonum sit? The soul is only in place by accident (says Aristotle) 4. Phys. tex. 45. And again, Neither are those things that are there (viz. above the convex superficies of the highest Heaven) apt to to be in place. l. 1. de coelo tex. 99 & 100 Christ's Body hath a substantial and spiritual manner of being in the Sacraments. You fret again at this, but who can help it? 'Tis the received Philosophy of the world, and all wise men, and therefore will not be altered or discredited upon your whimsical & heretical fancy. When Aristotle's Philosophy will serve your turn, you triumph in it, but when it contradicts you, than you slight it, and set yourself up in the chair, both against Him, and all wise men. This solution rightly understood with that of the argument concerning contrary motions, will serve to uncouple the whole pack of seeming contradictions, which bark so loud, and furiously, against the real presence, and Transubstantiation. Ob. Your real presence is a very idol, for it makes Christ have eyes and not see, ears and not hear, etc. ergo. Answ. I told you, you were angry, your antecedent is a very blasphemy, for though the actual exercise of these corporal faculties be suspended in the Sacrament for a greater good, by reason of its spiritual manner of being there; yet the powers are not taken away (but still the same, and subjected in the soul,) not more than they were taken away by his sleeping in this life, or being in his mother's womb. And this kind of explication you must know is but an opinion among some Divines; others, in my judgement, upon better grounds, affirm Christ's hearing and seeing to be in the Sacrament as truly as his body, though both alike imperceptible to our senses; nor does this hinder, but that he always is a seeing, hearing, knowing, and living God, he hears your blasphemy, and will punish it if you retract it not by timely penance. Ob. ●f the body of Christ have a spiritual manner of being in the Sacrament, it cannot nourish our bodies. Therefore the oral receiving of it is to no purpose. Answ. It cannot nourish our bodies, by being changed into our bodies, as other common meats are, I grant; it cannot nourish them by a virtual contact, I deny both your antecedent, and consequence, for as to the unworthy eater, it causeth sickness and death, 1. Cor. 11. So to the worthy eater it brings health and life. Nor could the wisdom of God ever have invented a more forcible motive of devotion, or more effectual means of comfort to his Church, than this of his real and substantial presence always with her. Ob. All the benefit accrues to us by the action of the soul, not of the body. Therefore it is only received by the soul and by faith, not by the mouth. Answ. It accrues to us indeed more principally by the action of the soul, but not wholly, the body also hath an instrumental share in it, by making Christ's body really and substantially present in our bodies, which could not be effected by the soul or by faith only without oral receiving it, which very oral receiving it increases charity by the help of our senses. Ob. You pray in the Mass that giving thanks for the Sacrament received, you may receive greater benefits, and tend to the fullness of the heavenly Sacrament. Therefore Christ is not really and substantially in the Sacrament, for nothing is greater than he. Answ. I grant your antecedent, but deny your consequence, because though nothing can be greater than he, and the same Christ be received both in heaven and in the Sacrament, the manner of receiving him shall be fuller and more perfect there, than here; here we receive him veiled or clouded under the accidents of bread and wine; There in the clear and beatifique vision of his divine and human nature, which is the fullness of the heavenly Sacrament. Ob. Christ hath no where commanded the Sacrament to be adored, therefore if his body were really there, yet aught it not to be adored. Answ. I grant your antecedent, but deny your consequence. So Christ hath no where commanded his natural body to be adored, yet he that should deny it adoration, were an Arian. The reason of this is, because both had been sufficiently commanded before in those words, The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, Deut. 6. 13. and 10. 20. Which command is unlimited and reacheth to all times and places where he is really, and truly present. And therefore it was enough for him to declare himself to be God and really present in the Sacrament, to infer a necessity of our adoring him in it. If at the name of Jesus every knee bow, Phil. 2. 10. much more at the real, and substantial presence of his divine and human nature. Ob. By adoring the Sacrament with divine adoration, you adore a creature (viz. the outward forms of bread and wine) with divine adoration, which is idolatry. Answ. We adore not the outward forms of bread and wine for themselves, or properly, but by accident only and improperly, inasmuch as they contain Christ God and Man, in whom our adoration is properly and essentially terminated. Nor is this any more idolatry, than it was in the holy Saints, when they adored Christ on earth, to adore also his garments by accident, as they contained his Person; with whom he was so pleased, that he wrought special miracles for many of them; witness the woman whom he cured of the bloody flux, for only touching his garments him. Ob. You are not certain that Christ is really there, because if the Priest have not a right intention, the consecration is not valid: Therefore you expose yourselves to great danger of idolatry by adoring it. Answ. I deny your antecedent, we have a moral certainty of it by the outward action of the Priest applying the true matter to the true form, and than elevating, and adoring the Host himself, to signify to us that it is consecrated; which is enough to warrant the lawfulness of our act, and all that God requireth of us. To your probation, I answer, that great Doctors, and those as yet uncensured by the Church, tell us, that the practical intention, which consists only in the performance of the foresaid outward actions, sufficeth to the validity of the consecration, whatever the speculative or inward intention of the Priest may be: therefore your consequence is not valid. And if in any possible supposition, the Priest should not consecrated, yet could not our adoration of it be formal idolatry; because that is still terminated properly, and essentially in Christ, where ever he be. Ob. The Apostles sat when they communicated, therefore they did not adore the Sacrament. An. I grant your antecedent, but deny your consequence: they adored in spirit, by acts of faith and charity, (which is the best & chiefest adoration) though not with outward genuflection, which is not always necessary, though very requisite in fit time, and now generally commanded by the Church. Let S. Augustine speak the mind of Antiquity: Of earth (saith he) Christ took earth, inasmuch as flesh is earth, and of the flesh of Mary he took flesh, and walked here in that flesh, and hath given us the same to be eaten to salvation; and no man eateth that flesh (viz: worthily)) unless he first adore it, in Psal. 98. in illum versic. Adore ye the footstool of his feet. Ob. You have no warrant for keeping or reserving the Sacrament. Answ. Yes; we have both in the first Nicene Council, Can. 12 14▪ and infinite examples of Antiquity. See S. Greg. Nazianz, in Gorgon. S. Ambrose oratione obitu fratris Satiri, &c: Add to this the authority and practice of the whole Church. ARTICLE XI. Of Transubstantiation. OUr Tenet is, That though the accidents or outward forms of bread and wine remain the same after consecration, yet the whole substance of the bread and wine is changed by the words of consecration, into the whole substance of the body and blood of Christ; which we prove thus. The first Argument. Ma. Transubstantiation is nothing else but a change of one whole substance into another. Mi. But by the words of consecration the whole substance of the bread and wine is changed into the whole substance of the body and blood of Christ. Cons. Therefore by the words of consecration is made a Transubstantiation. The major is proved by the Church's declaration, both in the Councils of Florence, Lateran, and Trent, that she intends nothing else by it. The minor is proved by all the texts of Scripture above cited, which signify a real change of the substance of the bread and wine into the body & blood of Christ, but not of the accidents; for they remain the same, as is evident to sense, and granted by our Adversaries; nor is there any mention of them at all in the words of consecration. A second Argument. Ma. If the substance of the bread and wine remained the same after consecration, the pronoun this (in those words This is my body) must of necessity demonstrate the substance of the bread and wine, after consecration. Mi. But the pronoun this, in those words, does not demonstrate the substance of the bread and wine after consecration, but the substance of the body and blood of Christ. Cons. Therefore the substance of the bread and wine does not remain after consecration. The major is proved, because the pronoun demonstrative this, after the words of consecration are spoken, signifies of necessity the substance than present, as all, grant. The minor is proved, because if it should than demonstrate the substance of bread and wine, the proposition would be evidently false, and signify bread and wine to be the body and blood of Christ, which is impossible. Fathers for this point. IN the second age S. Cyprian, the bread which our Lord gave to his disciples being changed, not in shape (outward form) but in nature (substance) by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh, Sermon. de coena Dom. In the third age Origen, We eat the bread offered by prayer made a certain holy body (the body of Christ) l. 8. cont. Celsum. In the same age Tertullian, The bread taken and distributed to his disciples, he made his body, l. 4. cont. Martion. c. 40. In the fourth age S. Ambrose, If human benediction could change & convert nature (he had exemplified in Moses converting a rod into a Serpent) what say we by the divine consecration where the very words of our Saviour do work, etc. shall not the word of Christ prevail so far as to change the species or nature of the Elements, l. 4. de Sacram. c. 4. De iis qui myster. c. 9 In the same age S. Cyril; Once in Cana of Galil●● he changed water into wine, etc. and shall he not be worthy to be belcived of us, that he has changed wine into his blood, Cateches. Mystagog. 1. c. 4. In the same age S. Gregory Nissen; Christ through the dispensation of his grace, enters by his flesh into all the faithful, etc. and these things he bestows, transelementing (transubstantiating) by virtue of his blessing the things that are seen, into it, Orat. Catechist. c. 37. In the fifth age S. Augustine; they (the rest of the disciples) did eat the bread which was our Lord himself, he (Judas) did eat the bread of our Lord against our Lord. Tract. 59 in Joan. If you infer out of this text, that Judas did not at all eat the Bread which was our Lord, because he wanted true faith; Therefore no man receives the Body of Christ in the Sacrament by the mouth, but by faith only. I Answer; Judas had before at lest, if not in this place, received the Bread which was our Lord himself, according to S. Augustine, Our Lord (saith he) suffers Judas, a devil, a thief, he that sold him, he lets him receive among the innocent desciples, that which the faithful know to be our price, l. 5. De Baptism. c. 8. when he says Judas ●at the bread of our Lord against our Lord▪ 'tis probable he speaks not of the Sacrament (though Judas eat that also against our Lord, because unworthily to his own damnation) but rather of the dipped s●p which Judas is said to eat against our Lord, because he than renewed his purpose of betraying him, so that the Devil entered him, and he went forth immediately to act his treason, Judas did not than (saith S. Augustine) receive the body of our Lord, as some, who read negligently, think; for we must understand that our Lord had already given the Sacrament of his body to them, where Judas also was, (tract. 62. in Joan.) So that your consequence is null. The Council of Folrence defined, that by virtue of the words of consecration, the substance of the bread is converted into the body of Christ, and the substance of the wine into his blood, decet sup. union. Jacobinorum, & Armenorum. Anno 1439. The Lateran council under Jnnocent the third defined, that bread is by divine power transulstantiated into the body, and wine into the blood of Christ, ca 1. an. Dom. 1215. Objections out of Scripture solved. Ob. What Christ promised in the sixth of S. John, is bread and flesh too. The bread which I will give is my flesh. Therefore the Sacrament is bread and flesh too; therefore transubstantiation. Answ. 'Tis bread (in the outward likeness) and flesh too (in the inward substance) thus I grant your antecedent. 'Tis bread in the inward substance, so I deny it, or 'Tis heavenly bread and flesh too, I grant it, earthly or common bread, I deny it: and so granting also your first consequence, I deny your second. Ob. If by those words this is my body, the whole substance of the bread be changed into the substance of Christ's Body, you cannot prove by any good reason▪ that the accidents of the bread are not changed by the same, into the accidents of his body. Therefore since the accidents are not changed, neither is the substance. Answ. Nor need I take much pains to prove by reason that the accidents remain, since they are evident to sense, however I deny your antecedent; one reason is, because the word hoc or this signifies only substance indeterminatly and as abstracting from all time or accidents, so that when the Predicate my body is added, the whole proposition is sufficiently verified, by the only change of the substance into his body, without any change of the accidents. A second reason is, because, if the accidents were also changed into the accidents of his body, it were an identical and not a formal predication, and would signify only my body is my body, there being no difference at all betwixt the subject and the predicate, whereas the accidents remaining the same, and the substance only being changed, it makes this sense, the substance contained under these accidents is my body, which imports an accidental difference betwixt them, and sufficeth to a formal predication, these reasons we have from the very words of the institution. And for reasons of convenience, one is, because we should have a horror to eat Christ's flesh in its own proper shape, nor could we do it without mangling it, and therefore he hath given it us in the outward shape of bread, in which we may eat it without any such inconvenience. A second reason is, that so there might be something frangible in the Sacrament, to signify and represent the real breaking of his body on the Cross. These and many other reasons may be given, without much rubbing our foreheads, wherefore I deny your consequence. Objections out of Fathers solved. Ob. SOme primitive Fathers say, We must undoubtedly believe the real presence, but aught not to inquire how, or search into the manner of it; therefore the Church did ill in defineing Transubstantiation. Answ. They say well, but you infer ill. So we must humbly believe the mystery of the B. Trinity, without curiously enquiring how three distinct persons can be in one indivisible nature, and yet the Church did well both in defining that there are three, and how there are three, against the Arians, and Antitrinitarians, and therefore I deny your consequence. A general Council, assisted by the Holy Ghost, may safely inquire into and define those things, which private men and Doctors aught rather to believe, without enquiring. Had not the inquisitive and overcurious why's and how's of Sectaries enforced her to it, by obtruding their false glosses on the words of consecration, 'tis more than probable to me, the Church had never defined so far in it as now she hath. Ob. Tertullian says, God in the Gospel called bread his body, that hence we might understand, he gave to bread the figure of his body, whose body anciently the Prophet figured by bread. Lib. 3. cont. Martion. Answ. The sense of Tertullian is plain: His question against Martion was, whether Christ's body were true and real, which he proves by this argument; That which is not true cannot have a figure, but bread is the figure of Christ's body, therefore Christ's body is true. Now this Father (as it is confessed by all) having a cross manner of expression, delivers himself in the words alleged, whose sense is, that Christ, by saying, This is my Body, verified the saying of the Prophet, who had figuratively called his body bread; for bread could not be truly a figure, till there was made a body, whose figure it might be, which was than done. This he calls, that he gave bread the figure of his body, not meaning to that particular bread which he had taken in his hand, but the nature of bread, of which the Prophet spoke, and by which he figured the body of our Saviour; So that if our Saviour had done nothing but called the body his bread in words, he had done no more than the Prophet, and not fulfilled the figure of the Prophecy, but repeated it. But Tertullian will have us understand, that by these words of our Saviour, the nature of bread, which the Prophet spoke of, got truly to be the figure of Christ's body, to wit, because Christ's body by these words became truly alimental to us, and therefore with great propriety to be figured by bread, as the Prophet had done. Tertullia's argument therefore speaks of the figure which the Prophet made (which now began truly to be a figure) not of a new figure which our Saviour made. And by this you may understand that other place objected out of him, viz. The bread taken and distributed to his Disciples he made his body by saying, This is my body; that is, a figure of my body, l. 4. cont. Martion. c. 40. That Christ made bread his body, he plainly and positively affirms; how he made it his body, is no lesle plain, viz. by saying, this is my body; and that he made it likewise a figure, sign, or Sacrament of his body, is agreed upon by all: The difference is, that you would have these words, that is a figure of my body, relate to the predicate, my body, whereas indeed they relate to the subject, hoc, or this, and make this construction. This, that is, a figure of my body, is my body. Bread was a figure of his body in the old Law, and he made the outward form or accidents of bread, to be a figure, or Sacrament of his body in the new, at his last supper: Nor is this form of speech unusual in him. He says in another place, Christ is dead, that is, the Anointed, for, Christ, that is, the Anointed, is dead, l. cont. Prax. c. 19 Or if nothing will serve you, but your own way, know that we allow his very body, as unbloudily offered in the Sacrament, to be a figure of his body as bloodily offered on the cross; what does this place advantage you, or prejudice us? Ob. Clemens Alexandrinus says, The blood of Christ is twofold, the one is carnal by which we are redeemed from death, the other spiritual, by which we are anointed. Paed. l. 2. c. 2. Answ. He calls the Blood of Christ carnal, as it was shed on the cross, because it was there shed in a carnal manner; He calls it spiritual, as it anoints us in the Sacrament, because it is there after a spiritual manner, all this we hold. Neither doth he deny it to be the same blood in substance in both places; the diversity is only in the manner of being. You reply, That in the same chapter he brings in Christ saying, Take, drink, this is my blood, the blood of the vine. Answ. He means of a heavenly, not of an earthly vine. You urge, it follows, But that the thing which had been blessed was wine, he shown again, saying to his Disciples▪ I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, until I drink it new in my Father's Kingdom. Answ. It was heavenly wine, proportionable to the Vine it came from, as appears by those words, Until I drink it new in my Father's kingdom: the fruit of no earthly vine is drunk there. Ob. S. Cyprian says, Christ, at his last Supper with his Disciples, gave bread and wine with his own hands, but on the cross he gave the soldiers his body to be wounded. Tract. de Unct. Answ. He calls the things signified (viz. his body and blood) by the names of the signs: He expounds himself, saying, Christ did this, that in the Apostles the sincere truth, and true sincerity being more secretly imprinted, he might explain to the Gentiles how bread and wine should be his flesh and blood (mark what it was that he called bread and wine) and by what reasons divers names and kinds (bread and wine, flesh and blood) might be reduced into one essence (one Sacrament) and the signifying and the signified be reckoned by the same words, (viz. bread and wine.) Thus his own exposition, which to my best understanding is rather for, than against us. We know the Fathers sometimes call the consecrated Hosts symbols, types, figures, but never so as to exclude the verity of the thing typified and figured, as Sectaries do. So that Objections of this nature are mere trifling and of no strength against us. Ob. S. chrysostom says, For as before the bread is sanctified we name it bread, but the divine grace sanctifying it by means of the Priest, it is freed from the name of bread, and deemed worthy to be called the Lords Body, although the nature of the bread remain in it. Epist. ad Caes. count. haeres. Apolin. ●itat. p●r Damascen. Answ. This Objection is clearly against you, excepting only those words, Although the nature of the bread remains in it, by which he only means the Qualities or Accidents of the Bread, not the Substance of it, as appears by those precedent words, The bread is sanctified by the divine grace, by means of the Priest, it is freed from the name of bread, and deemed worthy to be called our Lord's Body, (which could not be, if the substance of bread remained.) The word Nature is often taken for the qualities and properties of a thing. So we say in common speech, he's of a good nature, he's of an ill nature, I love his nature, I hate his nature, meaning his good and evil qualities, or properties, not his substance. Ob. S. Ambrose says, It is a wonderful power of God that makes the bread remain what it is, and yet be changed into another thing. ●. 4. de Sacrament. c. 4. Answ. The sense of S. Ambrose is, that the bread perishes not, but remains virtually in that into which it is changed; an effect that certainly requires not lesle than a wonderful power. But it were no wondered power if it should make the bread no other thing, than what nature and the Baker made it, but only change it into a sign or figure of his Body▪ This requires no omnipotence for doing it. You might in much modesty have spared this Objection, as also that of the same Father: How much more operative is the word of Christ, that the things be what they were (viz. in the outward shape) and yet be changed (viz. in the substance) into another thing (the body of Christ) and so that which was bread before consecration is now the Body of Christ, (he tells you plainly what it is changed into.) L. 4. de Sacrament▪ c. 4. What frontless confidence is it in you to triumph in these texts? Ob. Some of your Schoolmen, as Durand, Scotus, Peter Lombard etc. say, Transubstantiation was not heard of till of later times. Answ. They quarrel at the newness of the word, not at the meaning of it; but tell not us in controversies of Faith of the placita of Schools, or what this or that particular Schoolman says, who deliver but their own private opinions, and those also with submission to the Church's judgement. Tell us what is plainly said in Scripture, and so expounded by the Church, or what hath been delivered by Apostolical tradition from age to age, or what the Fathers have plainly and unanimously taught, or what hath been defined in Councile perfectly ecumenical. These, and nothing lesle are testimonies sufficient, to prove a controverted point to be of faith, or not. Ob. Transubstantiation was not heard of till the Council of Lateran. Answ. The word was not agreed upon in any general Council before that, I grant; the meaning or thing signified by the word, I deny it: that was believed and taught from the first institution of the Sacrament, as hath been proved; see the Councils above. Objections from reason, and sense, answered. Ob. TRansubstantiation is not expressly in the Scripture. Therefore we have no reason to believe it with divine faith. Answ. The meaning of the word is, though the word be not, and it sufficeth to a point of faith, that it be any way in the Scripture, either plainly or obscurely, expressly or implicitly, the Church's authority and exposition, or definition being added. Otherwise the mystery of the Trinity, the necessity of infant's Baptism, etc. would not be points of faith, they be not expressly and plainly in the Scripture; nor be the words there at all, not more than transubstantiation, therefore your consequence is false. Ob. It is impossible for one whole substance to be changed into another, ergo. Answ. Naturally, or by a mere natural agent, whose activity is limited and always presupposeth a subject to work upon, I grant it; By a supernatural agent, whose power is infinite, and unlimited, I deny it; Christ is always the principal agent in this work, the Priest is but his instrument only. Ob. If the whole substance of the bread were changed into the Body of Christ, the accidents of bread could not remain as they do, they cannot be without a subject. Answ. Naturally or by the force of nature, I grant it, by miracle and the omnipotency of God, I deny it. Actual inherence in a subject is not of essence, of quantity, or any other accident, but only to be apt to be in a subject; to be in, in all absolute entities (such as quantity is) must of necessity presuppose to be; at lest, in the essential notion of it. Ob. The same body cannot be in many places at once. Answ. Circumscribed, or locally extended, I grant; In a spiritual and Sacramental manner, I deny it. Ob. Quantity is essential to a body. Therefore if his body be in the Sacrament, his quantity must needs be there. Answ. I distinguish your antecedent, quantity extended metaphysically, inwardly or in order to itself, is essential to a body I grant; Quantity extended phisically, or in order to place, I deny it, that is only a property of Quantity, and therefore separable from it by God's omnipotence. It is most proper to quantity (saith Aristotle) to be equal, 5▪ Metaphis. that is to be locally extended with some determinate figure. Quantity is an absolute entity, and therefore cannot essentially consist of order to place, which is a mere relation, I give the same distinction to your consequence. Ob. For the same body to be here and there at the same time implies a contradiction. Answ. You mistake; for the same body to be here & not to be here, implies a contradiction, or for the same body to be here, and to be there properly (that is locally extended) at the same time & according to the same thing, implies a contradiction true, but not to be here and to be there, improperly (that is sacramentally) and according to divers things (to wit divers quantities) as Christ's body is in the Sacrament. The soul is here (in the head) and there (in the foot) at the same time, improperly and spiritually, by reason of the divers parts of the body, without any contradiction. Ob. A body is destroyed, if it be not in some determinate place. Answ. That Proposition is not universally true. Aristotle says and proves, that the universe, or highest heaven is in no place, because nothing is without, or above it, to contain it, 4. Phis. text. 45. Yet we grant that Christ's body in the Sacrament is always in some determinate place improperly and by accident, viz. in the place of the quantity, under which it is, it is so determinated to place by the dimensions or outward forms of bread and wine as never to be out of the place of the said dimensions or outward forms. Ob. nothing can be in two divers times at once. Therefore nothing can be in two divers places at once. Answ. I deny your consequence; the disparity is because divers times cannot be together or at once, (by me being essentially successive) but divers places may, and are. Ob. A spirit which is naturally indivisible, cannot be made divisible even by God's omnipotence. Therefore quantity which is naturally divisible in order to place, cannot be made indivisible in order to place even by God's omnipotence. Answ. I grant your antecedent but deny your consequence, the disparity is, that it is not only natural, but essential to a spirit, to be indivisible, and have no parts, but it is not essential, though it be natural to quantity to be divisible, or have parts extended in order to place, but only in order to itself. And he that could make the Sea a solid path to his own feet, S. Math. 14. enter to his disciples the doors being shut, S ●o. 20. make a bush burn and not consume, Exod 3. make Iron swim on the water, 4. Kings. 6. make the Sea stand like a wall about his people Exod. 14. can doubtless change the natural, and common manner of being which things have, and yet be able to conserve their essences, your Scholars know this to be possible and confess it, and so do you when you forget yourself, as I have showed above; your shifts in eluding these places are too poor to merit an answer▪ He that can make material substances, which of their own nature are indivisible in order to place, divisible by means of quantity, even by his ordinary power, and way of working, can doubtless by his extraordinary, make quantity, which naturally is divisible in order to place, become indivisible, by giving it a supernatural, and sacramental manner of being. Ob. Bread might be called the body of Christ by only being made one thing with his body, although it were not transubstantiated into his body. Answ. Not it could not. The soul of man is made one thing with his body, and yet the body cannot be called▪ the soul, nor the soul the body. Ob. Man in Christ is called God, and God man. Therefore bread in the Sacrament may be called the body of Christ. Answ. I grant your antecedent, but deny your consequence, the disparity is, because God and man in Christ are united in one person. Bread is not so united to the body of Christ in the Sacrament. Ob. The thing containing may be called the thing contained; so we call a barrel, sack, a purse, Gold etc. Therefore bread containing only the body of Christ, may be called the body of Christ, though it remain unchanged. Answ. Your antecedent is true in a figurative sense, because a barrel, and a purse are of their own nature made to contain, and suppose for sack and gold, but bread was not of its own nature and primary institution, made to contain and suppose for the body of Christ, (this was superadded to the accidents or outward forms of bread only by Christ at his last Supper) but to contain and be the nourishment of man's body. Ob. S. Austin says, it is impossible for Christ to be at once according to his corporal presence, in the Sun, and in the Moon, and on the Cross. Answ. We maintain not his corporal, but real and spiritual presence in the Sacrament, the manner of being is spiritual, and sacramental, you have been often ●old it. He speaks there against the Manichees, who held the body that was crucified to be a fantastical body, and that the corporal light of the Sun and Moon were the true body of Christ, which S. Augustine proves to be false, because a body cannot be in many places at once, after a bodily manner; this is not against us, Ob. Sense cannot be deceived in its proper object, and sense tells us 'tis bread after consecration, ergo. Answ. Substance is not the proper and immediate object of sense, but colour, quantity etc. nor can sense judge at all of substance, though it be under sensible accidents, unless it be the subject of those accidents, and have a sensible and corporal manner of being; which the body of Christ neither is, nor hath in the Sacrament. It hath a spiritual manner of being, and is not the subject of the accidents of bread, they are without a subject by miracle, therefore no wonder if sense be deceived in this matter. Here sense and reason must veil bonnet to faith, and submit to the authority of God revealing and the Church propounding; they are no competent Judges, what God can do by his omnipotence. Ob. S. John proved the verity of the incarnation, and God made man, against Cerinthus and his complices, by the evidence of sense. That which we have seen with our eyes, and our hands have handled, we declare unto you, etc. 1. Jo. 1. Answ. You deceitfully leave out the first, and principal part of his proof, viz. That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, etc. v. 1. his chief probation of that mystery was not grounded on seeing and feeling only, as you pretend, but on hearing, faith is by hearing, and hearing by the word of God revealing. He had heard that which was from the beginning, viz. Christ revealing those things, and therefore believed them, and declared them to us to be believed. The other part of his proof from seeing and feeling, was only ad Hominem, against Cerinthus, and such as you are, who will believe nothing, without a sensible experiment of it; whereas true faith is an argument of things not appearing. Ob. If the notions and evidence of sense be not infallible about its own proper object, there can be no certainty in the knowledge of bodies, and sense must needs be the perpetual cause of deception in this mystery to all the world, which is absurd, ergo. Answ. They are infallible about the proper objects of sense, if they be duly proposed, and reason consider rightly of all circumstances, but the body of Christ in the Sacrament is not the proper object of sense, but of faith, it hath a spiritual, and supernatural manner of being, and we have a more infallible assurance than that of sense, to regulate our assent by, in this matter; viz. the divine authority revealing; he that will credit that, & captivated the uncertain notions of sense to the obedience of faith (as all good Christians aught to do) is n●● in the lest danger of being deceived by sense in this mystery, but such as will obstinately prefer the seeming evidence of sense, before the certain authority of God revealing, and his Church propounding (as you do) are worthy to be slaved for ever to the deception and fallacy of sense, may God deal better with you, than you deserve, which is my hearty prayer for you. Ob. If the doctrine of Transubstantiation were true, and Christ's body were whole in the whole host, and whole in every part of the host, if you divide, or break it, it would follow, your Laics can consecrated, as well as Priests, because when they divide the host in their mouths, they make Christ (who before was present only in one place) to be now present in many; riddle me this riddle. Answ. You please yourself with your own mistakes. I deny the sequel of your argument, that action of the Laics of itself and properly speaking reaches only to the division of the signs, or accidents, not to the presence of Crists' body to the signs, or in many places, the efficient and proper cause of that, are the word● of consecration spoken by the Priests, by which the whole substance of his body is made present in place of the whole substance of the bread, and by a necessary consequence, in every part of the signs or accidents if you divide: the Laities division of them is only Conditio sine qua non, a condition, without which the effect of his presence in many places is not put, not the efficient cause thereof. Ob. Christ proved the verity of his own Resurrection by the evidence of sense, when he said to his disciples: see my hands and feet, that it is I myself, handle and see, S. Lu. 24. 39 Answ. The evidence of sense was infallible in that case, to prove the Body of Christ to be his true body, and not a phantasm, as the mistaken disciples thought his body had there a sensible, corporal, and natural manner of being, not so in the Sacrament; nevertheless the verity of his resurrection, as it is an article of faith, hath a much higher and more infallible proof than that of sense, viz. the authority of the Prophets and Christ himself revealing it. They will kill him, and on the third day he shall rise again, S. Lu. 18. 33. Ob. In the profession of faith prescribed to Berengarius by the Pope, it is said; That the Body of Christ is sensibly touched by the hands and chewed by the teeth. Therefore the manner of its being is sensible, and not spiritual. Answ. I deny your consequence, the words of the Profession run thus. I Berengarius profess, etc. The bread and wine which are set on the altar after consecration, to be not only a Sacrament, but also the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and I profess it (the consecrated bread and wine says the relection of that Council) to be sensibly touched by the hands of Priests, and chewed by the teeth of the faithful, not only in the Sacrament, but in verity, etc. all this we grant in a sound sense. His body is said to be sensibly chewed by the teeth and touched by the hands in this respect, that the whole substance of his body remains and is present in verity and without fiction under every part of the divided host; that is, his body is said to be sensibly touched by the hands, and chewed by the teeth, not by itself or according to its own entity, but by accident and by means of the signs or accidents of bread under which it truly is; thus the relection of that very Council expounds the Council. Berengarius was there condemned for denying the true and real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament or signs, not for holding it to be there after a spiritual manner of being, this was ever most true and Catholic doctrine, therefore it cannot without absurdity be imagined that the meaning of his profession should be, that Christ's Body is in the Sacrament after a sensible, & corporeal manner. You reply; His body is sensibly touched and chewed not only in the Sacrament, but in verity. Answ. We grant it; for by the words▪ In verity, is meant no more, than truly and without fiction. That which we sensibly touch & chew is not only a Sacrament or sign, but also the body and blood of Christ in verity, that is, truly and without fiction, and therefore his body may be said to be sensibly touched & chewed in verity, that is, without fiction, not by itself, or according to its own entity, but by means of the Sacrament or signs, which are so touched and chewed, and under which it is in verity, that is truly and without fiction. I declare this by an example: Ionas was sensibly swallowed by the Whale, both soul and body, and this in verity, that is truly and without fiction; yet he was not sensibly swallowed according to both, but according to his body only, & his soul is said to be sensibly swallowed by means of the body, in which it was in verity & without fiction. You reply, though Ionas his soul may be said to be sensibly swallowed by means of his body in which it was, or by accident, yet it can no ways be said to be sensibly eaten or chewed. Therefore though Christ's body be in the Sacrament, yet it cannot be said to be sensibly chewed or eaten in it, seeing the manner of its being is spiritual. Answ. The disparity is, that jonas was not chewed or eaten either according to his soul or body; But Christ's body is sensibly chewed or eaten in the Sacrament, according to the Signs or Sacrament, though not according to its own substance. Now let any impartial Christian judge what good meaning Doctor Taylor could have, in enumerating such a rabble of seeming contradictions, (which are indeed none) upon falls imaginary suppositions: Or in exaggerating such an imminent danger, nay moral certainty, (if he may be our judge) of gross and horrible Idolatry in our doctrine and worship of the B. Sacrament (the known and constant belief not only of this Nation, but the whole world, except some few Sectaries in the last Age, even from its first conversion to Christianity:) What other end could he probably propose to himself (especially in this conjuncture of time) than to lay his whole weight of malice upon persons that live innocently by him, and who for their Religion, have already burdens enough to satisfy the uncharitableness of any ordinary envy. He is one that pretends sometimes to much moderation and charity in his writings: I wish he had them in his heart, but am sure he hath showed neither in this Treatise; let him that judgeth all things be his judge; I only set this Motto on our Tenet, Veritas in aeternum stat, and God can find protection for his people, or if it be his will to have us sufferers for justice sake, we know he will reward our sufferings with a most full and overflowing measure. His will be done: Amen. ARTICLE XII. Of Communion under one kind. OUr Tenet is, That there is no necessity for the Laity to communicate under both kinds, but that it is lawful for them to do it either under one or both, as the Church of God appoints: which we prove thus. The first Argument. Ma. If to communicate under one kind only be sufficient for the Laities obtaining everlasting life; than it is not necessary for them to communicate under both. Mi. But to communicate under ono kind only is sufficient for the Laities obtaining everlasting life: Cons. Therefore it is not necessary for them to communicate under both. The major is proved; Because that, without which a thing may be had, is not absolutely necessary for obtaining it. The minor is proved by, This is a bread coming down from heaven, that if any one eat of it, he dies not, S. John 6. 50. He that eateth of this bread shall live for ever, vers. 52. If any one eateth me, the same shall also live by me, vers. 58. You hear eating only will suffice. A second Argument. 1. If Christ himself and his Disciples gave the Sacrament under one kind, than it is lawful also for us to give it under one kind. 2. But Christ himself and his Disciples did sometimes give it under one kind: 3. Therefore it is lawful also for us to give it under one kind. The major is manifest, because their actions are our examples and best warrants. The minor is proved: And it came to pass● whilst he (Christ) sat at the table with them, he took bread, and blessed, and broke and did reach it to them, and their eyes were opened, and they knew him, and he vanished out of their sig●●, S. Luke last, verse 30. And they were persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles, and the communication of the breaking of bread and prayer▪ Acts 2. v. 42. And in the first of the Sabbath, when they were assembled to break dread, etc. Acts 20. 17. A plain Synaxis; Here is no cup in any of these places, which are all expounded of the Sacrament, by S. Austin, l. 49. de cons●ns. Evangel. c. 25. Venerable Bede, and Theophylact on the said places. A Third Argument. 1. If the whole substance and essence of the Sacrament with all the ends thereof be had under one kind, both are not necessary to salvation. 2. But the whole substance and essence of the Sacrament with all the ends thereof, is had under on kind. Therefore both are not necessary to salvation. The major is proved, because the pr●●ise institution of a thing infers not a necessity of doing or receiving the whole, when the end of the institution may be obtained by a part only; for example; God instituted all kinds of meats for man's sustenance, yet neither any one particular man, nor the whole collection of men are bound to eat all kinds of meats, but so much only as is sufficient to sustain them; so God ordained marriage for the holy propagation of mankind, yet all men are not bound to marry, because mankind may sufficiently be propagated without this or that particular man's marrying. The minor is proved, because, under one kind, there is the matter, the bread, there is the form, the words of consecration; there is the sign of Christ's unity with the faithful, many grains making one paste; there is the thing signified, the body and blood of Christ and divine grace, there is a memory of his death and passion, the bread divided from the cup, to signify how his body and blood were divided for us on the cross, and hence it was that after the consecration of either kind, he recommended to us the memory of his death and passion; to show that either was a sufficient memorial thereof, 1. Cor. 11. 24. 25. And finally by receiving under one kind we are spiritually nourished, made partakers of the merits of Christ, and fast united to him▪ For we are one bread, one body, all that do participate of one bread, 1 Cor. 10. 13. which is all that appertains to the substance, essence, or ends of of this Sacrament. A fourth Argument. 1. That which is not commanded either in the written, or unwritten Word of God, is no divine precept. 2. But the Laities Communion under both kinds is not commanded either in the written or unwritten Word of God. Therefore the Laities Communion under both kinds is no divine precept; and 'tis lawful for them to communicate under one, or both, according as the Church appoints. The major is manifest by the very terms. The minor is proved by the solution of all such objections as shall be brought out of the Scripture to the contrary: And as for the unwritten Word, which is Apostolical Tradition, let these ensuing testimonies be heard. Fathers for this point. In the second Age S. Dionysius asserts the Communion of Infants under one kind, l. de Eccles. Hierarch c. ult. prope finem. See also c. 4. In the third Age Tertullian tells us, it was than a custom to carry the Eucharist home to their houses for private Communion (●. ad Vxorem) which could be done but under one kind, because Chalices were not permitted to be in Lay▪ men's houses. S. Athanasius Apol. 2. cont. Arianos. In the same Age S. Cyprian affirms, it was given to Infants and to the Sick in one kind only. Serm. d● lapsis num. 10. In the fourth Age S. Ambrose asserts▪ They kept the Eucharist after consecration, and that his brother Satyrus in a shipwreck was miraculously delivered from the waters, by having the Eucharist tied about his neck in a stole. Orat▪ de obitu Satyri. In the same Age Eusebius testifies; They were want to sand the Sacrament by Sea into far countries, l. 5. Histor. which could not be done but under one kind. In the fifth Age S. Austin teaches the practice of communion under one kind for infants. L. advers. Julian. Pelag. c. 4. prope finem. & tom. 2. Epist. 106. post medium. In the same Age it was so indifferent a thing for the Laity to communicate either under one or both kinds, that the Manichees (who held Christ had no true blood, and that wine was the gall of the Devil, and therefore would not receive the cup) lurked among Catholics, by communicating under the form of bread only, and could not be distinguished from them, till Pope Leo the first made a special Edict, commanding all the Laity to receive once a year under both kinds, and that at the public Communion of Easter, by which means he detected the said Manichees, and excluded them from the Catholic Communion. See Leo Serm. 4 de Quadrages. and Baronius A●●als An. 490. num. 21, 22. The Council of Clarem●nt under Pope V●ban. 2. decreed against an abusive custom of dipping the bread in the cup, That no man should communicate of the Altar, unless he took the bread apart, and the cup in like manner; unless through necessity or caution (as in case of sick and infants) Can. 28. An. Dom. 1095. The Council of Constance has decreed against all such as rashly presume to say, That Christian people aught to receive the Sacrament under both kind, etc. That as the custom of the Laities receiving under the form of bread only, had been lawfully brought in for avoiding some dangers and scandals, and very long observed, etc. so it aught to be held for a Law, which it is not lawful to reject, without the Church's authority. Sess. 13. 14. An. Dom 1415. The Council of Basil has defined the same, Sess. 30. Objections solved. Ob. DRink ye all of this, S. Matth. 26. Answ. That was only spoken to the Apostles, whom he made Priests, none else were present; And they all drank, S. Mark 14. That those words concerned not the Laity, but the Apostles only▪ appears in S. Luke, who has expressed it thus; Take ye and d●vide it amongst you, S. Luke 22. 17. Ob. Do this for a commemoration of me, S Luke c. 22. 1 Cor. 11. Answ. By those words Christ made his Apostles Priests, and gave them power to consecrated his Body & Blood, as he had there done, which cannot appertain to the Laity; unless perhaps you would have them Priests also, and than we shall have Priests enough. Besides, S. Luke has those words after the consecration of the bread immediately, not after the consecration of the Cup, & S. Paul has them absolutely after the consecration of the bread, but conditionally only after the consecration of the cup, and with limitation Do this as often as y● shall drink, in commemoration of me, both which circumstances rather evince a nonnecessity of communion under both kinds, than otherwise. Ob. Christ ordained it in both kinds. Answ. True; but precise institution, as hath been proved, obliges not all men to do all that was instituted: Besides, it was instituted not only for a Sacrament, but a sacrifice; and so I grant both kinds are requisite to make a perfect representation of the body and blood of Christ, as actually divided on the cross; and therefore Priests have a command to receive it both kinds, but not the Laity, to whom it appertains not to sacrifice. Ob. Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you shall have no life in you. Answ. Such as deny the real presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist, say, that Chapter concerns not oral and sacramental, but only mental, and spiritual communion; and so nothing to your purpose. But to such as allow the real presence with us, I answer, This imports a command obliging the whole Church, but not each particular man, and so it is fulfilled by the whole Church, by Priests receiving in both kinds, and by the Laity receiving in one, or both, as it is appointed. It is not said, unless every one, etc. but unless ye eat, etc. So when Christ said, Go ye teaching all nations, baptising them, etc. he did not command every particular Apostle to teach and baptise all Nations (that were impossible) but that it should be done among them, according to their several allotments. So in the old Scripture we read, Ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, Gen. 17. 11. And let every one take a lamb etc. the whole multitude ●f the sons of Israel shall sacrifice it, Exod. 12. 3, 6. These were precepts obliging the whole Synagogue, but not each particular man; every one was not bound to circumcise, but such only as were deputed for that office; nor was every one obliged to sacrifice the lamb, but only the father or chief of every family. The reason of this is given us by S. Austin, Because the moral precepts of Christ oblige all and each particular man of the same state or calling his sacramental precepts not so; but the whole multitude only, according to their different callings and capacities. That nothing can be proved out of this Chapter, for the necessity of communion in both kinds, is evident, because in three or four special texts it affirms one kind to be sufficient to salvation, verse 50, 52, 58. Ob. Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup, for he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself, 1 Cor. 11. 28, You hear S. Paul enjoins both. Answ. This probation, or trial of ourselves is necessary for all sorts of men, and at all times, as often as they communicate, and therefore he extends his speech to all, as well Priests as Laics; That he knew it to be lawful for the Laity to receive under one kind only (if holy Church should so command) is evident by the precedent verse, in which he says, For whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink this cup of our Lord unworthily▪ (the Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) he shall be guilty of the body and blood of our Lord, vers. 27. And after the consecration of the bread he says absolutely, Do this for a commemoration of me: But after the consecration of the cup, he says, Do y● this (not absolutely, but with a limitation) as often as ye shall drink, for a commemoration of me, vers. 26. so to intimate, that it was not necessary for all sorts of Communicants, or at all times, to receive the cup. Ob. By denying them the cup, you rob the Laity of the blood of Christ. Answ. Not; there is both body and blood, whole Christ under either kind: his body and blood cannot be now divided; for he is now immortal and impassable, he cannot die nor suffer any more, Rom. 6. And as the Church heretofore commanded the Laity to receive in both kinds, so to exclude the Manichees (who held the cup to be unlawful, and not the blood of Christ, but the gall of the Devil) from the communion of the faithful; so now she commands them to receive under the form of bread only, to exclude and detect such heretics as hold that whole Christ is not under either kind. Ob. The cup is the Legacy of Christ to his Church, and therefore belongs to all. Answ. Not, it is a part of his Will or Testament, and the Will is not his Legacy. His Legacy was everlasting life. That being justified by grace we may be heirs according to hope of everlasting life, Rom. 8. 17. Or if you will needs have the cup a Legacy, at lest it was but a part of his Legacy, and appertains not to all by any precept or necessity, but to those only to whom the Overseers of his Will (the Pastors of the Church) have been appointed to deliver it. Ob. S. Cyprian says, The Law forbids the eating of blood, the Gospel commands it, de Coena Dom. Ans. This is against, not for you. He speaks of eating, not of drinking; if you will have it understood of drinking, I answer, it commands Priests, but not the Laity. Ob. S. Austin says, All that will have life are exhorted to drink blood, q. 57 in Levit. Answ. Counsel is no command, and you must note here, that whensoever the Fathers say the Laity have a right to the cup, & aught to receive it, they speak of times in which the Church so appointed and commanded, which is not against us. Ob. The Priest receiving in both kinds, receives but one whole Sacrament: Therefore both kinds belong to the integrity of the Sacrament. Answ. I grant the antecedent, but distinguish the consequence, therefore both kinds belong to the integrity of the Sacrament, and make but one whole Sacrament, when they are taken together, and ordered to one refection, I grant; of necessity, always, or when they are taken apart, I deny. For so either kind is an entire and perfect Sacrament of itself. So many dishes of meat, if eaten of together & ordered to one refreshing, make but one meal, but eaten of at several times, and ordered to divers refections, they make several whole meals. Christ ordained both kinds, and left it in the power of his Church, to make them one or two distinct matters of the Sacrament, as the necessity of times and persons should require. ARTICLE XIII. Of the unbloudy Sacrifice of the Mass. EXternal Sacrifice, properly so called, is a worship that belongs to none but God; and hence it is, the Devil has been long endeavouring, by Heretics and Sectaries, utterly to abolish the Mass, (the daily sacrifice of Christians) which Antichrist in the later days shall take away, Dan. 11. 31. The thing offered and sacrificed in the Mass, we have already demonstrated to be the body and blood of Jesus Christ, true God and man, under the outward forms of bread and wine. And, for the action, by which it is sacrificed to God, which chief is discussed in this Article, you are to note, 1. That by the word Sacrifice in this place we understand not a sacrifice in general, or improperly so termed (such as are all the actions of the mind, or any work of virtue whatsoever) but a special sacrifice, truly and properly so called▪ 2. That the sacrifice of the cross is an absolute, bloody, and general sacrifice, propitiatory for the sins of the whole world, but the sacrifice of the last Supper, or the Mass, is a representative, unbloudy, and particular sacrifice, applying the said general and bloody sacrifice to us. OUr Tenet is, That the oblation of our Lords last Supper, or the Mass, is a true and proper unbloudy sacrifice, and propitiatory for sins. The first Argument. 1. A commemorative sacrifice is the oblation of a sensible thing made to God, testifying (by force of divine institution) the supreme dominion of God, and passion of Christ. 2. But Christ at his last Supper (and the same is done in the Mass) made the oblation of a sensible thing to God, testifying (by force of his divine institution) the supreme dominion of God, and his own death and passion. 3. Therefore Christ at his last Supper (and the same is done in the Mass) offered a true and proper commemorative sacrifice. The major is manifest of itself, and allowed by all. The minor is proved; because Christ at his last Supper made the oblation of his body and blood to God for us, under the visible forms of bread and wine. This is my body (saith he) which is given for you, S. Luke 22. 19 He did not say, Which is given to you (though he also gave it to them a Sacrament) but which is given for you; (to show, he first offered it to God for them, a sacrifice.) This is my blood which is shed for many to the remission of sins, S. Matth. 26: 28. It represents the supreme dominion of God, because the things offered are broken, shed and destroyed, according to the outward forms; to show his power over life and death. It testifieth the passion of Christ by force of his own institution; Do ye this (saith he) for a commemoration of me, S. Luke 22. A second Argument. 1. Christ is a Priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech, Heb. 7. 11, 15, 17. 2. But the order of Melchisedech's Priesthood consisted principally in this, That he offered to God the pacific and unbloudy sacrifice of bread and wine. 3. Therefore Christ at his last Supper offered to God the pacific and unbloudy sacrifice of bread and wine. The minor (which only requires proof) is proved; And Melckisedech King of Salem brought forth bread and wine, and he was sacrificing to the most high God, Gen. 14. 18. The Hebrew word is Cohen Leel, which word Cohel (as often as it is joined with a Dative case in holy Scripture, as it is here) signifies the Participle sacrificing, and not the Substantive, a Sacrificer. The consequence is confirmed, because a similitude in the rite of sacrificing is that which chief pertains to the similitude of Priesthood. A third Argument. 1. To offer God a propitiatory sacrifice, is nothing else, but to offer an Host to God for the remission of sins. 2. But Christ at his last Supper offered an Host to God for the remission of sins, as I have proved: Therefore Christ at his last Supper (and the same is done in the Mass) offered a propitiatory sacrifice. A fourth Argument. 1. What Christ did in the oblation of his last Supper, he gave his Apostles and their successors both power and command to do. 2. But Christ in the oblation of his last Supper offered to God a true and proper commemorative, and unbloudy sacrifice: (as hath been proved by the first and second Arguments:) 3. Therefore he gave his Apostles and their successors (that is, all lawful Priests) both power and command to offer unto God a true and proper commemorative, and unbloudy sacrifice. The major is proved, Do ye this (which I have done) for a commimoration of me, S. Luke 22. 1 Cor. 11. How long this power was to last, and this command to be in force, S. Paul has taught us, As often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye shall declare the death of our Lord until he come, 1 Cor. 11. 16. which words have been expounded by three general Councils, to signify, that we do not worthily eat the bread, & drink the cup of our Lord, unless we first denounce his death, by the consecration and unbloudy sacrificing of his body and blood. 1. Ephesine, 2. Chalcedon, 3. Constantinopolitan Councils. The consequence is established, because Christ could not be truly called Priest for ever according to the Order of Melchisedech, (Psal. 109. Heb. 5. 10. & Heb. 6. v. last) unless he had ordained some unbloudy sacrifice, which was to last to the end of the world, and to be offered by inferior Priests, subordinate to, and succeeding him in his unbloudy Priesthood, seeing his bloody Priesthood ceased at his death; neither could that return after his resurrection, because it was incompatible with his immortality. Add to this that of Malachy 1. 10, 11. From the rising of the Sun, even to the setting, great is my name amongst the Gentiles, and there is sacrificed and offered to my name in every place a clean oblation. The Hebrew word is Mi●cha, which in Scripture always signifies (when offered unto God) a proper and unbloudy sacrifice; and cannot otherwise be verified, than by the Priesthood of the new Law, and the unbloudy sacrifice of the Mass; without which having taken away all the sacrifices of the old Law, Christ had not increased, but diminished his Father's honour. Thus the Doctors and Fathers of the Church proved the eternity of our Saviour's Priesthood, against the Jews, which Sectaries endeavour to rob him of. Fathers for this point. IN the first Age S. Andrew; ● daily sacrifice an immaculate lamb to almighty God, who (when he is truly sacrificed, and his flesh truly eaten) remains whole and alive. In the book of S. Andrew's passion, written by his own disciples, with Surius. In the same Age S. Ignatius, S. Peter's Scholar; They (the Saturnian Heretics) admit not (saith he) of Eucharists and oblations, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour, who suffered for our sins. In Epist. ad Sminoum citat. apud Theodoret. Dial. 3. In the second Age Irenaeus; How can they be assured, the bread in which thanks are given (a pacific sacrifice) is made the body of our Lord, and the chalice his blood, if they acknowledge him not to be the Son of the maker of the world? lib. 4. cap. 57 In the third Age Origen; You think yourselves guilty, and worthily▪ if any part of the consecrated Host be lost through your negligence. Homil. 13. in Exod. In the fourth Age Epiphanius; Never shall you found our Lord or his Apostles, or the Fathers say, that the unbloudy sacrifice which is offered by the Priests is an image, but his very body and blood. In disputat. cum S. Greg. in 7. Synod. general. action. 6. tom 3. In the same Age S. chrysostom; The wisemen worshipped him in the manger, thou seest him not in the manger, but on the Altar, etc. and the Spirit abundantly poured out on the sacrifice presented there, in 1. ad Cor. And in another place; In regard it is offered in many places, be there many Christ's? Not: for as he who is every where offered, is one body, and not many bodies, so the sacrifice is one. Homil. 17. in Epist. ad Heb. In the same Age S. Hierome; He is the inviter, and the banquet, we drink his blaud, etc. and in his sacrifices we daily press ruddy sweet wines from the true grape. Q. 2. Epist. ad Haediber. In the same Age S. Ambrose; When we sacrifice Christ is present. In cap. 1. S. Luc. And in another place; Though Christ is not seen to offer now, yet he himself is offered on earth, when th● body of Christ is offered, nay he himself is manifested to offer in us, whose speech▪ doth sanctify the sacrifice which is offered. In Psalm. 38. In the fifth age S. Augustine; When now we see this sacrifice offered to God in every place by the Priesthood of Christ according to the order of Melchisedech, and the Jews sacrifice to cease, why do they yet expect another Christ? Tom. 5. de civitat. D●i cap. 35. And (l. 9 Confess. c. 3.) he tells us, His another Monica desired on her deathbed, that memory should be made of her at the Altar, from whence she knew the holy sacrifice to be dispensed, wherewith the indictment against us was blotted out. The first Nicene Council decrees, By saith let us understand the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world, to be placed on the sacred Table, to be sacrificed by the Priests unbloud●ly, etc. L. 3. Decret. de divina Mensa. An. Dom. 315. Objections solved. Ob. WHen Christ said, This is my body which is given for you. This is my blood which is shed, etc. He spoke only of what was given, and shed the day following on the Cross. Answ. Not; He spoke of what he himself there gave and shed at his last Supper, commanding his Apostles to do the same, Do y● this, etc. They were not commanded to give his body or shed his blood the day following on the cross; the words are, Which is given, which is shed, in all the Greek and Syriack Bibles, as also in your English versions. And S. Paul hath prevented that evasion, by saying, This is my body which is broken (unbloudily sacrificed) for you, 1 Cor. 11. 24. & S. Luke also by saying, this is the chalice the new Testament in my blood, which (chalice) is shed for you, S. Luke 22. 20. So the Greek text hath it. His body was not broken on the cross, (They did not diminish any bone of him, S. John c. 19) but only at his last Supper under the outward form of bread; neither was his blood shed out of the cup on the cross, but only the night before, under the form of wine. This argument was used by S. chrysostom, Theophylact, and Echumenius above a thousand years ago, to prove the Mass a true unbloudy sacrifice, in 1 Cor. 10. 16. Ob. The vulgar Latin Edition reads, which shall be given or broken, which shall be shed. Answ. True; and this proves, that it was not only thus given and broken at his last Supper, but also to be given, broken, and shed by his Apostles and their successors, to the end of the world; which we acknowledge. This does not prejudice the Greek and Syriack texts. Ob. Christ's body is not broken in the Eucharist, nor his blood shed. Answ. Bloodily, visibly, or in its own form, I grant; unbloudily, representatively, and in the form of bread and wine, I deny. The bread which we break, is it not a participation of the body of our Lord? 1 Cor. 10. 16. and his blood, as under the form of wine, was shed and poured out of the cup, in a sacramental and unbloudy way. A farther conviction of this verity is, because Christ at his last Supper instituted and sealed his last will and Testament. This is the chalice, the new Testament in my blood, S. Luke 22. This chalice is the new Testament in my blood, etc. 1 Cor. 11. 25. Now a Testament cannot be made betwixt God and man, without shedding of blood. Neither was the first (Testament) dedicated without blood, Heb. 9 18. And again, Without shedding of blood there is no remission, vers. 22. Therefore at his last Supper Christ shed his blood, at lest in an unbloudy manner. Ob. Christ entered once by his own blood into the Holies, eternal redemption being found, Heb. 9 vers. 12. Answ. True; he entered once, and but once, by his own blood, bloodily shed, and to redeem us, but often by his own blood shed unbloudily, and to apply the redemption to our souls. First by himself at his last Supper, the rest by his Ministers on the Altar, where he sacrificeth invisibly, they visibly; they as the instruments, he as the principal cause. Ob. If we sin willingly after the knowledge of the truth received, now there is not an Host for sin, Heb. 10. vers. 26. Answ. He speaks only there of such as apostatise from the faith, and forsake the true Church, out of which there is no true sacrifice: so all the Fathers expound this place, and this is not against us. Ob. Christ offered one Host for sins, Heb. 10. 12. By one oblation he hath consummated for ever them that be sanctified, ver. 14. Answ. The Host or Oblation is one and the same on the cross, and all the altars of the world, though the manner of offering be divers, there bloody, here unbloudy; And wheresoever S. Paul says, that Christ offered himself once, or but once, he apparently speaks of the bloody offering, using the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signify a bloody sacrifice, and to sacrifice bloodily. Ob. If a living thing be sacrificed, it must be killed. Answ▪ If it be sacrificed in its own proper form, I grant; if in the form of an inanimate thing (as the body of Christ is in the Eucharist) I deny. Ob. The bloody sacrifice was sufficient for all; therefore the unbloudy is superfluous. Answ. I grant the antecedent▪ but deny the consequence. For though the bloody sacrifice were sufficient for all, yet it is not efficient to all, unless it be applied to us by the unbloudy. Ob. The Eucharist is a commemoration of the bloody sacrifice; therefore not a sacrifice itself. Answ. Your antecedent is true, but your consequence false. All the unbloudy sacrifices of the old Law were true and proper sacrifices themselves, and yet commemorations or representations of the unbloudy sacrifice of the last Supper, which was to come. The same thing in one time or circumstance may commemorate and represent itself as in another. Ob. You equalise the sacrifice of the Mass, to the sacrifice of the cross. Answ. Not, we do not, speaking of the action of the sacrifice; for we confess the sacrifice of the cross to be an absolute sacrifice, and propitiatory for the sins of the whole world, in order to redemption; but the sacrifice of the Mass is only a particular representative and applicatory sacrifice, and hath its worth and efficacy from it. Ob. Christ remains a Priest for ever: therefore all Priesthood is translated into him alone. Answ. I deny the consequence; for he is not only a Priest, but a high Priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech; And therefore must have others under him, to the world's end (as hath been proved) of the same order. Ob. If Christ be a Priest for ever, he sacrificeth for ever. Answ. Invisibly, and by his subordinate Ministers, I grant; so Christ baptizeth, teacheth, and governs the Church for ever, invisibly, and by his Ministers; by himself, I say, invisibly, by them visibly. Ob. S. Paul knew nothing of unbloudy sacrifice, otherwise doubtless he had mentioned it in his Epistle to the Hebrews▪ Answ. Yes, he did; for he says the Priests offered for sins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Heb. 5. 1. cap. 8. ver. 3. c. 9 v. 9) that is, unbloudy and bloody offerings. And for the unbloudy sacrifice of the new Law, he hath given ample testimony in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, above cited. 'Tis true, in his Epistle to the Hebrews he did not dispute with the Jews concerning the unbloudy sacrifice of the new Law, because they would not yet believe the bloody, and therefore it was requisite he should as yet conceal this greater mystery from them: this was the reason, why, speaking to them of Christ, as high Priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech, he said▪ Of whom we have great speech, and inexplicable to utter, because y● are become weak to hear, Heb. 5. 11. Ob. S. Paul proves, that the Jews sacrifice of expiation did not cleanse from all sin, and make the offerers thereof perfect, because it was repeated yearly. Therefore the sacrifice of the Mass which is so often repeated, is not propitiatory for sin. Answ. I grant the antecedent: The Jews yearly sacrifice of expiation was not propitiatory for all sin past, present, and to come, as the sacrifice of the cross was, otherwise it could not need to have been yearly repeated, or to be offered more than once; yet I deny the consequence; for though the sacrifice of the Mass be not propitiatory for sins to come, or in order to redemption, yet it applies the sacrifice of the cross to us, and is propitiatory for sins past, if truly sorrowed for: and as we are daily prove to sin, so need we a daily sacrifice for sin. S. Paul's principal intent in his Epistle to the Hebrews, was to show the Jews, that no sacrifice of the old Law was general, and propitiatory for all sin, or able to reconcile the whole world to God, as the sacrifice of the cross was; so that it had been impertinent for him to have disputed there of the unbloudy sacrifice of the Mass, which is not of such universal force or efficacy. Ob. Where there is remission of sins, now there is not an oblation for sins, Heb. 10. 18. Answ. Where there is a general remission of sins, such as was on the cross, now there is not a general oblation for sins, such as was there made, I grant. Now there is not a particular and applicatory oblation for sins, such as is made in the Mass, I deny. Or thus, now there is not a bloody oblation for sins, or with yearly change of the Host, I grant: Now there is not an unbloudy oblation for sins, made always with one and the same Host, I deny, and so doth S. Paul, saying in the person of Christ, This is my body which is broken (unbloudily sacrificed) for you, etc. Do ye this for a commemoration of me, 1 Cor. 11. ARTICLE XIV. Of the Liturgy, and public Prayer in an unknown Tongue. OUr Tenet is, That though it be not of divine command, yet it is good, lawful and expedient for the Mass, or public Liturgy of the Church, to be in a Tongue not generally understood by the people, proved thus. The first Argument. 1. What the Apostles did and practised in this behalf, is good, lawful, and expedient for us to do and practise. 2. But their Liturgies were in sacred languages, and such as were not generally known by all the Nations they converted. 3. Therefore it is good, lawful, and expedient for our public Liturgies to be in sacred Languages & tongues not generally understood by all the Nations they are used in. The major is evident of itself. The minor is proved, because their public Liturgies were all in Hebrew, Greek, Syriack, or Latin, as is manifest in History, which were not the generally known languages of all, not half the Nations by them converted. And the like argument holds in the Fathers of all succeeding ages, whose public Liturgies were for the most part in Hebrew, Greek or Latin. A second Argument. 1. That which is praised in holy Scripture, and may be proved by Scripture to be both pleasing to God, and profitable to our souls, is good, lawful, and expedient for us to practise. 2. But prayer in an unknown Tongue (speaking in general) is praised in holy Scripture, and may be proved by Scripture to be both pleasing to God, and profitable to our souls. 3. Therefore prayer in an unknown Tongue (speaking in general) is good, lawful, and expedient for us to practise. The major is more evident than to need proof. The minor is proved. He that speaketh with tongue [unknown] speaketh not to men, but to God, for no man heareth, but in spirit he speaketh mysteries, 1 Cor. 14. 2. I would have you to speak with tongues, but rather to prophesy, vers. 5. Thou indeed givest thanks well [in an unknown tongue] but the other is not edified, vers. 17. If I pray with tongue [unknown] my spirit prayeth but my understanding is without fruit, ver. 14. I will pray in the spirit [in a tongue unkown] and I will pray in the understanding [in a tongue unknown] vers. 15. To speak with tongues forbidden ye not, verse 40. Why than are Sectaries so bold to do it? A third Argument. 1. In matters of discipline and government, where God hath commanded nothing, the command of the Church aught to be followed and obeyed. 2. But God hath commanded nothing concerning the language of the public Liturgy▪ 3. Therefore as to the language of the public Liturgy, the command of the Church aught to be followed and obeyed, which ordains it to be in sacred languages. The major is proved, because, under God, she is our chief Mistress, Lady, and Governess. If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the Heathen, and the Publican, S. Matth. 18. 18. The Minor shall be proved by the solution of Objections. Fathers for this point. IN the second Age S. Dionysius tells us, The sacred mysteries were kept secret from the common people, Eccles. Hierarch▪ c. 1. A certain proof they were not celebrated in the common languages of the people. In the third Age S. Cyprian testifies, the public Liturgy was in Latin, In Exposit. Orationis Domin. num. 13. In the fourth Age S. Hierom affirms, All the Eastern Church was served in Greek, and used S. Basils' Greek Liturgy. Praefat in Paralip. In the fifth Age S. Augustine witnesses, That all the Western Church was served in Latin, and used the Latin Liturgy. De don. pierce. c. 13. de Doct Christian, l. 2. ●. 13. in Psal. 123. & Epist. 173. Objections solved. Ob. IF I come to you speaking with tongues [unknown] what shall it profit you? 1 Cor. 14. 6. And again, If than I know not the virtue of the voice, I shall be to him to whom I speak barbarous, and he that speaketh barbarous to me, vers. 11. And a third time, So you also speaking with a tongue, unless you utter manifest speech, how shall that be known that is said, for you shall be speaking into the air? vers. 9 Answ. S. Paul in those places speaks only against the public use of strange tongues miraculously inspired, and not intelligible, but by the special gift of interpretation, not against tongues gotten by industry, and well understood by the more learned sort of all Nations, such as Greek and Latin are▪ Besides, he only speaks there against speech addressed to the people by way of exhortation, and instruction, in strange tongues, not against speech in unknown tongues, which is addressed to God only by way of prayer, such as the public Liturgy is; that he allows, at lest in general terms, as you have heard. That this is S. Paul's scope and mind, appears partly by the very texts objected; for it follows in the first of them, What shall I profit you, unless I speak to you in revelation, or in knowledge, or in prophecy, or in doctrine, vers. 6. And a little before, For he that prophesieth speaks to men, unto edification, and exhortation, and instruction, vers. 3. So that this makes nothing against us. Ob. He that speaketh with tongue (uknown) let him pray that he may interpret; the same Epist. v. 13. Answ. This concerns neither prayer, nor the public Liturgy, but exhortation; and if it did concern prayer, our answer would be, Our public Liturgy is well understood by all the Priests, and well interpreted for the Laity, word by word, many hundred years ago. Ob. If thou bless in spirit (a tongue unknown) he that supplieth the place of the vulgar, how shall he say Amen? Because he knows not what thou sayest, 1 Corinth. ch. 14. ver. 16. Answ. He speaks there only against extemporary prayer in an unknown tongue, and that not interpreted, not against set form of prayer in an unknown tongue (such as the public Liturgy is) and that expounded and approved by the Church; to this the Clerk may boldly say Amen. Let him explicate his own meaning: He that speaketh with tongue, let him pray that he may interpret, ver. 13. And if there be no interpreter, let him hold his peace in the Church, and let him speak to God and himself, vers. 28. This is not our case, our public Liturgy hath many great and good Interpreters. Our exhortation and instruction of the people, as also our extemporary prayer, addressed to them before Sermons, or after, is always in the known, and common Language of the people. And for your better apprehension of the grand abuse of Protestants, in urging these texts to the people, against the public Liturgy in an unknown tongue, please to note, First, There is not any one text or word in all that chapter, concerning the public Liturgy, or set form of prayer, which is addressed to God only, but merely concerning exhortation and instruction of the people, and extemporary prayer addressed to them in an unknown tongue: that, and only that is there forbidden, not absolutely, but with limitation, If there be no Interpreter. Note secondly, That the Laity in our Church are not commanded to pray in an unknown tongue, but have their Offices and Devotions in their own vulgar Language and such as will, may also have the Mast translated for them, and pray in the same words with the Priest, what than is here to be complained of? By keeping the Liturgy in the sacred Languages (which are the same in all ages) it hath been kept free from the corruptions, and mutability of other common Languages; so that the whole Church is able to judge of her own Liturgy, when any differences arise about it, which otherwise it could not. ARTICLE XV. Of Sacramental Confession, and Absolution. OUr Tenet is, That true, and lawfully ordained Priests have a power from God to b●nde, and lose from sins, and that the Laity are obliged to confess their sins to them, as also the Priests themselves to one another. The Argument. 1. If the Apostles were made spiritual Judges by Christ our Lord, and had a power from him to bind and lose from sin, it follows by a necessary sequel, that the Laity were obliged to confess their sins to them. 2. But the Apostles were made spiritual Judges by Christ our Lord, and had a power from him to bind and lose from sin. 3. Therefore the ●●ity were obliged to confess their sins to them. And the same argument holds in their Successors, that is, all true, and lawfully ordained Priests. The major is proved; Because the very institution and investure of a power of Judicature in Superiors, infers a necessary command to all inferiors, of giving obedience to such power, otherwise the institution and investure were altogether vain and idle, neither could they absolve them from what they knew not. The minor is proved; Amen I say to you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall lose on earth, shall be loosed also in heaven, S Matth. 18. ver. 18. There he made them Judges. Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins ye shall forgive they are forgiven, and whos● sins ye shall retain they are retained, S. John 20. ver. 23. There he gave them commission to remit sins. S. Paul gives testimony to his Master, saying; God hath given us the ministry of reconciliation, and hath put in us the word of reconciliation; for Christ therefore are we Legates, 2 Cor. 5. 18, 19, 20. Add to this the figures of the old Law, The judgement of the Leprosy, which was a type of sin, was committed to Priests only▪ Levit. 13. 14. The consequence is confirmed: Confess your sins to one another, S. james 5▪ 16. And if we confes●●●r sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our ●●ns, 1 John 1. 9 You hear confession is a necessary condition. Fathers for this point. IN the second Age S. Clement; But if perhaps ●●vy, or infidelity, or any other evil have crept hiddenly into any one's hea●t, let him, that hath a care of his soul, not blush to confess these things to him that rules him, that he may be cured of him by the word of God (that is, the words of absolution instituted by Christ) and good counsel. And again S. Peter taught us to break the evil thoughts coming to our hearts upon Christ, & to manifest them to the Priests of our Lord, Epist. 1, 2. In the third Age Tertullian reprehends those who for human bashfulness neglected to confess their sins. l. de penitent. In the third Age Origen; There is by penance the remission of sins, when he washeth his bed with tears, and blasheth not to show his sin to the Priest of our Lord. Hom. 2. in Levit. And again, Peter and Paul, and all such as have been placed in the Church after the Apostles, are also Physicians, to whom the discipline of curing wounds hath been committed, etc. because God wills not the death of sinners, but their repentance Hom. 1. in Psal. 37. S. Cyprian in the same age, Let every one of you, I beseech you brethrens, confess his sin, whilst he ●● yet in this life, whilst his confession may be admitted, whilst every one's satisfaction and remission made by the Priest is grateful with our Lord. Tract. de lap●is. In the fourth Age S. Athanasiu●; If thy bonds are not yet loosed, comm●nd thyself to the Disciples of j●●u●; for there be those that can absolve thee, by the power they received from our Saviour, when he said, Whatsoever ye shall bind, etc. Serm in illa verba, Invenietis pullum. In the same Age S. Ambrose; Confess freely to the Priest the hidden secrets of thy soul and sh●● them, as th●● wouldst thy hidden wounds to thy Physician. Orat. in mulierem peccatricem. In the same Age S. Hierome, As there (in the old Law) the Priest makes the leprous person clean, or unclean, so here the Bishop or Priest bindeth or looseth. in c. 16. Matth. In the fifth Age S. Augustine: Our God, because he is pious and merciful, will have us confess our sins in this world, that we may not be confounded for them in the next, Homil. 12. And again, I● murder be committed by a Catechumen, it is washed away by baptism▪ if by one baptised, it needs penance and reconciliation. l. 2. de adulterinis conjug. c 16. The first Cabilon Council hath defined, That their confession being made, Penance ●e enjoined to penitents by Priests, Can. 8. above 1000 years ago. The Council of Florence defined Penance to be a Sacrament, and that the effect of it is absolution from sin. Decret. super Union. Jacobin. & Armen. An. Do●. 1431. The 3. Council of Carthage decreed, That the time of Penance should be appointed penitents by the arbitrement of the Bishop, according to the difference of their sins. Can. 31. 1100. years ago. Objections solved. Ob. CHrist gave the power to absolve from sins, to none but his Apostles. Answ. He gave it immediately to them, and in them to their lawful successors, as he did also the power to preach and baptise. Go ye teaching all nations, baptising them, etc. was said immediately to none but the Apostles, but mediately to all true Priests▪ And so was that, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins ye shall forgive, they are forgiven. Ob. Who can forgive sins but only God? Answ. 'Twas the Jews objection against Christ, S. Mark 2. which he confuted with a miracle, by healing the Paralitique, to prove that he had power even as man to remit sins: and would bestow this power on men: For the multitude glorified God, who had given such power to men (viz. in and through Christ) S. Matth. 9▪ 8. 'Tis true, none but God can forgive sins of himself, or by his own proper power, man's power in this being only ministerial, and delegated from Christ. Object. Come unto me all ye that labour▪ S. Matth. 11. Answ. In vain pretend they to come to Christ, who refuse to come to his Ministers, and to make use of such means as he appointed for our coming to him, amongst which sacramental confession and Priestly absolution from our sins is not the lest, as hath been proved. Some have rejected baptism on the same score, but such as really intent to come to Christ, must not neglect or slight his constitutions. Ob. Pope Innocent the third was the first that ordained auricular confession. Answ. Christ himself ordained it, nor had it ever otherwise been possible to have persuaded the world to it: Innocent only determined the time of confession to be at Easter, or thereabouts. The Iacobites An. Dom. 600, which was six hundred years before his time, were condemned for holding, men aught to confess their sins to God▪ and that confession to a Priest was not necessary. Ob. You think than the Priest can save your and pardon your sins without Christ. An. I doubt you wilfully mistake: we think & know the Priest is able to do nothing in order to it, but as the Minister, and through the merits of Christ, and by commission received from him. Ob. At lest you believe, though your sins be never so great and enormous, if you do but only confess them to a Priest, all is well again. Answ You are again in an uncharitable mistake▪ we believe, and are taught, that not only a faithful and sincere confession of our sins to a Priest, but also hearty grief and sorrow for them, with a steadfast purpose of amendment and a desire to make all possible satisfaction (by doing such penance as shall in the Sacrament be enjoined us) is requisite for the re●ission of them; and that if any of these things be wanting, as w●ll our confession, as his absolution, is of no validity Ob. What needs all this, when the Pope for a little money can g●ve you a pard●n to commit what sins you list for forty or a hundred years together? Answ. You sl●nder very much: the Pope ha'● not such power, nor did he ever yet pretend to it: might he have all the kingdoms of the earth for doing it, he could not warrant ●s to commit any one sin, we should deride such pardons, should he offer them, and look ●● them as horrid blasphemies. The pardons ●o● aim at, are only Indulgently, which concern not the remission of ●ine, but only the release of Canonical penances, or tempora● punishments due to such ●ins, as have already been remitted by penance and contrition. Ob. We do not read the Apostles exacted auricular confession of any. Answ. Nor do we read they absolved any▪ yet they did both, we have an Apostolical Tradition for it: otherwise they made voi● the Ordinance of Christ, or gave the mad ma●s absolution, by absolving from they kn●w not what: and that, I hope, you will not charge them with▪ Ob. Christ's passion is sufficient for all. Answ. True, but not efficient, unless applied, and this is one effectual mean● of doing it. ARTICLE XVI. Of Purgatory. OUr Tenet is, That there is a third place of temporal punishment, where some souls are purged and punished after this life; which we prove thus. The Argument. 1. By Purgatory we only understand a penal prison, or place of temporal punishment and payment after this life. 2. But there is such a penal prison, or place of temporal punishment and payment after this life. 3. Therefore there is a Purgatory. The major is evident, by the Church's declaration of her own meaning in it. The minor is proved; Thou also in the blood of thy Testament hast let forth thy prisoners out of the lake wherein there is not water, Zach. 9 11. (He speaks of Christ) He shall sit as purging fire, and shall purge the sons of Lev●, Mal. c. 3. The work of every man shall be manifest, for the day of our Lord will declare it, because it will be revealed in fire, and the work of every one of what sort it is the fire shall tri●; if any man's work abide, he shall receive a reward (as Innocents', and Martyrs, and perfect Christians do, who go immediately to heaven) if any one's work burn, he shall suffer loss, but himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire, 1 Cor. 3. 13. 14. 15. See a purging and punishing, yet saving fire: Be at agreement with thy adversary betimes, whilst thou art on the way (in this life) with him, jest thy adversary deliver thee to the Judge, and the Judge deliver thee to the Gaoler, and thou be cast into prison, Amen, I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence, till thou repay the last farthing, S. Matth. 5. 27. (A place of payment, and yet delivery at length.) Some sins shall neither be forgiven in this world, nor in the world to come, S. Matth. 12. 32. Therefore some, according to our Saviour, are forgiven in the world to come, to wit, venial sins. That the guilt of temporal punishment may and doth sometimes remain after the guilt of sin is pardoned, and the eternal punishment remitted, is proved by these examples of holy Scripture. First by Adam, who was cast out of paradise for ever, and had his whole posterity punished with concupiscence, death, and many other miseries, after his sin of disobedience was forgive● him, by means of that only sin. Secondly, By David, whose ●●n of adultery was punished with the death of his child, after his sin had been remitted, ● King's 24. Thirdly, By Mary, Moses his sister▪ who after her sin had been forgiven her, was enjoined a penance for it of seven days, Num. 12. O King (saith Daniel) redeem thy sins with alms▪ c. 4. Do ye the worthy fruits of penance, S. Luke 3. 8. Fathers for this point. IN the second Age Tertullian; Seeing we understand that prison which the Gospel demonstrate● to be places below, and the last farthing we interpret every small ●ault there to be punished, by the delay of the resurrection, no man will doubt but that the soul doth recompense something in the places below. L. de anima c. 58. In the third Age S. Cyprian; It is one thing, being cast into prison, not to go out thence till he pay the utmost farthing, another, presently to receive the reward of faith, one thing being afflicted with long pains for sins to be mended, and purged long with fire, another to have purged all sins by sufferings. Epist. 52. ad Anto●●. In the fourth Age S. Ambrose; But whereas S. Paul says, yet so a● by fire, he shows indeed that he shall be saved, but yet shall suffer the punishment of fire; that, being purged by fire, he may be saved, and not tormented for ever, as the infidels are with everlasting fire. in c. 3. Epist. ad Cor. In the same Age S. Hierome; This is that which he saith, thou shalt not go out of prison till thou shalt pay even thy little sins. in c 5 Matth: In the fifth Age S. Augusti●; Neither could it be truly said of some, That they are neither forgiven in this life, nor in the life to come, unless there were some, who though they are not forgiven in this life, yet should be in the life to come l. 20. de civet. Dei c. 24 & l. 21. c. 13. And again, With that transitory fire whereof the Apostle said, He shall be saved, yet so as by fire, not capital, but little sins are purged. Serm. 41. de Sanctis. And in a third place, He shall be safe, yet so as by fire: And because it is said, He shall be safe, that fire is contemned, yet that fire shall be more grievous than whatever a man can suffer in this life. Purge me, Lord, in this life, and make me such an one as shall not need that mending fire. in Psal. 37. The Council of Sens has defined, That the fault by penance being taken away, there often remains the guilt of temporal punishment, etc. which ●● to be purged by fruits of worthy penance, Decret. 12. An. Dom. 1431. The Council of Florence has defined, That such as shall die truly penitent in the charity of God, before they have satisfied for their commissions and omissions by worthy fruits of penance, their souls are purged with purging pains. Sess. ult. An. Dom. 1431. Objections solved. Ob. THe impiety of the impious man shall not hurt him, at what day soever he shall be converted from his impiety. Answ. It shall not hurt him, so as to exclude him from grace, and everlasting life, I grant; but may make him guilty of temporal punishment. Ob. If the tree fall to the North, or to the South, or in what place soever it shall fall, there it shall lie. Answ. North and South may signify Hell and Purgatory (for aught you know) and than nothing against us, but if you will needs have it signify Hell and Heaven, yet is not Purgatory excluded by that text; for it allows of other places, Or in what place soever it fall, etc. Ob. Blessed are the dead who die in our Lord▪ from henceforth now saith the spirit, they rest from their labours, for their works follow them, Apoc. 14. Answ. This may be understood of Martyrs only, who have no Purgatory. Calvin expounds, Who die in our Lord; for our Lord's cause; but it is rather spoken of the day of judgement, when it is said from henceforth: and after that there shall be no Purgatory. Ob. When he shall give sleep to his Beloved, behold the inheritance of our Lord Psal. 126. Answ. That may be meant of the peculiarly Beloved, who need no Purgatory; but S. Augustine expounds it of the general Resurrection, after which Purgatory shall cease. Ob. Come O ye blessed▪ etc. and go ye accursed, etc. conclude all. Answ. A● relating to the day of judgement, of which they are spoken I grant it; as relating to the hour of death, I deny it; all do not presently either possess heaven, or enter hell. Ob. S. Augustine says, Beware brethrens, let no man delude you, there are but two places. Answ. There is not any third place of everlasting rest for infants, who die without Baptism, (as the Pelagians held) I grant: There is not any third place of temporal punishment, I deny; and so does S. Augustine in several places above cited. ARTICLE XVII. Of Prayer for the Dead. OUr Tenet is, That it is a holy and charitable custom, to offer prayers and oblations to God, for the souls of the faithful departed: which we prove thus. The Argument. 1. If there be a place of temporal punishment, where some souls are purged, and venial sins remitted after this life, than that charity which binds us to pray that the living may be saved, will bind us also to pray that the dead may be freed from their punishments. 2. But there is a place of temporal punishment, where some souls are purged, and venial sins remitted after this life, as hath been proved in the precedent Article. 3. Therefore the same charity that binds us to pray the living may be saved, binds us also to pray the dead may be freed from their punishments. The sequel of the mayor (which only needs proof) is evinced, because the souls of the faithful departed, not being now in a capacity to merit, nor consequently to help themselves, have greater need of our assistance than the living; therefore '●is greater charity to relieve them. A second Argument. 1. To deny obstinately what is revealed in holy Scripture is no lesle than heresy. 2. But it is revealed in holy Scripture, that the prayers and oblations of the Church are available for the souls of the faithful departed, 3. Therefore to deny this obstinately can be no lesle than heresy. The first proposition is granted by all. The second is proved: Judas Machabe●s sent twelve thousund drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for sins (viz for those that were slain) well and religiously thinking of the resurrection, etc. It is therefore a holy and a healthful cogitation to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins, 2. Machab. c. 12. v. 43, 44, 45. King David mourned, wept, and fasted after the death of Saul and jonathas, 2 King. 1. The men of jabes Gal●ad fasted and mourned for it seven days together without reproof, 2 Kings 14. 21. What shall they do who are baptised for the dead (by weeping, fasting, giving alms, and praying for them) if the dead rise not at all? Why than are they baptised for the dead? 1 Cor. 15. 29. In this sense the Fathers expound the word baptism, or baptise, S. Cyprian de coena Dom. Nazianzen orat. de Epiphania. And Christ himself saying, I am to be baptised with a baptism, meaning his passion, and sufferings for our sins. Fathers for this point. IN the second Age S. Clement tells us, S. Peter taught them, among other works of mercy, to bury the dead, and diligently perform their funeral Rites, and also to pray and give alms for them; Epist. 1. de S. Petro. In the second Age Tertullian, We make yearly ●blations for the dead, de corona militis. In the third Age Origen, Though a releasement out of prison be promised, (S. Matth. 5.) yet it is signified, that none can get out from thence but he who pays the utmost farthing, in Epist. ad Roman. & Hom. 35. in S. Luc. In the fourth Age S. Cyril of Jerusalem, We beseech God for all those who have died before us, believing the obsecration of that holy and dreadful sacrifice which is put on the altar, to be the greatest help of the souls for which it is offered, Catech. mystagog. 5. In the same Age S. Hierom, These things were not in vain ordained by the Apostles, that in the venerable and dreadful mysteries (the Mass) there should be made a memory of those who have departed this life: they knew much benefit would hence accrue to them, Homil. 3. in Epist. ad Philip. In the fifth Age S. Augustine; Neither is it to be denied, that the souls of the dead are eased by the piety of their living friends, when the sacrifice of the Mediator is offered for them, in Enchirid. c. 110. & l. de cura pro mortuis, c. 1. Again, We read in the Books of the Maccabees of sacrifice offered for the dead, but though it were not where read in the old Testament, yet not small is the authority of the universal Church, which shines in this custom, where the commendation of the dead hath its place in the prayers of the Priest, which are poured out to our Lord God at his altar, l. de cura pro pro mort. c. 1. The first Nicene Council decreed thus, When a Bishop dies, let notice be given of his death t● all Churches and Monasteries in the Parish, that prayers be made for him, c. 65. Arab. anno Dom. 325. The second Cabilon Council decreed; I● further seemeth good to us, that in all the solim●ities of Masses our Lord be prayed to in due place for the souls of the dead, etc. therefore the holy Church keeps anciently this custom, etc. c. 79. The Council of Florence defined, That the suffrages, Masses, prayers, and alms of the living profit the souls of the faithful departed, that they may be eased of their pains. Sess. ult. An. Dom. 1439. Objections solved. Ob. TThere is a sin to death, for that I say not that any man ask, 1. S. john 5. 16. Therefore we must not pray for the sins of the dead. Answ. By a sin to death, the Apostle signifies final impenitence, or a mortal sin persevered in till death, and for such a sin we are not taught to pray; so that I distinguish your consequence. Therefore we must not pray for the sins of the dead who die impenitent, I grant; who die penitent and confessed, I deny; and so doth S. john in the words immediately preceding; He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given him, sinning not to death. Ob. Whatsoever thy hand is able to do, work it instantly; for neither work, nor reason, nor wisdom, nor knowledge shall be in hell, Eccles. 9 10. Ansm. S. Hierome tells you that place is either understood of the impious, who believe there is no hell at all, or of such as go immediately to the hell of the damned, for whom there is no comfort or relief in the prayers and offerings of the Church; (which we grant) Comment, in hun● locum. Ob. We must every one receive the proper things of the body, according as he hath done either good or evil 2 Cor. 5. 10. Therefore the prayers of the living cannot profit the souls of the dead. Answ. Your consequence is false; for as S. Augustine says, The souls in Purgatory receive more or lesle benefit by the prayers and sacrifices of the Church, as every soul is worthy either ●ase or misery, according as she hath wrought living in the flesh. L. de cura pro mort. c. 1. Ob. Souls cannot merit in Purgatory: Therefore they cannot satisfy in Purgatory. Therefore vain are their sufferings there, and vain our prayers for them. Answ. Your first proposition is true, but your consequences are both vain and false. A man cannot merit without liberty, but he may satisfy, though compelled to it by the Judge; and so do souls in Purgatory: Therefore our prayers are available for them, to free them from that compulsory punishment. Ob. The very thief that was saved from the cross was in heaven with Christ the very same day: This day thou shalt be with me in paradise, S. Luke 23. 43. therefore doubtless there is no third place, nor prayer for the dead. Answ. By Paradise in that place is signified Limbus Pa●rum, or the prison of the ancient Fathers, which was than made a Paradise, or place of blessedness, by reason of the presence of Christ's human Soul, and Divinity in it. For Christ, being dead, immediately descended thither, according to that, He descended into hell. Ob. I do not believe a Limbus Patrum, or that the Fathers were kept in prison till the coming, and death of Christ. Answ. Not, nor the Scriptures, nor the Apostles Creed, farther than it pleases your fancy: The Scriptures teach: Thou (Christ) in the blood of thy testament hast let forth thy prisoners out of the lake in which there is no water, Zach. 9 11. The Fathers of the old Testament died according to faith, not having received the promises, Heb. 11. 13. God hath provided for us some better thing; that they without us should not be consummate, Heb. 13. 40. That Christ risen from the dead, the first fruits of them that sleep, I Cor. 15. 20. The first begotten of the dead, Colos. 1. 18. That the way of the Holies (heaven, Heb. 9 24.) was not yet manifested, the former tabernacle (the old Testament) yet standing, Heb. 9 8. That the Son of man was in the heart of the earth three days and three nights, S. Matth. 12. 40. That God did not leave his soul in hell, Acts 2. 27. That, ascending on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men, having first descended into the lower parts of the earth, Ephes. 4. 8. That he holdeth the primacy in all things, being the beginning and first born of the dead, Colos. 1. 18. That being slain he came in spirit and preached to them that were in prison, who had been incredulous in the days of Noah, when the Ark was building, 1 Pet. 3. 19 Yet all this you will not believe, who can help it? All true believers do, and know your consequence to be false. The fourth Toledan Council defines, That Christ descended into hell, that he might take out from thence the Saints that were kept, and overcome the power of death, etc. This is the faith of the Catholic Church, etc. c. 1. an. Dom. 681. ARTICLE XVIII. Of ●ndulgences. NOte, for your better understanding this question; First, That Indulgences, or Pardons (as some call them) concern not at all the remission of sins either mortal or venial, but suppose all mortal sins remirted by contrition and the Sacraments (otherwise they profit us nothing) and respect only the remission of canonical penances, and such temporal punishments as are, and may be enjoined us by the Church. Secondly, They no way exempt or free us from natural infirmities, or from the punishments of outward Courts, or in the inward Court of God, but only in the Court of Penance. THis presupposed, our Tenet is, That the Church hath a judiciary power from God (our sins being first remitted by the Sacraments) to release all canonical penances, with all other temporal punishments which are or may be enjoined us by the Church in the Court of Penance, whilst we are under her jurisdiction. Proved thus. The first Argument. 1. That power which can bind, can lose. 2. But the Church has a power from God to bind and oblige us in the Court of Penance to some temporal punishments, after the sins themselves are forgiven. 3. Therefore the Church has a power in the Court of Penance to release and lose us from the said temporal punishments. The major is evident by induction, in all judiciary and obliging powers, or Tribunals, whether spiritual or temporal. The minor is proved, by that Commission first promised S. Peter: To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever thou shalt lose on earth, shall be loosed also in heaven, S. Matth. 16, 19 and afterwards to all the rest of the Apostles, S. Matth. 18. 18. It was by virtue of this commission, that S. Paul enjoined the incestuous Corinthian Penance, and after remitted part of it after the sin itself had been remitted by sorrow and contrition, 1 Cor. 5. 3. To whom ye forgive any thing (saith he to the Priests of Corinth) I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing to whom I forgave it, for your sake forgave I it, in the person of Christ, 2 Cor. 2. 10. Sufficient to such a man (being now contrite) is this punishment (or Penance) 2 Cor. 2. 6. Ob. But you will say perhaps, if this be all that is of faith concerning Indulgences, we are but in a sad condition, as having no effectual means whereby to remit the temporal punishments remaining due to our sins after the sins themselves are forgiven. Answ. You mistake in this; for the reason why sometimes there remain temporal punishments due to our sins, after the sins themselves are pardoned, is, because in the Sacraments we apply not the superabundant merits and satisfactions of Christ so perfectly and fully to our Souls as we might, and aught, if we ourselves were not in fault, through want of worthy preparation, and perfect contrition, when we come to them: otherwise they are of force, and would remit, not only all our sins, but all the punishment due to them; proved thus. The second Argument. 1. What ever may hinder our entering into Heaven and obtaining everlasting life, whilst we are under the Church's jurisdiction, the Church hath power by virtue of the Sacraments (if there be no impediment on our part for want of perfect preparation) to release us of. 2. But temporal punishments remaining due to sin after the sin itself is forgiven will for a time hinder our entering in Heaven and obtaining everlasting life. 3. Therefore the Church by virtue of the Sacraments, (if there be no impediment on our part) hath power to remit such temporal punishments. The major is proved by that commission given to S. Peter and the rest, Whatsoever thou shalt lose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven, S. Matth. 16. 19 and 18. 18. It extends to whatever may hinder our entering into heaven. The minor is proved; Because we shall not be delivered out of prison (Purgatory) till we repay the last farthing (the least debt of temporal punishment) S. Matth. 5. 26, 27. Now that the superabundant merits and satisfactions of Christ (if fully and perfectly applied to our souls by the Sacraments) are of force, and do remit all guilt, as well of sin as punishment, is of undoubted faith with Catholics; because any one drop of his blood (much more the whole, shed for us on the cross) by reason of its hypostatical union with the Deity, is of infinite value, and a sufficient price for the whole world. If therefore through our own default we enjoy not this means of making satisfaction for temporal punishments, we must betake ourselves to fruits of worthy penance. Fathers for this point. IN the second Age Tertullian mentions pains and penances remitted to such as were penitent▪ at the request of Martyrs: Which peace (saith he) some not having in the Church, were went to b●g it of the Martyrs who were in prison, L. ad Martyrs, c. 1. In the third Age S. Cyprian; A penitent working, and ask, he (the Pope) may clemently pardon whatsoever both Martyrs have asked, and Priests have done for such men. Serm. de lapsis. And again, That Martyrs had begged such peace for them who were fallen, Epist. 15. (By peace is meant reconciliation, or admission to the Sacraments.) In the fourth Age S. chrysostom; It hath been committed to those that inhabit the earth, to dispense th●se things which are in heaven, etc. The Father hath given all power to the Son, and I see the very same power to have been delivered to them by the Son, l. 2. de Sacerdot. In the fifth Age the fourth Council of Carthage decreed, That a Priest should enjoin the laws of penance to one imploring penance, without exception of the person, c. 74. The first Nicene Council decreed, That such as had denied the faith should do many years' penance, yet it should be in the power of the Bishops (if they saw them do penance, and bewail their error from the heart) to deal more courteously with them, and receive them to communion, Can. 11. An. 325. The Ancyran Council decreed, That Bishops aught to have power, considering the conversation of all, to shorten or prolong the time of their penance, c. 5. an Dom. 308. The Council of Sen● decreed, That the fault being taken away, there often remains the guilt of temporal punishment, etc. which is to be purged by fruits of worthy penance, Decret. 12. The Council of Constance condemned John Wickliffs' error concerning Indulgences, Se●●. 8. See also the Council of Florence, Decreto Vni●nis, where this doctrine is defined. Objections solved. Ob. THe merits and satisfactions of Christ (as you confess) are infinite: Therefore those, being applied to us by the Sacrament of penance, remit not only all our sins, but all punishments due to them. Answ. All the eternal punishments, I grant; all the temporal, I deny, speaking universally, and of all; though sometimes they do, in case of very perfect contrition, and application of them. The reason of this is, because though they be infinite of themselves, yet the application of them to us is finite, and according to the measure of our contrition, and disposition, which is seldom so perfect as it might, and aught, or as the whole gravity of our sins requires; hence it was, that Christ gave his Church power to enjoin us penances, and to release them also, if we were hearty contri●e, and gave sufficient signs of our amendment. Ob. If there were any such thing as Indulgences, they would be rather hurtful than good, seeing they release men from good works, and penances enjoined for sin. Answ. They are very good, and much conducing to true piety, because though they free men from some outward penal works, they always presuppose, and most effectually invite men to inward acts of charity and contrition, as also to works of mercy, which are of a more excellent and high nature. Indulgences are never given but to such as are first confessed, and contrite for their sins. Ob. Christ hath fully satisfied for all our sins, and all the punishments due thereto. Answ. True, but that excludes not the application of his satisfactions to our souls. Ob. You hold, that you can free souls out of Purgatory at pleasure by the Pope's Indulgences. Answ. The Church holds no such Doctrine▪ Ob. I forgave th●● all the debt, because thou besoughtest me, oughtest not thou therefore also to have mercy on thy fellow-servant, even as I had mercy on thee? S. Matth. 18. 32. Answ. In some case, as of Martyrdom and very perfect contrition, we grant, all the debt, not only of sin and eternal, but of temporal punishment, is forgiven; but not always. That text of S. Matthew is a parable, and concerns only the debt of sin, as is manifest by those words of our Saviour following: So also shall my heavenly Father do● to you, if you forgive not every one his brother from your hearts, vers. 34. Nor has every one power to give Indulgences, but only Bishops and Ecclesiastical persons; therefore this place is nothing against us. Ob. You buy and sell Indulgences. Answ. Not, those abuses are long since ●eformed, and were never allowed by the Church. Ob. The incestuous Corinthian was impenitent, and his sin not forgiven, when S. Paul enjoined him penance, 1 Cor. 5. Answ. True; but he was penitent, and his sin remitted, when he remitted part of the said penance; a certain argument, that the gui●t of punishment may remain, after that of sin is taken away. Ob. David says, A brother cannot redeem a brother, Psal. 48. 8. Answ. From sin, eternal punishment, or temporal death, I grant; (and this is all that David means) from temporal punishment remaining due to sin, after it is forgiven, I deny; if he be able to apply the merits of Christ to our souls, as the Church does by Indulgences. Quere. Are Indulgences available for souls in Purgatory by way of suffrage, though not by way of jurisdiction? Answ. Some hold it probable; but nothing is defined in this matter; let i● suffice us, they are available and beneficial to the living. ARTICLE XIX. Of sin, both Mortal, and Venial. OUr Tenet is, That some sins are mortal of their own nature▪ and ro● the soul of justice, and spiritual life: Others but venial, and deprive not the soul of justice, but only weaken it, and charity in us. The first Argument. 1. All those sins which rob the soul of justice, and spiritual life, are mortal sins. 2. But all those sins which are directly contrary to the commandments of the decalogue, rob the soul of justice and spiritual life. 3. Therefore all those sins which are directly contrary to the commandments of the decalogue▪ are mortal sins. The major is manifest, because by mortal sin we understand nothing else, but sin causing in the soul a privation of justice, by which the soul lives to God, and without which she is dead as to him. The minor is proved: because without repentance God damns whoever breaks the Commandments of the Decalogue. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments, S. Matth. 19 17. He that shall break one of these lest commandments, and teach men so to do, he shall be called lest in the kingdom of heaven, S. Matth. 5. 20. and in the 20. chapter of Exodus, and many other places, he threatens grievous punishments to such as break them. Now 'tis most certain, it is inconsistent with God's justice, to damn a just man, so long as he remains so. Therefore these sins rob the soul of justice and spiritual life, and so do likewise all deliberate sins, either of thought, word, or deed, in things of any notable consequence, and causing any notable offence towards God, our neighbour, or ourselves. The stipend of sin (saith S. Paul) is death, Rom. 6. 23. And again, Know ye not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor servers of idols, nor adulterers, etc. nor thiefs, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God, 1 Cor. 6. 9, 10. A second Argument. 1. All those sins, which rob not the soul of justice, and make her not guilty of damnation, are not mortal, but venial sins. 2. But there be many kinds o● sins▪ which rob not the soul of justice, and make her not guilty of damnation: 3. Therefore there be many kinds of sin, which are not mortal, but only venial. The major is manifest because a venial sin is defined, to be a small sin, which deserves not death, ●ut ●s ●asie to b● pardoned▪ The minor is proved. Whosoever shall be angry with his brother▪ shall be in danger of judgement, Whosoever shall say to hi● brother, racha, shall be in danger of council, and whosoever shall say thou fool, shall be guilty of ●ell fire, S. Matth. c. 5. v. 23. Here Christ himself distinguishes three sorts of sin, of which the least only renders a man guilty of damnation. Blend guides (saith he) that strain at a Gnat, and swallow a C●mel, S. Matth. 23. 24. Here he teacheth, that some sins, in comparison of others, have the proportion of a Gnat to a Camel; now sure not mortal sin can fitly be compared to a Gnat; those are all Camels at the lest. And in another place: Hypocrite, cast out the beam (the mortal sin) out of thine own eye, and than thou shalt ●l●●ly see to take forth the ●ote (the venial sin) out of thy brother's eye, S Luk▪ 6▪ 42. Do Sectaries think mortal sins but motes? Thou shalt not go out from thence (Purgatory) t●ll thou repay the last farthing, S. Matth. 5. 27. That, is for the lest venial sin. And S. Paul tells us, That some bu●ld on the foundation of Christ, wood hay, stubbl●, etc. for which they shall suffer detriment, but themselves shall be saved, yet so as by fire, 1 Co●. 3 13, 14, 15. Therefore those are not mortal, but venial sins Co●cupiscenc●, wh●n it has conceived, brings faith sin (there is venial sin) but sin when it is consummate, engendereth death, S. James 1. 14, 15▪ (There is mortal sin.) Though all delight, even with imperfect deliberation in the motions of concupiscence and thought of sin be venial sin, yet by God's mercy it is not mortal sin, till i● be consummate, either by deliberate delight, voluntary consent, or outward act. A third Argument. 1. All mortal sins are directly contrary to the law of God, and sufficient to break charity betwixt him and man. 2. But there be many sins, which are not directly contrary to the law of God, or sufficient to break charity betwixt him and m●n. 3. Therefore there be many sins which are not mortal. The first Prop. hath been already proved. The second is proved; in regard an idle word, a j●sting, or officious untruth which h●●t▪ no m●n; a very small excess in ●eat or drink, more than is necessary for nature's sustenance; a little overplus of joy, grief, or sudden passion, a little distraction in time of prayer, the theft of a pin, or apple, are not directly contrary to charity, nor sufficient to break it betwixt man and man, much less betwixt God and man. For as ●is goodness, so is his charity, far greater than ours, yet all these we acknowledge to be sins, though not mortal. Nay we must r●nder an account for every idle word, S. Math. 12. 37. Yet every idle word is not a damning sin, otherwise it were better to want a tongue, than have it, and we were all in a most desparat condition, since idle and superfluous words, (morally speaking) cannot be avoided; yet are we bound under damnation, not to si● mortally. Add hereunto, That the just man falls seven times and riseth up again, Prov. 24. 16. (not mortally, for than he were not longer just.) We all offend in many things, S. James 3. 2. (not mortally by God's grace, for some have been just even before God, and walked in all his commandments, S. Luke 1. 5.) And S. John speaking of himself and others who were cleansed in the blood of Christ (from all mortal sin) adds notwithstanding; Yet if we shall say that we have n● sin (to wit venial) we seduce ourselves, and the truth is not in us, 1 Epist. of S. John 1. 8. Fathers for this point. IN the second Age Tertullian termeth venial sins little, small, and daily sins, l. de anima c. 17. In the third Age Origen; By wood, hay, and stubble, which Paul speaks of (1 Cor. 3.) is manifestly discovered, there be some sins so light, that they are compared to stubble, to which, as soon as fire is brought, it cannot long continued. Hom. 14. in Levit. & 15. in Num. In the fourth Age S. Hierome on those words, Till thou repay the last farthing. This is that which he saith, thou shalt not go out of prison, till thou shalt pay the lest sins, in c. 5. S. Matth. and S. Cyprian gives the same interpretation of them, L. 4. Epist. 2. And again S. Hierome, (on those words, Why dost thou s●● a mote in thy brother's eye?) He speaks of those who being guilty themselves of mortal crimes, permit not lesser sins in their brethrens, straining the Gnat, and swallowing the Camel, in c. 7. S. Matth. Lastly, he condemns Jovinian as an Heretic for holding all sins to be equal, (an old paradox of the Stoics) l. 2. cont. Jovin. c. 15, 16, 17. In the fifth Age S. Augustine; Sometimes we lie for the good of others, a sin therefore it is, but venial, l. Enchirid. c. 22. And again, For daily, short, and light sins (without which this life cannot pass) the daily prayer of the faithful satisfies. Enchirid. c. 72. And in another place; There be certain venial sins, without which the just man cannot live, L▪ de spiritu & litera c. 28. The Council of Sens decreed it Heresy, to hold, that venial sins are not distinct from mortal, In Annot. post decreta fidei. Objections solved. Ob. THe soul that sinneth the same shall die, Ezech. 18. 20. Therefore all sins be mortal. Answ. I deny the consequence; the Prophet speaks there of enormous sins, and had exemplified before, in the●●, murder, idolatry, etc. which are all mortal. Ob. He that offends in one, is made guilty of all▪ S. James 2. 10. Answ. In one mortal sin, I grant, for any one mortal sin is directly against charity, and makes us guilty of the whole law of charity. In one venial sin, I deny. S. James exemplifies in murder & adultery, v. 11. which are not venial sins. Ob. There is no condemnation for them which are in Christ Jesus. Answ, True; for whilst we are in him, we are in charity, and state of grace. Ob. He that doth sin, is of the Devil. 1 Joh. 3. 8. Answ. S. John speaks there of mortal sin, such as deprives us of the justice and grace of God; as is manifest by that which goes before and after. Ob. To the elect all things cooperate unto good. Therefore all sins are venial to them. Answ. I deny the consequence; for though their very sins and failings are a● occasion of contrition, and good to them, yet every breach of the commandments, till they expiate and blot it out by true contrition, confession, and satisfaction, is as mortal to them, as to the reprobate. Ob. Whom God hath predestinated, them also hath he called, and whom ●e hath called, them also hath he justified. Therefore no sin shall be imputed to them. Answ. I deny the consequence, for this only proves the predestinate shall have final perseverance and die in state of grace, which hinders not, but some time or other in their lives, they may in●●t the guilt of mortal sin, as David, Peter, Magd●len, and others did; David's adultery, Peter's denial of his master, and Magd●lens incontinence were no venial sins, yet these were all predestinate Saints. Ob▪ These sins were pardoned them, an● therefore venial. Answ. I deny the consequence speaking properly of venial sin; For ●o there is no sin of the reprobate, if they had confessed it, and been heart●ly sor●y for it (as these were) which would not have been pardoned them, Ezech. 18. 21. though many of their sins were mortal of their own nature, and never pardoned, by reason of their final impenitence. Ob. God may damn a man for unial sin, if he so please. Answ. Speaking of him, as absolute creator and Lord of all things, I grant it, as a just Judge, who renders to every man according to his works, I deny; for so he cannot infl●ct the same punishment for every idle word, or human imperfection, as for murder, or Adultery. Ob. Every venial sin is against an infinite Majesty. Answ. In some degree I grant, in a degree deserving death, I deny; the measure of the punishment must not exceed that of the offence. ARTICLE XX. Of the worship and invocation of Angels and Saints. NOte for your better apprehending this controversy, that there are as many different degrees of inward & outward religious wroship, as of civil, which are diversified, according to the various dignity of the persons to whom they are given (worship or honour being nothing else but a testimony of excellency) nor can they always be distinguished by the outward act, which often times is one and the same to God and men, to Kings and subjects; (as in the act of kneeling, bowing, putting of the hat, etc.) but commonly by the inward affection, and intention with which we do them. When we kneel, and pray to Angel's o● Saints, we do it only as to God's eminent creatures and for God's sake; when we kneel or pray to God, we do it as to our Lord, God, Creator, Redeemer, and last end, and for his own sake purely we pray to Angels and Saints to assist us, by and through the merits of Christ; without which we know they are and can do nothing. We pray to Christ to help us by and through his own merits only so that there is no more danger of robbing God of his honour, by worshipping his Angels and Saints, than of robbing a King of his honour, by reverencing his Peers and Nobles, according to their several dignities and capacities: this presupposed, OUr Tenet is, That the blessed Angels and Saints in heaven can and d● know our actions and affairs (at lest as far as appertains to their state) and that it is good and profitable to worship them, as Gods eminent creatures, with an inferior worship proportioned to their excellency, as also to invocate and pray to them, as to subordinate mediators of intercession to God for us; which we prove thus. The first Argument. 1. What was possible to the Prophets in this life by the special light of grace only, cannot be impossible to the Saints and Angels in heaven. 2. But the Prophets in this life by the special light of grace only could and did know things done at a great distance. 3. Therefore the Saints and Angels in heaven can and do know things done at a great distance. The major is manifest, because from the greater to the lesle in the same kind, the Saints and Angels have a greater and more special light of grace, than the Prophets could have in this life. The minor is proved; because Elis●us (by the special light of grace only) saw what was done in the King of Syria's privy ●hamber, 4 Kings 6. and what passed betwixt his servant G●●z● and Naama●, when he was absent, 4 Kings 5. S. Peter knew the sacrilegious ac● of Ananias and Saphira, though acted privately betwixt themselves. Add unto this their often foretelling destruction and calamity to whole cities and Kingdoms, which came to pass accordingly. A second Argument. 1. All that which the very Devils know, by the mere light of nature, the blessed Angels in heaven (who have the light of grace and glory superadded) cannot be denied to know. 2. But the very Devils (by the mee● light of nature) know our actions. 3. Therefore the blessed Angels in heaven cannot be denied to know them. The major is also manifest, because from the greater to the lesle in the same kind. The minor is proved, as well by the concession of our Adversaries, as by the Scripture, in which we read, For the accuser of our Brethrens (the Devil) is cast forth, who accused them before our God day and night, Apoc. 12. 10. He could not accuse them, unless he knew their actions. A third Argument. 1. They who see God perfectly with all his attributes and perfections, must needs see us with all our actions. 2. But the blessed Angels and Saints in heaven see God perfectly with all his attributes and perfections. 3. Therefore the blessed Angels and Saints in heaven must needs see us and all our actions. The necessary sequel of the mayor is manifest, because God is infinitely more invisible and inscrutable, than we and all his other creatures put together; and contains both us and all things in himself in a most eminent manner. In him (saith S. Paul) we live, be moved, and are. The minor is proved, in regard the blessed Angels and Saints in heaven see and know God face to face, even as they themselves are known, 1 Cor. 13. 10, 11, 12. A fourth Argument. 1. If the blessed Angels and Saints be our Guardians and Governors by God's appointment, know our affairs, and pray for us, than must it needs be very good and profitable for us to worship, invocate, and pray to them. 2. But they be our Guardians and Governors by God's appointment, know our affairs, and pray for us. 3. Therefore it is very good and profitable for us to worship, invocate, and pray to them. The mayor is evident, because honour with an humble address by way of invocating their assistance, is due from all Pupils to their Guardians by the light of nature. The minor (that they are our Guardians and Governors) is proved; See that ye despise not one of these little ones, for I say to you that their Angels in heaven (their's by special patronage) always see the face of my Father which is in heaven, S. Matth. 18. 10. The Angels are all ministering spirits sent to minister for them who shall receive the inheritance of salvation, Heb. 1. 14. That God hath appointed the Saints to govern us, is proved thus. He that shall overcome and keep my works to the end, to him will I give power over nations, and he shall rule them in an iron rod, Apoc. 2. 26 27. Thou hast made us (the Saints) to our God a kingdom, and Priests, and we shall reign upon the earth, Ap●c 5. 10. That they know our necessities, and affairs, is proved thus: There shall be joy before the Angels of God upon one sinner doing penance, S. Luke 15. 10. Take he●d that ye despise not one of th●se little ones, for I say to you their Angels that are in heaven always see the face of my Father▪ etc. S. Matth. 18. 10. which of necessity implies, that the Angels know when we are injured, and pray to God in our behalf; and the Saints are as the Angels of God in heaven, S. Matth. 22. 31. Equal to the Angels, S. Luke 20. 36. Now therefore when thou didst pray and Sara thy daughter in law (saith the Angel to old Toby) I did present thy prayers to our Lord, ●ob. 12. 12. That the Angels and Saints actually pray for us, is proved; The Angel of our Lord answered and said, O Lord of Hosts, how long wil● thou not have mercy on Hi●rusal●m, and the cities of Juda, with which thou hast been angry these threescore and ten years? Zach. 1. 12. The four and twenty Elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps and vials full of ●dors, which are the prayers of the Saints, Apoc. 5. 8. and Judas Machabeus saw in a vision Oni● that had been High Priest, holding up his hands and praying for the Jews, and pointing also to another in these words; This is a lover of the Brothers, who prayeth much for the people, and for the holy Caty, (to wit) Jeremy the Prophet of God, 2 Machab. c. last. 12, 13, 14. Those had both been dead many years before. That it is also good and profitable for us to worship and invocate the Saints and Angels, is proved thus; because the chosen friends of God are recorded in holy Scripture to have often done it. I am the Prince of the host of our Lord (said the Angel to Josue) and Josue fell flat on the gr●und and adored, Josue 5. 14. Lot (when he had seen the Angels) ro●e up and went to meet them, and adored with his face b●wed toward the earth▪ Gen. 19 1. S John down to adore before the feet of the Angel (though he had once been willed not to do it) Ap●c. 22. 8. Therefore he thought and knew it lawful to be done, or else committed wilful ido latry, which we presume in common modesty none will affirm. The Angel that delivered me from all evil (saith the Patriarch Jacob) bless these children, Gen. 48. 16. Jacob prevailed against the Angel, and wept and prayed to him, Ose 12. 4. Be my name (saith Jacob) the names also of my fathers, Abraham and Isaac invocated ●n them, Gen. 48. 17. Grace to you (saith S. John) and peace from him that is, that was, and that shall come, and from the seven spirits that are in the sight of the thro●e, Apoc. 1. 4. seven Angels, according to the 12. of Toby. To conclude, Call therefore (saith Eliphas to Job) and turn thee to some of the Saints, Job 5. 1. a very vain and senseless exprobration, had it not been a custom with Job to invocate the Saints. Besides, the faithful on earth, being Members of the same mystical Body of Christ with the blessed Angels and Saints in heaven, it cannot stand with common sense and reason, but they must have some care and knowledge of our condition; because if one member suffer any thing, all the members suffer with it, and if one member glory, all the members rejoice with it, 1 Cor. 12. 25. Fathers for this point. IN the second Age Dionysius. I constantly affirm, with the divine Scripture, that the prayers of the Saints are very profitable for us in this life after this manner; When a man is inflamed with a desire to imitate the Saints, and distrusting his own weakness, betakes himself to any Saint, beseeching him to be his helper, and petitioner to God for him; he shall obtain by that means very great assistance. Eccles. Hierar. c. 7. par. 3. Sect. 3. prope ●inem▪ In the same Age S. Clement. We command you that the Martyrs be in all honour among you, even as James the Bishop, and Stephen our fellow Deacon hath been amongst us; for God hath made them blessed, and holy men have honoured them. L. Apost. constitut. 5. In the same Age justin Martyr. We worship and ●dore both God the Father and the Son, who came and taught us these things etc. and also the company of his followers and the good Angels, and we worship them both by words and deeds, and in truth, even as we ourselves have been taught and instructed. In Apolog. 2. and Antoninum P●●m. In the third Age Origen: I will begin to fall down on my knees, and pray to all the Saints to secure me, who dare not ask God for the exceeding greatness of my sin. O Saints of God with tears and weeping I beseech you to fall down before his mercy for me a wretch. In Lamentat. And again: All the Saints departed bearing yet charity towards the living, it shall not b● inconvenient to say, that they have a care of their salvation, and help them with their prayers to God for them: for it is written in the Maccabees, This is ●eremy, who always prays for the people, etc. Homil. 3. in Cantica. In the fourth age S. chrysostom: They adored the same Saints that we do at this day▪ Hom. de Sanctis Juven. & Maxim. In the same age S. Ambrose, He honours Christ that honours his Martyr's Sermon. 6. And again: We must pray to the Angels who are given us to be our defenders, we must pray to the Martyrs, etc. for they are able to pray for our sins, who have washed away their own▪ etc. These are the Martyrs of God, our Governors, and watchful beholders of our life and actions, l. de viduis. In the same age S. chrysostom: If Moses and Samuel shall stand before me, (Jerem 15.) observe (saith he) how it is said of the two Prophets, if they shall stand before me, etc. because they both had prayed for them, and had not obtained, etc. yet let not us contemn the prayers of the Saints, etc. but let us entreat them to pray for us, that we may obtain the promises, Homil. 1. in Epist. ad Thessalon. And again, The servants of Christ even when they are dead, are the protectors of the kings of this world, Hom. 26. in 2. ad Cor. In the fifth age S. Augustine: The multitude of the Gentiles doth now adore with bended knees most blessed Peter the Fisherman: Sermon. de Sanctis Pet & Paul And again, We do not worship th●m as Gods, but as holy men, in Psalm. 96. And in another place, All the Martyrs that are with Christ intercede for as, nor cease they to pray for us, unless we cease to sigh after them, in Psal. 85. And finally in the 40. chapter of his Meditations he prays thus: O blessed Trinity! preserve me from all evil etc. by the prayers of the Patriarches, by the intercession of the Apostles, by the constancy of the Martyrs, etc. and by the inter●●ssion of all the Saints, etc. Than having invocated the B. Virgin, and many Angels and Saints by name, he concludes saying, I beseech you intercede for me a sinner, unto God, that I m●y be delivered from the jaws of the Devil and everlasting death. The Council of Gangers defined, That if any man out of pride abominate the assemblies which are celebrated a● the confessions of the Martyrs, or execrate the mysteries which are there done together with their memories, be he Anathem●, Can. 20. an. Dom. 324. The sixth Constantinopolitan Council defined, That a Christian, adoring only God his Creat●r, may invocate the Saints, that they would vouchsafe to pray for him to the divine Majesty, c. 7. an. Dom. 676. The second Nicene Council, L●t us do all things with the fear of God, ask the intercessions of the ●●spotted Mother of God, as also of the Angels and all the Saints, Act. 3. 6. an. Dom. 781. Objections solved. Ob. Honour and glory be to God alone, 1 Tim▪ 1. Answ. Supreme and sovereign honour, true; Inferior honour, I deny it; and so do▪ S. Paul, saying, Glory and honour, and peace to every one that doth good, R●m. 2. 10. Ob. H●m only shalt thou serve, D●ut. 6. 13. Answ. As Lord and God ● grant: Yet by charity serve ye one another, Gal. 5. 15. Ob. One Mediator of God and men, man Christ Jesus, 1 Tim▪ 2. Answ. One principal Mediator of Redemption I grant it: but many subordinate of intercession. God gave the law in the hand of (Moses) a Mediator, Ga● 3. 19 Every Parish Priest is a subordinate Mediator of intercession for his Parish. Ob. Let all the earth adore thee, Psal. 65▪ Answ. True, and only him as Creator, Redeemer, and Conserver. Yet Jacob blessing his son Judas, said, Thy father's children shall adore the●, Gen. 49. 8. Ob. Come unto me all ye that labour, etc. S. Matth. 11. 28. Answ. This excludes not subordinate Mediators of intercession, otherwise it would be unlawful for us to desire our friends or Parish Priest to pray for us, contrary to that of S. Paul, Brethrens I beseech you, that you also help me in your prayers to God for me, Rom. 15. 13. Ob. Let no man seduce you in a voluntary humility and religion of Angels, Colos. ●. 18. Answ. It follows▪ Not holding the head (Christ) of whom the whole body is composed, v. 1●. He writes there against a Sect of Heretics, who offered sacrifice to Angels, and neglecting Christ esteemed them immediate and principal mediators, independent of Christ, all this we abominate as gross Idolatry, this heresy was condemned long since by our Church in the Council of La●d●●●a, ●an. 35▪ Ob. How shall they invocate in wh●m they have not believed? Rom. 10. 14. Answ. We cannot invocate any as a God, in whom we have not believed as a God, I grant: As fellow servants and mediators of intercession to God for us, I deny: and though we believe not in the Saints as in God, yet have we also faith towards them, Have ye saith in ou● Lord Jesus Christ and towards all the Saints. Epist. ad Philem. v. 5. Ob. What I shall command thee that shal● thou do, Deut. c 12. Therefore since there is no command for praying to Saints, we aught not do it. Answ. God spoke that only in a particular case, forbidding them to imitate the sacrifices of the heathens, who sacrificed their children to the devil; as is plain by the words immediately preceding. Not that he forbade us to practise any devotion in the Church without an express command for it in Scripture, otherwise the invocation of the Trinity itself under that notion, with all public Liturgy and set form of prayer, as also the changing of the Saturday into Sunday, with many other things, must be laid aside; there being no express command in Scripture for them. Ob. Abraham hath not known us, and Israel hath been ignorant of us, Isa. 63. 16. Answ. He speaks there only of the knowledge of approbation, and signifies, that Abraham and Israel did not approve or own them for their Children, by reason of their sinful and wicked ways, not that they had no knowledge at all of them; let S. Hierom expound this text; Abraham knows us not etc. because we have offended thee, neither do they acknowledge for their children, whom they unsterstand not to be beloved of their God, etc. So Christ said of the reprobate, and of the foolish virgins, I know you not, S. Luk● 13. 25. S. Mat. 25. 12. yet you will not deny but that the knowe● all things▪ Ob. S. Peter forbade Cornelius to adore him, Acts 10. Answ. S. Hierome says, He apprehended some divinity to be in Peter, and so did John in the Angel▪ when the Angel forbade him to adore him the first time, Apoc. 19 We do not honour any Angel, or Saint, as God. Ob. The Saints are dead. Answ. They pass from death to life, S. John 5. 24. We pray not to bodies, but souls. Ob. The Devils are with us upon, or near the earth, therefore, if they did see and know our actions, it would not follow that the Saints and Angels do. Answ. Yes, it would, for spirits, which are not limited with matter, or confined to bodies, neither see, nor understand with corporal eyes as we do but with their glorified understandings, which are illuminated by the light of the Lamb: And therefore cannot be hindered in their operations, by any distance of place, or interposition of Bodies. Ob. If the Saints and Angels knew God perfectly with all his Attributes and all our actions besides, there would be no difference assignable betwixt their knowledge and God's Omniscience. Answ. Yes, infinite difference; because God knows not only all our actions, absolutely speaking, with all created nature (which is much more than hath been hitherto asserted of Saints and Angels) but also his own essence and perfections, with a most comprehensive, infinite, essential, and uncreated knowledge, which Saints and Angels are not capable of, their knowledge (how great soever it may be) being always limited, finite, created, and a participation only of God's knowledge. Quere. If there be such eviction both of Scripture, and authority, for the worship and Invocation of Angels and Saints, as you affirm, why should all Sectaries cry out so much against it? Aansw. Because, having robbed God of that honour, which is proper to him only, to wit sacrifice, by taking away (as much as in them lies) the unbloody sacrifice of the Altar, if they should allow the outward actions, of kneeling, bowing, standing bore, and praying to Angels and Saints, they should seem to have nothing proper to God, yet they themselves might answer this objection, because allowing, as they do, all the same actions, even to men (and that, as they profess, without robbing God of his honour) why not rather to the Angels and Saints? but one absurdity being admitted, many will follow, and so it doth with them. ARTICLE XX. I Of Relics. OUr Tenet is, That it is also good and lawful to give a relative honour and Veneration to the holy Relics of Saints; which we prove thus. The first Argument. 1. That which God himself hath warranted, and approved by many famous miracles, is good and lawful. 2. But God himself hath warranted and approved the honour and veneration of the Relics of Saints by many famous miracles. 3. Therefore the honour and Veneration of the Relics of Samts is good and lawful. The mayor is proved, because it is not consistent with the goodness and veracity of God, to set his seal of miracles to confirm a lie, or to induce us into error. The minor is also proved, because the Woman in the Gospel was miraculously cured of her bloody flux, by venerating and only touching the hem of our Saviour's garment, with a belief that it would heal her, S. Matth. 9 21, 22. The very shadow of S. Peter cured diseases in such as honoured it, and were but only shadowed by it. Acts 5. 15. The Napkins, and Handkerchiefs that ●●d but touched the body of S. Paul cast out devils and cured diseases, Acts. 19 12. The very touch of Eliseus his bones raised a dead man to life, 4. Kings 14. 21. The second Argument. 1. All instruments of miracles wrought for our good, and moving memories or pledges of dead friends, are worthy of some honour and veneration. 2. But the holy Relics of Saints are instruments of miracles wrought for our good, and moving memories or pledges of dead friends. 3. Therefore the holy Relics of the Saints are worthy some honour and veneration. The first Proposition is proved: Because the very light of nature teaches us to honour the instruments of supernatural effects▪ as is manifest by the practice of all Nations, whether Christian or Infidel; Hence the Turks give such honour and veneration to the tomb and ashes of their false prophet Mahomet, and all other Heathens to the memories of their false gods, falsely esteeming them the instruments of their good; and hence the chosen people of God in the old Law gave such honour and veneration to the Manna, the Tables of the Law, Aaron's rod, etc. Moses departing out of Egypt, carried with him the bones of Joseph the Patriarch, in an honourable manner, Exod. 13. ●osias commanded the bones of God's Prophet to remain untouched, 4 Kings 23. All Nations honour the corpse and ashes of the dead with monuments, and decent burial. And lastly, God himself honoured the body of his servant Moses, by giving it an honourable burial, Deut. chap. last. The second proposition for the first part, that relics are instruments of miracles, hath been already proved; and for the second part, it is likewise proved: because they move us to an imitation of their holy lives and actions, whilst we behold their very bones and ashes so much honoured. This was the end for which all former ages erected statuas to their renowned ancestors, so to excite and move posterity to an imitation of their virtues. Fathers for this point. IN the third Age Tertullia● numbers it amongst the rites of Christians, To kneel to the Altars of God, under which the Relics of the Saints were kept, l. de penitent. In the beginning of the fourth Age Constantine the great made rich offerings to the Relics of S. Peter and Paul, Tom. 1. of the Councils, in vita Sylvestri. In the same Age Eusebius speaking of S. james his wooden chair, It is kept (saith he) with great diligence, as a memory of holiness delivered from Ancestors, and is had in great reverence, 7. Histor. 14. ad finem in Ruffino 15. In the same Age S. Basil; When death happens for Christ, the Relics of his Saints are precious, in Psal. 115. In the same Age S. Gregory Naz. Whose only bodies can do the some thing that their holy souls can do, whether they be touched with hands, or honoured, whose only drops of blood, or small signs of their passion, can do the same things that their bodies can. D●st thou not worship these things? Orat. 1. in Julian. Apostate. In the same Age S. chrysostom; Let us often visit them, let us worship their sepulchres, and let us touch their Relics with great ●aith, that we may thence obtain some blessing. Serm. de Sanctis Juvent. & Maximo. In the same age S. Ambrose; But thou saw'st to me, what dost thou honour in flesh now resolved and consumed? I honour in the Martyr's flesh his scars, received for the name of Christ, etc. I honour the body that shows me how to love our Lord, and taught me not to fear death for our Lord. Why should not the faithful honour that body which even the Devils fear? Serm. 93. in fine. In the fifth age S. Augustine: They bring the Relics of most blessed Stephen the Martyr, which your Holiness is not ignorant, as we also have done, how conveniently you aught to honour, Epist. 103. And in his 22. book of the city of God he says, At the Relics of S. Stephen only there were in a short space so many miracles wrought, that if all should be recorded, it would fill many▪ volumes▪ etc. Objections solved. Ob. CHrist reproved the Jews for adorning the sepulchres of the Martyrs, S. Matth. 23. Answ. Not, he did not reprove them for that, but for not imitating ●heir lives, whom they counterfeited to honour, and showing themselves the children of thos● who had murdered them, as is manifest by the text. Ob. Neither the souls nor bodies of the Saints are in their sepulchres, what therefore do ye honour? Answ. The memorial and matter which was once in their bodies, that is there, and sufficient to excite us to a memory and imitation of them. Ob. It is impossible that dead things, as Relics are, should have any inherent sanctity in them. Answ. We do not say they have, but only that they are memorials of the inherent sanctity, and holiness of the martyrs, and instruments of miracles and blessings to us; enough to make them worthy that relative honour, and veneration, which we give them. Ob. You rather dishonour, than honour the Saints, by scattering their bones and ashes about the world. Answ. You mistake; what ever is done by the Church in that kind, is done with an intention of honour, and much conduceth to the memory and veneration of them, through all Christendom, as also to our benefit and growth in virtue. Ob. The worship of relics is a mere will worship. Answ. Not, 'tis a worship of divine inspiration, witness the texts of Scripture and the authority of the Church already showed you. Ob. God himself commanded Moses his body to be hid from the Jews, for fear they should adore it, Deut. last vers. 6. Answ. For fear they should adore it with divine adoration, I grant; for the Jews after the death of Moses were a people most pron● to idolatry; but not for fear they should venerate it with a relative honour; for God himself was pleased to honour it, as you have heard above. ARTICLE XXII. Of sacred Images. NOte for your understanding this Article, that as evil thoughts are the cause of all our evil actions, so good and pious thoughts are the cause of all our good and pious actions. Out of the heart (saith our Saviour) come evil thoughts murders adulterers, fornications, etc. these are the things which defile the soul, S. Matth. 5. 19 Since therefore nothing is or can be in our understanding, according to Philosophy, which is not first in some of our senses, by some sensible picture, sign or image, from whence it is conveyed to the fantasy and memory, and thence again to the understanding and will, great doubtless is the lawful use and benefit of sacred pictures, signs and images, which are in us a most effectual nurse of holy thoughts, desires, and actions. Nor is there any sense in man, that represents more effectually, than that of seeing. This presupposed; OUr Tenet is, that it is good, lawful, and profitable to keep the holy Pictures, or Images of Christ and his Saints, & to set them up in Churches and give them a relative honour or veneration, which we prove thus. The first Argument. 1. All that which is recorded in holy Scripture to have been done by the known Saints of God, (without reproof, or any prohibition, even to this time) nay to their special good and benefit, is also good and profitable for us to do. 2. But it is recorded in holy Scripture, that the known Saints of God have worshipped the sacred pictures, or Images of Christ and his Saints (without reproof or any prohibition, even to this time) nay to their special good and benefit. 3. Therefore it is also good and profitable for us to venerate and honour them, with a relative and inferior honour. The major is manifest, because their recorded and approved actions are left to us for patterns and examples. The minor is proved, in regard S. John the Baptist worshipped the very latchet of our Saviour's shoe, the latchet of whose shoes (saith he) I am not worthy to unloose, 1. 27. For which fact S. Augustine on that place, concludes him to have been full of the Holy Ghost. The Patriarch Jacob adored the top of Josephs Rod, (a sign or image of his regal power) Heb. 11. 21. The Israelites, by venerating and looking with reverence on the brazen Serpent (a type or image of Christ crucified) were healed of the biting of Serpents in the desert. The Jews kneeled before the pictures of the Cherubins, overshadowing the Ark, Exod. 25. The primitive Christians venerated the very shadow, and garments of S. Peter, and Paul, and received special benefit by so doing, Acts 5. 15. and 19 11. A second Argument. 1. All that which God himself has commanded, and no where prohibited, is good, lawful and profitable for us to do. 2. But God himself has commanded sacred pictures, signs, or images, to be made and set up with honour in the Temple, and no where prohibited it. 3. Therefore it is good, lawful, and profitable, for us to make and set them up. The major is manifest, and needs no proof. The minor is proved. Two Cherubins saith God to Moses) shalt thou make of beaten gold, on both sides of the Oracle, etc. let them cover both si●e of the propitiatory, etc. and I will speak to thee from the two ●●●●s of the Cherubins which shall ●● upon the a●k of the testimony, all things that I shall command the children of Isra●l by th●e▪ Exo ●. 25. 18 And when the Temple was built again by Solomon ●●e two Cherubins were renewed and set in the midst of the inward Temple▪ 3 Kings 6. 24 Nor did he only command two Cherubin's, but divers other carved works and images to be made on the Oracle, and the walls of the Temple, as you may see in the same chapters; replenishing Beseleel and Oliab with his own holy Spirit, to device whatsoever might be artificially made of gold silver, brass, marble, &c▪ Exod. 31. He commanded the Jews to adore the Ark. Psal. 99 which is only the footstool of God, and a sign of his power, 1 Chron. 28. He commanded his own name to be honoured, and sanctified, Ezod. 20. S. Matth. 6. In the name of jesus every knee bow, etc. Phil. 2. 8. Now the name of Jesus is only a sign or image of our redemption, or God made man; and the name J●●ova, of our creation, which was in so great honour with the Jews, that the common people durst not utter it, nor the Priest. but only in time of sacrifice and solemn benediction, according to Phil● in the life of Moses. Nay the very Plate on which the name of God was written on the high Priests forehead, is called the Plate of sacred veneration, Exod. 38. 26, 28. finally hecommanded the Temple (which was an image of his heavenly house) to be honoured as a holy place, reproving those Priests who polluted his Sanctuary, and put no difference betwixt a holy thing and a profane, Ezech. 22. 26. A third Argument. 1. All that which brings into our minds the holy mysteries and actions of Christ and his Saints, and ingraffs a love thereof in our hearts, is (doubtless) lawful, good, and profitable. 2. But the frequent use and veneration of sacred Pictures, Signs, or Images doth movingly bring into our minds▪ the holy mysteries and actions of Christ and his Saints engrafting also a love thereof in our hearts. 3. Therefore the frequent use and veneration of sacred pictures, signs, or images, is doubtless lawful, good and profitable. The minor (which only needs proof,) is evinced; because Pictures, signs, or images do of their own nature, (if often used, and honoured) excite to acknowledge and love of those things, which they represent, and it is the very essence of an image, to represent another thing. 'Twas for this end the Church of God hath in all age's mad● artificial pictures signs or images, of the nativity, miracles, life and death of Christ and his Saints, and set them up in Churches and holy places, teaching u● to honour them with a relative honour or veneration, not for the matter they are made of, but for the sacred things they represent, and in as much as they represent such things being now absent, by sensible and present objects. And this is therefore called a relative honour, because it relates immediately to the things represented, and either immediately, or mediately to God himself, as to our chiefest good, and last end. A fourth Argument. 1. That which is the mark of the predestinate, and standard or ensign of Christ himself, is worthy of a relative honour or veneration. 2. But the Cross or sacred image of Christ crucified, is the mark of the predestinate, and standard, or ensign of Christ. 3. Therefore the Cross or sacred image of Christ crucified, is worthy of a relative honour, or veneration. And the like holds with proportion, in all other images of Christ, which represent the mysteries of his life, or passion. The mayor Proposition cannot be denied without unreasonable wilfulness. The minor is proved. Hurt ye not (saith the Angel) the earth, nor the sea, nor the trees, till we have signed the servants of our God in their foreheads (with the Cross) Apoc. 7. 2. All that were signed with the sign Ta● (a type of the Cross) were saved from the exterminating Angel, Ezech. 9 4. Than (at the day of judgement) shall appear the sign of the Son of man (the Cross) in heaven, S. Matth. 24. 36. Fathers for this point. IN the second Age S. Dionysius, The sign of the Cross is so much honoured, that it is often used bo●h in Baptism and other Sacraments, l. 2. Eccles. Hierar. c. 2. & 5. In the same Age S. Ignatius: The Devil rejoiceth when any on● shall deny the Cross, because he well knows the confession of the Cross is his destruction, for that it is a trophy, or tr●umphall a●k against his power, Epist. ad Philippenses. In the same Age S. Martial, Remember the Cross of our Lord, keep it in your mind, speak often of it, have it in the sign, for it is your invincible armour against Satan, in his Epistle to those of Bordeaux. In the third Age Tertullian; In every thing we do, we sign our forehead with the sign of the Cross, of which practice Tradition is the d●fend●r, custom the construer, and faith the observer, l. de corona milit. 6. 3. And in his time he says, The image of Christ bearing a lamb on his shoulders was graven on the chalices used in Churches, l. 2. de pudicitia. In the same Age Origen; They are only preserved by the Angel whom he had signed with the sign Tau, that is the sign of the Cross, let us therefore life up our hands to heaven in the likeness of a C●oss, seeing the Devils are oppressed, when they found us ●o armed, Hom. 8. In the same Age S. Cyprian; God shows in another place Ezech 9) that those only can escape who are born again, and have been signed with the sign of th● Cross, in Epist. ad Demet. In the same Age Lactantius affirms, That wh●n Christians were present at the sacrifices of the Heathens, and made the sign of the Cross, th●y put their gods to flight, and struck them dumb, l. Institut c. 27. In the fourth Age S. Athanasius, A man only using the sign of the Cross, drives away from him the deceits of the Devil, etc. By it the predictions of Magicians cease, and their in●●a●●ments are made voided, l. de verbo incarna●o. In the same Age S. Cyril of Jerusalem, Let not us be ashamed of the Cross, but if any one shall hid it, do thou publicly sign thyself on the forehead with it, that the Devils seeing the standard of the K●ng, may trembling make haste to be gone, Cateches 4 de vita Christiana. In the same Age S. Hierome; We beseech thee, O Lord, that, guarded by the sign of the Cross, and defended by th● assistance thereof, we ●ay deserve to ●e free from all the deceits of the Devil, in Psal. 58. In the same Age S. Ambrose, Christian people in every moment writ the contempt of death upon their foreheads (by signing them with the Cross) for they know, that without the Cross of our Lord they cannot be saved, l. 9 Epist. 77. In the fifth Age S. Augustine; Unless the sign of the Cross be applied as well to the foreheads of believers, as to the water wherewith they are regenerated, and to the oil wherewith they are annoyled, none of these things are rightly administered, Tract. 118. in Joan. S. Palladius (contemporary to S. Augustine) tells us, That the Bishop of Jerusalem was want yearly at the solemnity of Easter to expose the Cross to be adored by the people, he himself first adoring it, Epist. 11. The second Nicene Council defined, That the sacred images of Christ and his Saints are to be had and kept in Churches, and that salutation or honorary worship may be given them, but not Latria, or sovereign honour which belongs to God only, Act. 7. An. Dom. 781. Add to this, that in the Council of Ephesus, An. Dom. 431. S. Cyril of Alexandria, who there presided, prayed thus; Hail Mother of God etc. through whom the precious Gross is made famous, and adored throughout the world, Homil. count. Nestorium, set down in the end of the second Article of the said Council. Objections solved. Ob. THou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, etc. Ex. 20. Answ. You corrupt the Text; the Greek word is Idol, the Latin and Hebrew word is graven thing, etc. and it follows immedily; to adore them (viz. as Gods) we make no Idols, nor any graven things, or images, to adore them, as Gods, or with God's honour, we abhor that, as damnable idolatry; we only give them a relative honour, or veneration. Ob. Many say you honour them, as Gods. Answ. Fame is a liar you know; we do not so, nor yet as creatures, substances, or persons, but only as they are mere artificial resemblances, and representations of heavenly things; and for their sakes whom they are made to represent; whereas Idolatry is not committed, unless the honour due to God only, (that is supreme, and sovereign honour) be given to a creature. Ob. Honour and glory to God alone. Answ. Supreme and sovereign honour▪ true; relative and inferior honour may be given to creatures; Honour, and glory, and peace to every one that doth good, Rom. 2. 10. Ob. You saw not any similitude in the day that our Lord spoke to you in Horeb from the midst of the fire, l●st perhaps deceived you might make to yourselves a graven similitude or image of male or female, Deut 4. 15. Answ. That place only forbids the making idols, or vain images to ourselves, and therefore it follows, Of those things which God hath forbidden thee, vers. 23. God never forbade the making sacred images of Christ and his Saints; nay he hath commanded it, as has been proved above. Ob. To whom have you made God like, or what likeness will ye compare to h●m? Isa. 40. 18. Answ. We intent not to picture the nature of divinity, or essence of God, that we are taught is impossible, and unlawful to attempt; we compare not any image to him, we know all descriptions of him are infinitely short of his perfection, we only mean to represent some apparitions of God, and those in such forms or shapes, as he himself hath pleased to appear in, or else represent some attribute o● his by some analogical similitude; as his unspeakable ●oodness, by a Stork, which has no tongue; his Eternity by a circle, which has neither beginning nor end, or by the image of an old man, as he appeared to Daniel, Dan. 7. Ob. Whereunto have you resembled me and made me equal, and compared me? Isa. 46. 5. Answ. This is also against Idols only (as is plain by the text) which were made equal to God. And therefore it follows immediately, Bringing a Goldsmith, to make a God. Ob. Certainly you adore your images in the same manner the Heathens did their Idols. Answ. Be not wilful in your uncharitable mistakes; we do not, they adored their Idols as gods, and offered sacrifice to them. Make us Gods (say they) which may go before us, Exod. 31. 1. He cut down cedars, and kindled the fire, and baked bread, etc. but of the rest he made a God, and adored, Isa. 44. 15. They praised their Gods of silver, of brass, of wood, and of stone, Dan. 5. 4. They have made to themselves a molten calf, and adored and immolated to it, Exod. 32. 8. They sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, Psal. 105. 38. We do not sacrifice to images, nor worship them as Gods; not, we abhor and renounce it. Ob. Some of your Divines hold it lawful to worship the Cross with sovereign honour. Answ. By or for itself I deny; by accident, and as it makes one thing, with Christ crucified, whom they conceive, as hanging on it, I grant some Divines hold; but this is a mere School opinion, and not of faith with us: Nay, the seventh general Council, which we all submit to, hath decreed, That the image of Christ is not to be adored with sovereign honour, nor otherwise, than the Books of the Gospel, Act. 7. and last, Can. 3. Urge not therefore what some particular Divines may say, but harken to the doctrine of God's Church, that we rely upon. Ob. You call the Cross, O holy Cross, etc. Answ. In as much as it represents the holy passion of Christ, I grant; so you call the Bible the holy Bible, and the Communion Table the holy Communion Table, Ob. You pray in one of your Hymns, O Cross, our only hope, etc. Answ. 'Tis a Poetical Figurative expression, in which by the Cross we speak to Christ himself, who hung and died on it for our sins. So the Prophet, Hear O heavens, and harken O earth! Deut. 32. 1. In which address, by the words, heaven and earth, he spoke to the inhabitants of heaven and earth; which kind of speech is frequent in the Scripture, especially the Psalms, that are Poetical. Give the Church therefore leave in this to imitate her Teacher the Holy Ghost. And for the words, Our only hope, the Cross is no otherwise, our only hope, than it was S. Paul's only glory. God forbidden, I should glory, but in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, Gal. 6. 14. That is, instrumentally, as it was the only instrument of our Redemption, or by accident, as it makes one thing with Christ, bleeding and dying on it. Ob. Two Councils at Constantinople under Leo Iconomicus and Constantinus Copronimus defined against images. Answ. They were not General Councils nor approved; neither the Pope, nor any of the Patriarches were present either by themselves or Legates. Ob. The Council of Frankford condemned images. Answ. There is no such decree to be found in any ancient Author, nor was that council approved in any thing, but only in her decrees concerning Church benefits, as the Centurists themselves confess with one consent. Ob. The Council of Eliberis forbids the making images in Churches. Answ. You mistake, it only forbids making them on Church walls in time of persecution, jest Infidels should profane, and deface them. The Gentiles calumniated the Cross, of superstition and witchcraft, as the modern Sectaries do; Simon Magus, Cerinthus, and Basilides taught, that Christ was not truly crucified, but withdrew himself from the Cross, suffering only in a fantastical image, and therefore they denied all honour to the Cross. See S. Irenaeus l. 1. c. 25. de haeres. S. Epiphanius haeres. 24. 28. The Nicolaites, Cleobulus, and Theodore denied the Cross, & taught, that Christians aught not to give any reverence to it, or to the images of the Apostles and other Saints, affirming that they themselves were immediately sent from God (the common pretence of all Heretics) to reform the world. See S. Epiphanius, l. 3. de haeresibus, haeres. 21, 22. The Manichees taught that no images were to be worshipped, as witnesseth Tarasius in the second Nicen Council, and S. Augustine l. 20. cont. Faustum c. 15. Arrius denied that any worship was to be given to the images of Christ and his Saints, as you may read in the seventh general Synod. The great Apostata Julian set up his own image in the place of the holy Cross, and cried out against Christians, O wretched men, who adore the Cross, and imprint the sign of it on their foreheads, and before their doors, as S. Cyril of Alexandria relates, l. 6. cont. Julian, which image of Julian was burnt with lightning from heaven. These were all arch-heretikes; let therefore all deluded people take notice who they were that hated the Cross and holy images. ARTICLE XXIII. Of free William. OUr Tenet is, That man (even in the state of corrupted nature) as assisted by the efficatious Grace of God, hath free will to do, or not to do, not only natural and moral, but also works belonging to his eternal salvation, and to commit or avoid evils; and that he is not enforced to do good, or avoid evil by the said efficatious grace, though sweetly and infallibly determined to it. Which we prove thus. The first Argument. 1. In all those things, in which men have election, they have free william. 2. But men, assisted by the efficatious grace of God, have election not only in their moral and natural actions, but also in their supernatural, and things belonging to eternal life and the avoiding sin. 3. Therefore men, assisted by the efficatious grace of God, have free will not only in their moral and natural actions, but also in their supernatural, and things belonging to eternal life, and the avoiding sin. The mayor Prop. is proved, because Election is defined, A deliberate appetency with consultation, which of necessity implies freedom. The minor Proposition is proved; Choice i● given you, choose this day that which pleaseth you, Josh. 24 Choice is given thee (saith our Lord to David) choose on● of them which thou wilt, 2 King. 24. If thou dost ●ll, shall not thy sin be forthwith present at the doo●? but the lust (or desire) thereof shall be under thee, and thou shalt have dominion ever it, Gen. 4. 6, 7. ('tis in our power to do, or not to do it.) I have proposed to you life and death, bl●ssing and cursing, choose therefore life that thou mayest live, Deut. 30. vers. 17, 18, 19 How often (saith our Lord) would I gather thy children, etc. and thou wouldst not, Matth. 23. 37. You always resist the Holy Ghost, Acts 7. 51. But as many as received him (Christ) he gave them power to be made the sons of God, S. John 1. 12. (they were liabled by his grace to be made such, if they themselves would) He that hath determined in his heart, not having necessity, but having power of his own will, to keep his virgin, doth well, 1 Cor. 7. 37. (S. Paul thought it in the free power of our will to keep, or not to keep it.) God from the beginning made man, and left him in the hand of his own counsel. Eccles. 15. A second Argument. 1. Almighty God who can do nothing in vain, and is no tyrant, but the Father of mercy, exhorts and commands us to do good, and avoid evil, threatening to damn us, if we neglect. 2. But it were altogether vain to exhort or command any such things, and tyranny to damn as for not doing them, unless it were in our free power, to do, or not to do them. 3. Therefore it is in our free power (as enabled by God's grace) to do, or not to do them. The major is manifest to all that know the Scripture, which is indeed nothing else, but a divine book of holy precepts and exhortations to do good, and abstain from evil, with great rewards and punishments annexed of everlasting salvation, or damnation. The minor is proved. Because nothing can be more vain than to spend much time in exhorting or commanding that, which is not in our power, or possible for us to do (it were as rational to preach to the dead, or to command a man, that had no legs, to run) neither can any thing be more tirannical, than to damn us, for not doing it, sin●e no man can be bound, without extremity of injustice, to that which is impossible. Fathers for this point. IN the second Age S. Ignatius; If any man do wickedly, he is a man of the Devil, not made so by nature, but by the arbitrement of his own mind, In Epist▪ ad Magn. In the same age S. Irenaeu●; Not only in works, but even in faith hath Almighty God reserved liberty of will to man, saying, Be it done to thee according to thy faith, l. 4. c. 72. And again, If therefore it were not in us to do these things, or not to do them, what cause ●a's the Apostle or our Lord himself long before to counsel us to do certain things, and to abstain from others, but because man had free will from the beginning. in the same ●h. In the third age, S. Cyprian, the freedom of believing or not believing is placed in the william. in. Deut. etc. l. 3▪ add Quirin. c. 5●. In the same Age, Origen, And ●●w O Israel what doth ●●y Lord God require from thee; Let them be ashamed of those words, who deny free will in man; how should God require from man, unl●sse man had in his power what to off●r to God requiring. Homil. 12 in num. In the fourth Age, S. Hierom; because thou hast free will, I warn thee, that sin have no dominion ever thee, but thou ●ver sin, quest. in Genes. In the same age S. chrysostom, the Lord of all things hath made our nature to have free will etc. thus therefore n●w is also done in Cain, Homil. 19 in Genes. c 4. In the same age S. Basil on those words, If you will, and will hear me, Isa. ●. 19 In this place (saith he) especially he sets before our eyes the liberty of will to be given to man's nature. In the same age S. Augustine, God hath revealed to us in holy Scripture, that in man there is free will, first because God's commandments themselves would not profit man, unless he had free will whereby to do them, etc. lib de great. & libero arbitrio. cap. 2. To consent (saith he) or not to consent, lies in a man's own will, lib. de spiritu & litera. cap. 34. If we will, it is, if we will not, it is not, l. 5 de. Civitate Dei. c. 10. It is in a man's power to change his will, l. 1. retract. c. 22. Who will not cry out it is a foolish thing to give Commandments to him, who hath not freedom to do what is commanded, and that it is an injury to condemn him, who had not power to fulfil them, l. de fide contra. Manichaeos'. c. 10. The fourth Toledan Council defined, that man by his free will obeying the Serpent perished, and so the grace of God calling, by the conversion of his own mind, every man by believing is saved, therefore not by force, but by the free will of the mind they are to be persuaded to be converted, c. 57 de Judaeis. Anno dom. 681. The Council of Sens declared, this Heresy, wholly taking a way the will, we do not so much condemn, (it being already long since condemned by the Church and Councils) as we declare it contrary to plain testimonies of Scripture, c. 15. de l. Arab Anno Dom. 1431. Objections solved. Ob. I Know, Lord, that man's way is not his own, neither is it in man to direct his own steps. Jerem. 10. Answ. It is not his own always in order to execution, I grant, for so it may be hindered divers ways; it is not his own in order to election, in which freedom essentially consists, I deny; nor can he direct his own steps, without the assistance of divine grace; with that assistance, I deny it. Ob. All our works thou hast wrought to us (or in us) Isa. 26. 12. and the Apostle says who worketh all things according to the council of his will, 1. Cor. 12. 11. Answ. These places only prove God's cooperation with us in all our actions, which doth not exclude nor destroy, but rather perfect the freedom of our wills; we acknowledge we are not able to do any good thing, without his aid of grace, neither can we see without light, yet light neither hurts nor takes away, but perfects our faculty of seeing. Ob. No man can come to me, unless the Father that sent me draw him. S. Jo. 6. 44. Answ. Here the Manichees (saith S. Crysostome) rise up contending by the testimony of this text, that we can do nothing ourselves; but this takes not away our free will but shows it needs Gods help. In Joha●: Homil. 45. and on the same place, wherefore it is evident, that it is in our choice, whether we will be saved or damned, Hom. 46. Ob. It is God that works in you both to will and to accomplish. Phil. 2. 13. Answ. Not because he said, It is God that works in you both to will and to accomplish, etc. is he therefore thought to have taken away free will? if it were so, he would not have said before, with fear and trembling work ye your salvation; for when there is command that they work, their free will is called upon. Thus S. Augustine on this place. Ob. We are dead by sin, Ephes. 2. Answ. But quickened by Christ, ibidem. Ob. It is necessary that Scandals come, S. Math. 18. 7. It is impossible that scandals should not come, S. Lu. 17. Therefore it is impossible for us to avoid them. Answ. I deny the consequence, those texts only infer a necessity of supposition, because God hath foreseen and foretold they will come, which hinders them not from being freely done, speaking of absolute freedom, and as they are compared to the immediate, and second causes. Ob. God necessarily and infallibly foreknows all things that will ever come to pass. Therefore whatsoever we do, we do by unavoidable necessity. Answ. I deny your consequence, for God not only foresees effects, but also their causes and that they will proceed, and be done, according to their exigence; from free causes freely and from necessary causes necessarily; so that all which God foresees to be done, will infallibly be done, yet not necessarily or by compulsion, because his foresight doth not impose on things foreseen, any absolute necessity, but only a necessity of supposition, which is consistent with absolute freedom, or liberty. Ob. God hath by his will decreed from all eternity whatever will be done. Answ. True; according to the natural exigence of second causes, but not contrary to it; and therefore he hath decreed many things to be done freely. ARTICLE XXIV. Of saving or justifying faith. OUr Tenet is, That justifying faith is not a confident undoubted belief, that our sins are forgiven, and that we are of the elect, (as Sectaries hold) but a true faith, in Jesus Christ, God and man, and steadfast belief of all those things which he hath any way revealed to us; which we prove thus. The first Argument. 1. That cannot be a saving or justifying faith, which was not taught the Church for such, by Christ and his Apostles. 2. But Protestants foresaid faith of special mercy (by which they assuredly believe, their sins are forgiven, and that they are of the elect) was never taught the Church for such, by Christ and his Apostles. 3. Therefore Protestant's faith of special mercy, is not a saving or justifying faith. The major is manifest, because Christ and his Apostles were the masters and teachers of all saving and justifying faith. The minor is proved; because they never taught the Church, to have assured belief, that their sins were forgiven, or that they were of the Elect, as any certain or necessary means of their salvation, but rather the quite contrary. Man knoweth not whether he be, worthy love or hatred, Eccles. 9 1. Who can say my heart is clean, I am pure from sin, Pro. 20. Sins who understandeth, from my secret sins cleanse me, Psalm. 18. Therefore, my dearest, with fear and trembling work out your salvation, Philip. 2. 12. I am not guilty in conscience of any thing, but herein I am not justified, 1 Cor. 4. 4. In fear converse ye the time of your sojourning, 1: Pet. 1. Nor is there any Article of the Creed, or any verse of the whole Gospel, which teacheth this presumptuous Faith of special mercy. The second Argument, affirmative. 1. That is the holy saving or justifying Faith of Christians, which Christ and his Apostles taught the Church, for a necessary means to justice and salvation. 2. But Christ and his Apostles taught the Church for a necessary means of justice and salvation, a Faith in him, true God and man, by which all those things are firmly believed, which he hath any way revealed to us, and working also by Charity. 3. Therefore a Faith in Christ, true God and man, by which all those things are firmly believed which he hath any way revealed to us, and working also by charity, is the only saving or justifying Faith of Christians. The major is manifest of itself. The minor is proved. Without Faith, it is impossible to please God; for he that cometh to God, must first believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder to them that seek him, Heb. 11. 6. In him (Christ) every one that believeth is justified, Acts. 13. 39 Jesus said I am the resurrection, and the life, he that believeth in me although he be dead he shall live etc. believest thou this? She saith to him, Lord I have believed, that thou are Christ the Son of God who art come into the world. S. john. 11. 25, 27. Peter answered and said, Thou art Christ the Son of the living God, and Jesus said unto him, blessed art thou Simon Bardona, etc. S. Math. 16. 17. (viz. by reason of that Faith) This is the word of Faith which we preach, for if thou confess wi●h thy mouth our Lord Jesus Christ, and believe with thy heart, that God hath raised him up from the dead; thou shalt be saved, Rom. 10. 9 add to this, that Article of the Creed, and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; without which Faith, no justice nor salvation can be ●ad. That it must also work by charity, is proved; because Faith without charity is dead, and profits not to justice. You see than brethrens (saith S. James how that by works a man is justified and not by Faith only, S. James▪ 2. 17, 21. If a man have all Faith and have not charity, he is nothing, it profits nothing, 1 Cor. 13. For in Christ Jesus neither Circumcision availeth aught, no● prep●●e, but Faith that worketh by charity, Galath. 5. 6. Not every one that says Lord, Lord, but he that doth the will of my Father shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, S. Math, 7. 21. To conclude; G●● ye teaching all Nations, baptising ●h●m and teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. S. Math. 28 19 20. We must believe, and do accordingly; we must believe the divinity, humanity, life, death, miracles and doctrines o● Jesus Christ. He that believeth not, shall be condemned, S. Mark. 16. 26. Fathers for this Point. In the second Age St. Clement, Wherhfore when we hear, thy faith hath made thee safe, we do not understand him to say absolutely, that those are saved who any ways believe, unless their deeds shall follow. l. 4. Strommatum post med. In the third Age, Origen, Those that profess faith in Jesus, but do not prepare themselves with good works to salvation, are to be compared to the foolish virgins. Tract. 32. in Matth. In the same Age, St. Cyril of Alexandria, That faith doth not suffice to salvation, the Disciple of Christ showeth, writing, Thou believest there is one God, the devils also believe and tremble; if therefore only faith were sufficient, the multitude of devils could not perish: wherefore the works of charity must come to faith. In c. 2. Jacobi, v. 29. In the fourth Age, St. Chrysostom, If Paul who suffered so much, was not yet secure of that resurrection, (viz. to glory) what shall we say? Homil. 2. in Epist. ad Philip. And again, If thou shalt rightly believe, etc. but dost not rightly live, it doth nothing profit thee to salvation. Homil. 30. in Joan. & Math. 7. In the same Age, St. Hierome, I have sound the works of the just to be in the hand of God; but whether they be loved of God or not, now they cannot know, in cap. 9 Eccles. v. 1. And again, Therefore it is but doubtful and uncertain, (to wit, whether God will convert and forgive) that whilst men are doubtful of their salvation, they may seriously do penance. In c. 3. Jonae▪ v. 9 In the same Age, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Do not trust in this only that thou believest, but keep faith burning, that thy light may shine before men by good works, Catechis. 15. In the fifth Age, St. Augustine, What man knoweth he is to persevere to the end in the progress of justice, unless by some revelation he be assured from God? l. 2. de civitat. Dei. c. 2. And again, Who among all the faithful, as long as he liveth in this mortality, can presume himself to be of the number of the predestinate? because it is necessary to be hid in this place, where pride is to be taken of. l. de corrept. & great. c. 13. Faith truly may be without charity, but not profit. l. 15. de Trinitat. c. 18. And finally, I know that the justice of my God remaineth; whether mine remain or not, I know not, in Psal. 40. And far was it from the Apostles meaning that faith is sufficient for a man, although he have no good works. l. de great. & lib. arbit. c. 7. The Council of Moguntia defined, Without faith we cannot please God; notwithstanding faith needeth works, because faith without works is dead. Can. 1. Anno dom. 813. You see what kind of faith the Fathers required to justice; not faith alone, or faith of special mercy, but faith in Jesus Christ working by charity. Objections solved. Obj. The Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit that we are the sons of God, Rom. 10. Answ. It gives not testimony that we are the sons of God, by believing so only, or by assuring ourselves that our sins are forgiven us; but by and through a faith in jesus Christ, working by charity; and though his testimony be always infallible in itself▪ yet it is always doubtful, and uncertain on our part, whether we have, or have it not, without special revelation. And therefore many say Our Father, and think themselves the sons of God, who are indeed the sons of the devil, as Christ proved to the Jews, St. john 7. Obj. Paul says, I am sure that neither life nor death, etc. shall separate us from the charity of God, etc. Rom. 8. Answ. He doth not say, That this assurance justified him. Not, it presupposed him in state of justice: and he either speaks there of such only as be predestinate, or else by the words (I am sure) he means no more than I am confidently persuaded; neither can we without presumptuous pride, pretend to such assurance in that behalf as holy Paul in likelihood might have. Obj. Know you not yourselves that Christ Jesus is in you, unless perhaps you be reprobates? 2 Cor. 13. 5. Answ. He speaks only there of Christ's being present with the Corinthians, not in respect of justifying grace (for both in this and three precedent Chapters, he threatens them with heavy vengeance for their sins) but in his special power, providence, and miracles showed to them. Ob. A man is justified in Baptism, and that without any works. Answ. Without external works, or works pretending justice, I grant; those are not always requisite to the first justice, without internal works, or at lest works consequent to justice (speaking of such who have the use of reason) I deny. Obj. If a man have not a care of his own, and especially Domesticals, he hath denied the faith, according to St. Paul Answ. He hath denied it in his deeds, as many do, but may notwithstanding have true, though not justifying faith; a man may have all faith (in St. Paul's supposition, 1 Cor. 13.) and not charity. Obj. He that says he knows God, and doth not keep his Commandments, is a liar. Answ. If he say he knows him with friendly or informed faith, I grant it; and of such only St. john there speaks. Hence it is, that your faith only, or faith of special mercy, will not suffice to justify. Obj. Every one that believeth that jesus is Christ, is born of God, 1 Joan. 5. Therefore justified. Ans. He speaks of Faith form with Charity, and so I grant your consequence. Here is no exclusive particle; he says not, He that believeth only. Ob. The Saints by Faith overcame kingdoms, Heb. 2. Answ. Not by faith only, but by faith joined with Hope and Charity. Ob. We accounted a man to be justified by Faith, without the works of the Law, Rom. 3. 28. Therefore by Faith excluding all works. Answ. St. Paul excludes there only the Ceremonial works of the Old law, of which some boasted much, or works preceding faith, and done by the mere strength of nature; he excludes not the works of grace and charity, or works which follow faith. So that your consequence is erroneous. Some (saith St. Augustine in one place) not understanding what the Apostle saith, have supposed his meaning to be, That Faith is sufficient for a man though ●e live nickedly, and have no works: but far was that from the intention of the vessel of election. l. de great. & ●●ber. arbit. c. 7. And in another place, Paul speaks of works that go before faith (we do not hold that those will justify. james speaks of works which follow faith, these do justify) l. 83. q. 76. in fine, & l. de fide & operib. c. 14. Ob. Believe only, and she shall be saved, St. Lu. 8. 50. Answ. He only there promiseth corporal life and safety to the Prince's daughter of the Synagogue for her father's faith; not spiritual life and safety of the soul. Which is not against us; we doubt not but corporal blessings may be given for faith only, and faith is always required to Justice, but not sufficient without Charity. Ob. All that believe in him shall not perish, but have eternal life. St. John 3. 14. Answ. If he want not some other thing as requisite as faith, I grant it. So all that hope in him, shall not be confounded, Eccles. 2. Yet neither Faith nor Hope, nor both together, will suffice to justify without Charity. There be many particular and inadequat causes of Justification; and the Scripture sometimes attributes the whole effect to one of them, and sometimes to another; but never so to any one as to exclude the rest, but rather as including and supposing them. ARTICLE XXV. Of the merit of Works. OUr Tenet is, That our best works (in this state of corrupted nature) as they are ours precisely, are not meritorious of a reward from God; because we can do no good thing ourselves, as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is all from him; yet as proceeding from the grace of Christ, working in us, and with us, and elevated by his merits, and promises; so he hath promised a reward to them, and made them worthy a reward. Which is all we intent by the merit of Works. And is proved thus: The first Argument. 1. To merit a reward from God (according to the Church's notion and exposition of it in this place) is nothing else but to be worthy and challenge a reward from God by contract. 2. But our good works, as done by us in state of grace, relying on the promises of Christ, and elevated by his grace and merits, are worthy, and do challenge a reward from God by contract. 3. Therefore our Good works, as done by us in state of grace, relying on the promises of Christ, and elevated by his grace and merits, do merit a reward from God. The first Proposition is manifest, unless you will obtrude your meaning and explication on the Church, and not accept of the Church's explication of her own words. The second Proposition is proved: Blessed are ye when they shall revile and persecute you, etc. for my sake: rejoice and be glad; for very great is your reward in Heaven, St. Math, 5. 12. Whosoever shall give to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, Amen I say unto you, he shall not loose his reward, St. Math. 10. 42. The son of man is to come in the glory of his father, and than shall he tender to every man according to his works, Apoc. c. last, v. 12. I have fought a good fight, there is a crown of justice laid up for me, which our Lord will tender to me at that day, a just judge: and not only to me, but to them also that love his coming, 2 Tim. 4. 7, 8. They shall walk with me in white, because they are worthy, Apoc. 3. 4. God hath tried them, and found them worthy of himself, Wisd. 3. That ye may be counted worthy of the Kingdom of God, for which also ye suffer, 2 Thes. 1. 5. Come ye blessed of my father, and possess ye the Kingdom, etc. for I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat, etc. St. Matth. 25. 14, 15. You see the Covenant or contract is plainly made, and the reward as plainly promised, which of necessity implies merit, seeing a reward and merit are correllatives. A second Argument. 1. God hath freely bound himself by Covenant and promise to reward our good works proceeding from the grace, and dignified by the merits of Christ, with grace and glory; than of necessity it follows that our good works, proceeding from his grace, and dignified by his merits, do merit a reward of grace and glory. 2. But God hath freely bound himself to this by covenant and promise. 3. Therefore our good works proceeding from the grace of Christ, and dignified by his merits, do merit a reward of grace and glory. The sequel of the Major is proved, because a faithful promise makes a due debt, and the Workman is worthy his wages, promised by covenant. The Minor is proved by all the Texts above cited; as also the Parable in the twentieth Chapter of Saint Matthew, where Christ in the person of an Housholder agrees with the workmen in his Vineyard for a penny a day; that is, Everlasting Life, as all the Fathers expound it. And Saint Paul tells us, God is not unjust that he should forget your work and love which you have showed in his Name, Heb. 6. 10. Fathers for this Point. In the second Age Saint Ignatius, Give me leave to become the food of beasts, that by that means I may merit and win God. Epist. to the Romans. In the same Age Justin Martyr, We think that men, who by works have showed themselves worthy of the will and counsel of God, shall by their merits live and reign with him. Apolog. 2. In the same Age Ireneus, We esteem that crown to be precious, which is gotten by combat and suffering for God's sake. lib. 4. cont. haeres. cap. 72. In the third Age Saint Cyprian, If the day of our return shall found us unloaden, swift, and running in the way of good works, our Lord will not fail to reward our merits. Serm. de Eleemosyna. In the fourth Age Saint Basil, show thy works and exact a reward. Orat. ad divites. In the same Age Saint Ambrose; Is it not evident, that there remains after this life, either rewards for merits, or punishment. l. 1. de Officiis c. 15. In the fifth Age Saint Augustine, He (Paul) says that our Lord a just Judge will tender to him a Crown: he therefore owes it, and as a just Judge will pay it; for the work being regarded, the reward cannot be denied. l. 50. Homil. 4. And again, Our Lord hath made himself a debtor, not by receiving, but by promising; it is not said to him, tender what thou hast received, but what thou hast promised, in Psalm 83. and in another place, They give the price of their own souls, who cease not to give Alms. in Psalm 48. v. 8. The Arausican Council defined a thousand years ago, That reward is debt to good works if they be done, but grace which was not debt precedes that they may be done. Can. 18. The Lateran Council defines, If any man shall say, that the good works of a justified man which are done by him, through the grace of God, and the merits of Christ, do not merit an increase of grace and glory, everlasting life and the obtaining thereof, if he die in state of grace, be he Anathema. Ch. Firmiter de sum. Trinitate an. dom. 1215. the same is defined in the Council of Florence, decreto de Purgatorio. Objections Solved. Obj. Heaven and Everlasting Life is an inheritance, If Sons, than Heirs, etc. Rom. 8. therefore not a reward. Answ. I grant the antecedent, but deny the consequence; it is also a reward and crown to such as labour and fight for it. Whatsoever ye do, work it from the heart, as to our Lord, etc. knowing ye shall receive a reward from our Lord, Colos. 3. 23, 24. And no man shall be crowned, but he that hath fought lawfully. Obj: Everlasting life is the grace of God, Rom. 6. 23. And the passions of this life are not condign to future Glory, Romans 8. 18. Answ. It is therefore called the Grace of God, because gratis and freely promised to our works, which could not otherwise deserve it, as also because he gives us grace, whereby to merit and obtain it, without which we could not do it. Yet it is also a reward of justice, 2 Tim. 4. And to the second place objected, I Answer, we hold not our works or sufferings to be absolutely condign to future glory, or equal in rigorous, but only in a Geometrical proportion, which requires not more but a reasonable correspondence of one thing to another, which is here found, so that our present tribulation worketh above measure an immense weight of glory in us, 2 Cor. 4. 17. Obj. When ye have done all those things that are commanded you, say we are unprofitable servants, Luke 17. 10. Answ. We are unprofitable of ourselves, and as servants under the servitude of sin, I grant; but as fellow-Citizens of the Saints, Friends and Heirs of God, assisted by his grace and by the merits of Christ, I deny; and so does Saint Paul, saying, If any man shall cleanse himself from these (sins) he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified and profitable to our Lord, 2 Tim. 2. 2. Well done good and faithful servant, etc. but the unprofitable servant (take heed Protestant's) cast ye forth into outward Darkness. Matth. 25. 21. O the great goodness of God (saith St. Augustine) to whom when we did own servitude by the condition of our estate, as bondmen to their Lords, yet hath he promised us the reward of friends. Sermone de verbis Apostoli. Obj. Thy boasting hath been excluded; by what law? by the law of deeds? no; but by the law of faith. Rom. 3. 27. Answ. St. Augustine: Paul speaks only of the works of Abraham, in as much as they proceeded from the law, secluding the spirit and grace of Christ. l. de fide & op●rib. c. 14. Obj. Christ himself reprehends mercenaries, St. John 20. Therefore it is not lawful to do good works for a reward. Answ. I deny the consequence: Mercenaries do their good works solely, or at lest chief for a reward; we do ours chief for the love of God, and secondarily only for a reward, as David himself did: I have inclined my heart to do thy justifications for ever for a reward. Psalm 119. v. 112. Obj. There can be no justice between God and man. Answ. Rigorous justice, I grant; Analogical justice, which is sufficient to merit, I deny. There is a Crown of justice, as you have heard; and David tells you, Our Lord will tender to me according to my justice, because I have kept the ways of our Lord. Psalm 18. 20, 21. ARTICLE. XXVI. Of Vows. AVow is defined to be a religious promise made to God of some better thing: that is, of something which is better to be done, than omitted. This premised, Our Tenet is, That it is a good and pious practice, and much conducing to perfection (though not necessary to salvation) to make Vows to God of Poverty, Chastity, Obedience, and other virtues, and good works. Which we prove thus: The first Argument. 1. All that is taught us, and commended in the holy Scriptures, is very good and pious for us to practice. 2. But Vows are taught us, and commended (not only in themselves but unto us) in the holy Scripture. 3. Therefore it is good and pious for us to practise them. The Minor (which only needs proof,) is proved. They shall vow vows unto our Lord, and pay them. Isa. 19 21. Jacob vowed a vow to God (Viz. to erect an Altar and offer Tyths) Gen. 28. David vowed a Vow to the God of jacob (namely, to build a Temple to his name.) Psal. 13. 12. Vow ye, and tender ye to the Lord your God. Psal. 75. 2. A Second Argument. 1. To vow those things which are commended and counselled (though not commanded) by Christ and his Apostles, is a most pious and Religious practice. 2. But Evangelical poverty, perpetual chastity, and voluntary obedience, are counselled and commended (though not commanded) by Christ and his Apostles. 3. Therefore to vow them, is a pious and Religious practice. The Major is proved, because freely to bind ourselves by Vow, for the mere love of God, to an observance and practice of such virtues as God himself hath not commanded but only counselled, is a great argument of our gratitude towards God, and pious zeal of his honour. The Minor is proved, as to Poverty thus: If thou wilt be perfect, go and cell all thou hast, and give to the poor, and come and follow me, and thou shalt have treasure in Heaven. Mat. 19 21: The multitude of Believers had one heart, one soul, neither did any of them call aught their own of those things which they possessed, Acts 4. 32. Which abnegation (as St. Augustin tells us) was made by vow, Serm. 1. de communi vita sanctorum. Ananias and his wife Saphira had vowed to give all they had to God. Acts 15. according to the Fathers on that place; otherwise, as they well note, they could not have committed so great a sacrilege, or have been said to lie to the Holy Ghost by only reserving to themselves some part of that which was their own, and than denying it to St. Peter. As to Chastity, it is proved thus: There be Eunuches who have gelded themselves for the Kingdom of Heaven; he that can take, let him take. Mat. 19 12. This was an actual council of perpetual chastity, and implies also a Vow, because it signifies that some by one act of the will had cut of from themselves all power of marrying, which could not be but by Vow, as the Fathers conclude on this place. St. Paul commands that young widows should not be chosen or admitted to the vow of widowhood: But the younger widows (saith he) avoid, for when they shall be wanton in Christ, they will marry, having damnation, because they have made void their first faith, 1 Tim. 5. 2. (that is, their vow of chastity.) He that hath resolved in his heart being settled, not having necessity, but having power of his own will, to keep his Virgin, doth well; therefore be that giveth his Virgin in marriage does well; and he that gives her not, does better, 1 Cor. 7. 37, 38. Add to this, that the Fathers (on those words, How can this be, because I know not man? St. Lu. 1. 34.) affirm and prove that the blessed Virgin Mary had vowed chastity; otherwise she might have known man, and have conceived, and born a son without miracle. As to Obedience thus: Children, obey your Parents in all things, Colos. 3. 20. And Christ himself was subject to the blessed Virgin and St. joseph by a mere voluntary subjection; He himself being the absolute Lord of them and all things. St. Luke 2. 51. Obey your Prelates and be subject to them, etc. Heb. 13. 17. Fathers for this Point. In the second Age, St. Ignatius. Let Virgins know to whom they have consecrated themselves. Epist. ad Antiochens. And he commands sacred (vowed) Virgins to be honoured, Epist. ad Tharsens.. In the same Age Dionysius tells us, That Monks promise' publicly in the Church, that they renounce a divisible or secular life, which is divided betwixt God and the world, Eccles. Hierarch. part 2. c, 6. In the third Age Tertullian, Hast thou married to Christ? thou hast delivered thy flesh to him, thou hast espoused thy ripeness to him. l. de velandis virginibus. And St. Fulgentius; Whosoever hath gelded himself for the Kingdom of Heaven etc. hath in his heart vowed chastity to God. l. de fide ad Petrum. c. 3. In the same Age St. Cyprian; Those that have consecrated themselves to Christ, and bequeathed as well their mind as flesh to God, let them consummate their work destinated to a great reward. l. de Habitu Virginum. In the fourth Age St. Ambrose; Thou forbiddest Maids initiated with sacred mysteries, and consecrated to integrity, to marry: would to God I could recall them being about to marry. l. de virginitate. In the fifth Age St. Augustine: Another vows to leave all things, and to go into the common life and society of the Saints, he hath vowed a great vow: in Psal. 25. And in another place he tells us, That a certain Maid did very ill in having a will to marry, because she had vowed herself to God, in Psalm 75. The Council of Chalcedon has defined; It is not lawful that a Virgin which hath vowed herself to God, (and the like of a Monk) should marry; and if they shall be found doing this, let them be excommunicated, Can. 15. Alias 16. Anno Dom. 451. The fourth Council of Carthage decreed, That if any widows have vowed themselves to our Lord, and shall afterwards pass to secular marriages, according to the Apostle they shall have damnation, because they have dared to make void their Faith, which they have vowed to our Lord, Can. 104. An. dom. 439. See also the Toledan Council, can. 54. alias 55: Objections Solved. Obj. Vows are only Popish ceremonies. Ans. They are great acts of virtue, and of divine institution, as hath been proved. All ceremonies are external, but Vows may be internal and made by the will only. Obj. The word Vow is not in all the new Scripture. Ans. The thing is, which is equivalent. Obj. All that we can do to God's honour, we are already bound to do; Therefore 'tis fond to vow it. Ans. You are fond in both your assertions. No man is bound to cell all he hath to give to the poor; To geld himself for the Kingdom of Heaven; To spend all his day's prayer, fasting, and mortification, etc. yet these things we can do by God's assistance, and some are found who perform them for his sake. Obj. God may exact all we can do. Ans. He may, but does not; he hath left us free in many things to do, or not to do them. Obj. All that belongs to our own or our neighbour's salvation, we are obliged to. Ans. All that is absolutely necessary to salvation, I grant; All that is profitable to salvation, I deny; there is a certain latitude in goodness; else he that is not best, would be worst, which is a Paradox. Obj. Why should we oblige ourselves to that which God himself hath not obliged us to? Ans. To show our gratitude and piety towards him, who hath given us such freedom, and done infinitely more for us than he was bound to do. Obj. It is better to marry than burn (with unchaste desires or actions) 1 Cor: 7. 9 Ans. He speaks only to such as are free, and have no vow or lawful impediment to the contrary; Otherwise it would follow, that if such as are married should chance to burn with any unchaste desires or actions, they also aught to marry again, which is gross and impious. Thus St. Ambrose ad Virginem lapsam, c. 5. and St. Hierom contra Jovinianum, explicate this place. Obj. That which is done without vow, is more freely done, and therefore more pleasing to God. Ans. Nothing is more freely done, than what we vow to do; because the Vow itself is freely made; and the necessity which ariseth from the Vow, is only a necessity of supposition, which detracts nothing from the dignity of the act, but adds to it. Obj. Not man is certain he shall keep such Vows. Therefore it is rash to make them. Ans. If thou canst not (saith Tertullian) it is because thou wilt not; for God hath left both in thy arbitrement; we are certain God both can and will enable us, if we ask it as we aught. Ask and ye shall have. Wherefore I deny your consequence. Obj. All do not take that word, Matth. 19 Ans. He doth not say all cannot, but all do not, and the reason is, they will not. Obj. St. Paul forewarns us of some, who in the later times. would forbidden to marry, and teach to abstain from meats. Ans. He spoke of the Manichees who held marriage to be unlawful, and all flesh meats to be unclean; we forbidden not either in due and lawful circumstances, but hold marriage to be a holy Sacrament, and no sort of meat to be evil of itself, but only at forbidden times. Obj. The Council of Gangers condemns those who execrate marriage. Ans. So do all Catholics; we dislike and forbidden none but sacrilegious and unlawful marriages. ARTICLE. XXVII. Of the possibility of keeping the Commandments. OUr Tenet is, That a just man, assisted by the spirit and grace of God, may (if he himself be not in fault,) and aught to keep the Precepts of the Decalogue, or ten Commandments of the Moral law▪ which we prove thus. The First Argument. 1. All that which God hath commanded us, as a necessary condition, for our obtaining salvation, is possible to us by God's assistance. 2. But God hath commanded us as a necessary condition for our obtaining salvation, to keep the Precepts of the Decalogue or Ten Commandments of the moral Law. 3. Therefore to keep the precepts of the Decalogue or Ten Commandments is possible to us by God's assistance. The Major is manifest, because otherwise salvation were impossible to be obtained, and God a Tyrant in commanding that which he himself cannot enable us to do. The Minor is proved: If thou wilt enter into life, keep the Commandments, St. Mat. 19 17. do this (keep the Commandments) and thou shalt live, St. Luke 18. 28. If you love me, keep my Commandments. St. John 14. 14. He that shall break one of these lest Commandments and teach men so to do, he shall be called lest in the Kingdom of Heaven. St. Matth. 5. 20. Not hearers of the Law are just with God, but doers of the Law shall be justified. Rom. 2. 13. S●e Exod. c. 20. and 34. Deut. 27. 31. Where God threatens grievous punishments to such as break them, and justly sure, since absolutely to break any one of them, willingly, is against Charity, and damnable. A Second Argument. 1. If God have promised to enable men to keep his Commandments, and some de facto have kept them, than they are possible to be kept. 2. But God hath promised to enable men to keep his Commandments, and some de facto have kept them. 3. Therefore they are possible to be kept. The Major is manifest, because otherwise we make God unable to perform his promises, which is blasphemy, and grant, that some have done impossibilities, which is absurd. The Minor is proved. I will put my spirit in the middle of you, and I will make that you walk in my precepts, and keep my Judgements and do them. Ezek. 36. 27. They shall be my people etc. they shall walk in my Judgements and keep my Commandments, and do them. Ezek. 37. 24. See the promise. Zachary and Elizabeth were both just before God, walking in all the Commandments and justifications of our Lord without blame. St. Luke 1. 6. Noah was a just man and perfect, Gen. 6. 9 Thy they were (saith our Saviour) and to me thou gavest them, and they have kept my word. St. John 17. 6. Whatsoever we shall ask we shall receive of him, because we keep his Commandments, 1 Joh. 3. 22. I ran the way of thy Commandments when thou didst dilate my heart, Psal. 118. See also the performance. Fathers for this Point. In the Second Age Tertullian; No Law could impose on him who had not in his power due obedience to the Law: These words of his are cited by the Protestant Centurists, Centur. 3. Column. 240. In the Third Age Origen: The baptised may fulfil the Law in all things, Homil. 9 in Jos. In the Fourth Age St. Basil. It is an impious thing to say that the Commandments of God are impossible, Orat. in illud, Attend tibi. In the same Age St. Chrysostom; Blame not our Lord, he commands nothing impossible, Homil. 8. In the same Age St. Hierom; We execrate their blasphemy who affirm any thing impossible to be commanded by God to men. In explanat. Symbol. ad Damas'. and again, We are therefore to understand that Christ commands nothing impossible, Comment. in Matth. 5. In the Fifth Age, St. Augustine; God who is just cannot command any thing impossible, neither will he that is holy, damn man, for that which he cannot avoid. Sermone. 61. de Tempore. The Second Milevitan Council defined, That whoever shall say, the grace of God doth in this only help us not to sin, because by it the understanding of the Commandments is revealed to us, that so we may know what we aught to desire and eschew, but that by it, it is not given us, that what we know to be done, we may love and be able to do; c. 4. This Council was subscribed by St. Augustine An. 400. and odd. The Second Araufican Council, defined, We believe all such as are Baptised &c. Christ helping and cooperating, may and aught to fulfil, if they will labour faithfully, those things that belong to salvation, c. 25. An. Dom. 440. odd. Objections Solved. Obj. St. Paul calls the Law a yoke of servitude, supposing it impossible to be kept, Gal. 5. Ans. He speaks of the Ceremonial Law of the jews, which was abrogated by the death of Christ. If you will needs extend it to the moral Law, I answer, it is impossible to be kept by the bore knowledge of the Law, or strength of nature only, but not by grace and assistance of the Holy Ghost; for that which was impossible to the Law, is made possible by the grace of Christ. Rom. 8. (viz. our fulfilling the justification of the Law) vers. 3. 4. Obj. To will is present with me, but to accomplish that which is good, I found not, Rom. 7. Ans. He speaks there of the first motions of concupiscence, which are not always in our power to hinder, nor any sin at all, if we neither delight in, nor consent to them, which by God's assistance is always in our power. Obj. We have not always that assistance from God. Ans. 'Tis our own fault than; we may have it, if we ask it, as we aught: Ask and ye shall have. Obj. We all offend in many things. St. James 2. If we say we have no sin, we delude ourselves. 1 Joan. 1. 8. Ans. Those places concern only venial sins, which are not absolutely against charity, but only weaken it; and therefore break not the Commandments absolutely, but only hinder our perfect observance of them; they are not against, (as the Fathers say,) but by or besides the Commandments. Obj. We cannot love God in this life with our whole heart as he commands. Ans. In that perfection as the Blessed do in heaven, or so as to love nothing else but him I grant; comparatively and so as to prefer him before all other goods, I deny; and this is all that is intended by such expressions. So joshua followed God in all his heart, 4. Kin. 13. He accomplished all things, and omitted not one word of all the Commandments which our Lord gave to Moses. Iosh. 2. Obj. Paul said, The law is not put for the just, but for sinners. Therefore the just are not bound to keep it. Ans. It is not put for the just, according to the coercive power of it, because they keep it willingly, but for sinners, I grant; according to its directive power, I deny it, and your consequence. Obj. St. Peter calls the Law a yoke, which neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear▪ Acts 1. 15. Ans. He speaks there only of the penal ceremonies, not the moral precepts of the Law. He was not ignorant what his great Master had said: My yoke is sweet, my burden light, St. Matth. 11. 30. ARTICLE. XXVIII. Of the Sacraments. OUr Tenet is, That the Sacraments of the new Law, ordained by Christ our Lord, for our Justification, are in number Seven; Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Order, and Matrimony, and that they all confer grace instrumentally, if we ourselves put no impediments; Proved thus. The Argument. 1. A Sacrament is defined by the Church, To be a visible (or sensible) sign of invisible grace, divinely instituted by Christ our Lord, for our Sanctification. 2. But in the new Law there be seven Visible signs of invisible grace divinely instituted by Christ our Lord for our sanctification. 3. Therefore in the new Law there be seven Sacraments. 1. The Minor (which only needs proof) is proved: for Baptism; Go ye teaching all Nations and Baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, St. Matth. 28. 19 2. For Confirmation; And he that confirmeth us with you in Christ, and hath annoiled us, God, who also hath sealed ●s, and given the pledge of the spirit in our hearts, 2 Cor. 1. 22. And when Philip the Deacon had converted Samaria to the Faith, Peter and John were sent to confirm them, Who, when they were come (saith the Text) prayed for them, that they might receive the holy Ghost, etc. Than did they impose their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost, Acts 8. 14, 15, 16. 3. For the Blessed Eucharist, He took bread etc. saying, This is my Body, This is my Blood, etc. St. Matth. 26. 26, 27. St. Mark 14. St. Luke 22. 4. For Penance, Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins ye shall forgive they are forgiven, and whose sins ye shall retain, they are retained, St. John 20. 23. 5. For extreme Unction, Is any man sick among 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 man, and our Lord will lift him up: and if he be in sins, his sins shall be forgiven him: St. James 5. 13, 14, 15. 6. For the Holy Order, Do ye this for a commemoration of me; St. Luke 22. 19, 20. There he made his Apostles Priests, by giving them power to offer sacrifices, which is the highest act of Priesthood. Neglect not the grace which is in thee by prophecy, with the imposition of the hands of the Priesthood, 1 Tim. 4. 14. 7. For Matrimony, Therefore they are not two but one flesh: that therefore which God hath joined let not man separate, St. Matth. 19 6. There shall be two in one flesh: this is a great Sacrament, but I say in Christ and the Church, Ephes. 5. 31, 32. See here the number and divine institution testified. The visible sign in Baptism is natural water, and the words; the invisible grace, the sanctity and justice given to him that is Baptised. He that shall believe and shall be Baptised, shall be saved, St. Matth. 28. 19 But ye are washed, but ye are justified, but ye are sanctified, etc. 1 Cor. 6. 10. The visible sign in Confirmation is Oil blessed by a Bishop, mingled with Balm, and the words of the form. The invisible grace, the holy Ghost, or special grace to profess the faith of Christ thereupon: And they received the Holy Ghost. Acts 8. 16. The visible sign in the Eucharist, is the outward forms or accidents of bread. The invisible grace, Christ himself, the fountain of all grace: This is my body, etc. St. Matth. 26. He that eateth of this bread, shall live for ever; St. John 6. The visible sign in Penance, is the Penitent confessing his sins, and the Priest absolving. The invisible grace, the remission of his sins made by grace. Whose sins ye shall remit, they are remitted, St. John 20. The visible sign in Extreme Unction, is the prayer of the Priest (By that anointing, and his own most pious mercy, Let our Lord pardon thee, etc.) and holy Oil with which he is anointed. The invisible grace, the remission of the relics of sin, His sins shall be forgiven him, St. James 5. The Visible sign in Holy Order, are, the things given to him that is Ordained, and the words of the Bishop, Receive power, etc. The Invisible grace, the grace that is there given him: Neglect not the grace which is in thee, etc. 1 Tim. 4. 14. The Visible sign in Matrimony, are the words or signs of the parties by which they express mutual and present consent: The Invisible grace, a supernatural conjunction by Almighty God, and grace given them in order to the holy procreation and education of children in the knowledge, love, and fear of God: which cannot be done without special grace; What God hath joined, etc. St. Matth. 19 That Baptism is necessary for those that are at years of understanding, by the necessity of a divine precept, I take for granted by our adversaries, and therefore shall not need to prove farther than hath been done already by the words of Institution. For the necessity of Infant-baptisme, take this ensuing probation. A second Argument. 1 All that which Christ hath ordained as a necessary means of salvation, as well for Infants, as those of riper age. 2 But Christ hath ordained Baptism as a necessary means of salvation. Therefore Baptism is necessary is necessary as well for Infants, as those of riper age. The Major is manifest; because without a means of absolute necessity, that whereto it is a means, cannot be had. The Minor is proved: Unless a man be born again of Water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, St. John 3. 5. (He exempts not the Infants of one day.) Do penance, and be every one of you baptised in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, Acts 2. 38. He hath saved us by the laver of regeneration, Titus 3. 26. (He excepts none.) Fathers for this point. In the second Age, St. Dionysius affirms it to be a Tradition from the Apostles, That Infants should be baptised, Lib. eccles. Hierar. c. ultimo. part. ult. In the same age, Ireneus, That all are saved who are regenerated in Christ, Infants, Children, youths, and old men, l. 2. c. 39 In the third age Origen: The Church hath received a Tradition from the Apostles, to give Baptism also to little ones: l. 5. in c. 6. ad Rom. In the same age St. Cyprian: It seemed good not only to him, but the whole Council, that little ones should be baptised, even before the eighth day: l. 3. epist. ad Fidum. St. Clement also in the second age: Because the frailty of our former nativity, which is made yours by man, is cut of to one regenerate of water, and born to God, and so at last you come to salvation, otherwise it is impossible, Epist. 4. In the fourth age St. Epiphanius condemns Cerinthus of Heresy, for teaching a man may be saved without baptism, Heres. 28. In the fifth age St. Augustine: If thou wilt be a Catholic, believe not, teach not, say not, that Infants, prevented with death before they are baptised can come to the pardon of their Original sins: l. 3. de origine animar. c. 9 And again, Whosoever shall say that little ones shall be quickened in Christ, who departed out of this life without partaking of this Sacrament; this man truly both contradicts the preaching of the Apostles, and condemns the whole Church: where they therefore haste, and run with little ones to be baptised, because they believe without doubt, that otherwise, they cannot be quickened at all in Christ. Epist. 28. ad Hieron. The first Nicen- Council decreed, That whoever is baptised, descends guilty of sins, etc. and ascends free from his sins, made the son of God, and heir of his grace, coheir also of Christ, having put upon him Christ himself, as it is written, etc. l. 3. decret. de Sancto Baptismate. The second Milevitan Council defined, that, Whoever denies children newly born to be baptised, or says, etc. they contract nothing of original sin from Adam which may be cleansed with the laver of regeneration, etc. Anathema, c. 2 Age the 5. Objections Solved. Obj. Our Lord said to Abraham, I am thy God, and of thy seed, Gen. 17. 7. Therefore we are made the children of God by being born of believing parents. Ans. That promise concerns literally peculiar protection, and worldly felicity, not the remission of sins and everlasting life; neither can we be the sons of Abraham by carnal generation, or by our carnal parents, (we are not Jews but Gentiles) but only by spiritual generation (to wit, baptism) by which we are born to God, and made the brothers of Christ, the son of Abraham. Those (saith St. Paul) are the sons of Abraham, not who are the sons of the flesh, but of fa●th, Rom. 4. 12, 13 so that your consequence is ill deduced. Obj. The man an Infidel is sanctified by the faithful woman, and the woman an Infidel sanctified by the faithful husband: otherwise your children should be unclean, but now they are holy, I Cor. 7. 14. Ans. If this text could prove any thing to your purpose, it would also prove the Infidel wife and Infidel husband in that case might be sanctified and saved without either baptism or faith, as well as their children, which no man yet ever held; but let St. Augustine answer you, It is to be held without doubting, whatsoever that sanctification was, it was not of power to make Christians, and remit sins, unless they were made faithful by Ecclesiastical sanctification, and Sacraments. Neither can little ones (how just or holy so ever their parents were) be absolved from the guilt of Original sin, unless they shall be baptised in Christ etc. whence it comes that none can be regenerated in their parents, not being born; but if he shall be born, it is meet ●e be regenerated, because unless one be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God, l. 3. de peccat, merit. & remissi. c. 12. Obj. Christ himself was not baptised till thirty years of age. Ans. He was not conceived or born in Original sin as we are, and therefore needed it not at all; nor was there any danger of his death, as there is of ours; so that his privilege cannot be our precedent. Obj. The Scripture in many places says, they must be taught before they be baptised, Go ye teach all Nations, baptising them. Therefore Infants which cannot be taught, aught not to be baptised. Ans. Those who are at years of understanding, must be taught and instructed first I grant; Infants I deny: Yet they must also be baptised, as hath been proved. Obj. The place objected concerns all Nations. Ans. True; but not all particular persons, for the point of teaching, (Infants are excepted although it do for the command of baptising. Obj. If baptism were necessary for all to salvation, many thousand Infants would be damned without any sin, which is unjust. Ans. Without any actual sin, I grant; without Original, I deny; for In Adam all die, 1 Cor. 15. 22. And all are born the children of wrath, enough to justify their condemnation. Obj. You hold that some are saved without actual baptism. Ans. Yes, by the desire of it we do: but Infants are not capable of that; so that there is no means of saving them in case they die, but actual Baptism, or martyrdom for Christ. Obj. Without faith it is impossible to please God, Heb. 2. and consequently to be saved. But Infants cannot have faith, for how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? Ro. 10. Ans. They cannot have actual faith, I grant; neither is that requisite in them, though it be in the ripe of age; because as they died in Adam, and sinned only by another's will; so it is but just they should be repaired and quickened by another's faith, to wit, the Churches; it sufficeth to their justification, that the holy Ghost is given them, and his supernatural gifts be infused into them, by virtue of the Sacrament. Fathers for confirmation. In the Second Age St. Clement: All must make haste without delay to be regenerated to God, and at length to be consigned (confirmed) by a Bishop; that is to receive the sevenfold grace of the Holy Ghost, etc. because otherwise he that is baptised cannot be a perfect Christian; etc. which we have received from blessed Peter, and all the rest of the Apostles have taught, our Lord commanding: in epist. ad Julium. In the same Age, Dionysius: But the consummating, anointing of Ointment, gives also the coming of the Holy Ghost to them that are consecrated with the most sacred mystery of regeneration: Eccles. Hierach. c. 4. part. 3. In the Third Age Origen, (speaking of such as were already baptised) says, But the gift of the grace of the Spirit, is designed by the Image (or sign) of Oil. Homil. 8. in Leviti. prope finem. In the same▪ Age Cyprian: It is necessary that ●e be Anointed who hath been baptised, that Chrism being received, he may be the Anointed of God, and have Christ in him: Epist. ult. In the same Age Tertullian, The flesh is Annoinsed, that the soul may be consecrated, the flesh is overshadowed with the Imposition of ●ands, that the soul may be illuminated with the spirit: l. de resurrect. carnis. In the same Age, Clemens Alexandrinus: He that illuminated him with the Sacrament of Baptism, hath afterwards signed him with the seal of our Lord, as with the perfect and safe custody of his soul: apud Euseb. l. 3. c. 17. in Ruffino. 23. In the fourth Age St. Ambrose, The sacred seal follows, because it follows after the Font, that perfection may be made, when at the invocation of the Priest (a Bishop) the Holy Ghost is infused: l. 3. de Sacramentis, c. 2. In the fifth Age St. Augustine: In this Ointment Petillian will have the Sacrament of Chrism to be understood, which truly in the kind of visible seals is holy, as Baptism itself: l. 2. cont. litt. Petill. c. 104. The Eliberine Council decreed, If he shall survive, (to wit, after Baptism) let him bring him to the Bishop, that he may be perfected by the Imposition of hands: can. 38. Age the fourth, about the time of the first Nicen Council. The Council of Laodicea decreed, That those that have been baptised, must after Baptism retain the most Holy Chrism, and be made partakers of the Heavenly kingdom: c. 48. Objections Solved. Obj. Paul recalls us from the Elements of this world, Col. 2. 8. Answ. From naked elements which cannot justify (such as were the Sacraments of the old law) I grant; from sanctifying and quickening elements, such as these are, I deny. He sends us to these, as you have heard. Obj. Your form of Chrism, or Confirmation is not in the Scripture. Ans. Neither is the express form of Baptism there: it is in Apostolical Tradition, which sufficeth. Touching the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist▪ I take that also for granted by our Adversaries, and have already said enough above. Fathers for Penance. In the second Age Tertullian, God foreseeing the poison, (to wit of sin) the gate of pardon being fast, and the bolt of washing being shut, hath yet permitted something to lie open, and hath placed in the porch the second Penance, which may open to them that knock: l. de penitent. And again, Let him blot out what hath been committed by doing Penance, by weeping, by satisfying, etc. Homil. 6. in Exod. In the third Age St. Cyprian affirms, That private Confession, in which men confessed their sins and wicked thoughts (not only mortal, but venial) and had satisfaction imposed according to the offence, was usual in his time, and earnestly exhorts all thereunto: Sermone 5. de lapsis. In the fourth Age, St. Hierom: Let it be redeemed by the blood of our Saviour, either in the gift of Baptism, or Penance, which imitates the grace of Baptism. In the same Age St. chrysostom: They not only regenerate us (by Baptism) but afterwards have power to pardon us our sins: l. 3. de Sacerdot. In the same Age St. Ambrose: Why do ye Baptise, if sins cannot be remitted by a man? for in Baptism is the remission of all sins; nor is it material, whether Priests challenge to themselves this power by Penance, or by Baptism; for it is the same in both: l. de penitent. c. 7. In the fifth Age St. Augustin says, Some run unto the Church as king Baptism; others, Reconciliation; others also, the doing of Penance itself: all, the conferring and making of Sacraments; Epist. 108. And again, If murder be committed by a Catechumen, it is washed away by Baptism: if by one that is baptised, it needs Penance and Reconciliation, de adulter. conjug. l. 2. c. 16. The third Council of Carthage decreed, That the time of Penance should be appointed Penitents by the arbiterment of the Bishop according to the difference of their sins: can. 31. 1200. years ago. The Cabilon Council affirms, That their Confession being made, Penance be enjoined to the penitents by Priests, all Priests agreed: can. 8. above 1000 years since. Objections Solved. Obj. There is no Element in Penance; therefore no Sacrament. Ans. I deny the consequence: there is a visible sign, which is sufficient. Obj. Christ and St. John in all their preaching penance, make no mention of a Sacrament of Penance. Ans. True; it was not instituted till after the Resurrection. Jo. 20. Fathers for Extreme Unction. In the third Age Origen says, That Priests aught to do at all times what James prescribeth saying, Is any sick amongst you, & ●. Homil. 2. in Levit. In the fourth Age St. chrysostom asserts, The Obligation of Priests to keep the precepts of St. James: Is any man sick, etc. l. 3. de Sacerdot. In the fifth Age St. Augustine exhorts the sick to be mindful, and keep the said precept of the Apostle: Serm. 215. de tempore. The first Nicen Council mentions the Oil of the sick, and distinguishes it from Chrism, or Oil of Confirmation, and the Oil of Catechumen, c. 60. ex. Arab. The Second Cabilon Council decreed, That according to the documents of the blessed James the Apostle, to whom the decrees of the Fathers are consonant, the sick aught to be anointed by the Priest with Oil, blessed by a Bishop: therefore such a medicine is much to be regarded which heals the languors both of soul and body: can. 48. Objections solved. Obj. St. james speaks only of corporal diseases, and the miraculous gife of cures. Ans. He would not than have bid them call in Priests only, but such as had the gift of cures, which were not always Priests; nor was that only done by anointing, much less would he have added, And if he be in sins, his sins shall be forgiven him. Fathers for Holy Order. In the second Age Dionysius affirms, That by order grace is given to him that is ordained. 5. Eccles. Hierarch. de ritu Ordinan. In the third Age St. Cyprian, De Operibus Cardinalibus. In the fourth Age St. Ambrose, Man imposeth his hand, but God conferreth the grace: l. de digni●at. Sacerdot. c. 5. In the same Age St. Chrysostom, Priesthood is finished on earth, but aught to be referred into the number and order of celestial things: de Sacerd. In the fifth Age St. Augustine: Let them explicate how the Sacrament of the Baptised cannot be lost, and the Sacrament of one ordained can. 2 cont. Parmen. 13. and l. 3. de baptism. c. 1. In the same Age Theodoret teaches, That the grace of the Holy Ghost is given by Ordination: in 1 Tim. 5. The Council of Florence hath defined it to be a Sacrament, as you have seen above. Fathers for Matrimony. In the second Age Ireneus: Where, by all mean● they aught to meditate on the mystery (it is the Greek word for a Sacrament) of marriage, l. 1. In the third Age St. Cyril teaches▪ That Christ sanctified Wedlock, and gave grace to Marriages, 2 in Joan. 22. In the fourth Age, St. Ambrose, He signifies that there is a great Sacrament of mystery in the unity of man and woman. In c. 5. ad Ephes. v. 32. In the fifth Age, St. Augustine, They shall be two in one flesh; this is a great Sacrament: That which in Christ and the Church is a great Sacrament; this in all men and wives whatsoever is the lest Sacrament; but notwithstanding an inseparable Sacrament of conjunction. Tract. 9 in Joan. And again, In the Church not only the bond, but also the Sacrament of marriage is commended. l. de side & operib. c. 7. And in the third place, In the marriage of our women the sanctity of the Sacrament is more worth than the fruitfulness of the womb. l. de bono conjugii. c▪ 18. 24. The Council of Florence defines: There be seven Sacraments, Baptism, etc. and they all give grace to the worthy receivers, etc. Litera Vnionis in deoret. Eugen. It was subscribed both by the Greek and Latin Church. Objections solved. Obj. A Sacrament cannot be given to such as are absent; but Matrimony may: Therefore Matrimony is no Sacrament. Ans. I distinguish your mayor; a Sacrament cannot be given to such as are absent, if they be so absent, as not present by proxy, I grant▪ it; if they be present by proxy, though Physically absent, I deny it. I distinguish the minor after the same manner; and so deny the consequence. Object. Matrimony hath no determinate form. Ans. Yes, it hath; It is determined to words or signs expressing mutual and present consent, though not confined to any precise number of words or syllables. Obj. The material use of the bed, is too mean a thing to deserve a Sacrament. Answ. It is not, it makes them two in one flesh, and renders marriage indissoluble; nor is the education of their children in the service of God, the mutual fidelity, peace and comfort of the parties any mean thing. All which depend upon this Sacrament. The Conclusion. HOw can I better close this little Manuel, than with a short Apostrophe to our poor Country, by crying out unto her with the Prophet, O Captive daughter of Zion, lose the Bonds of thy own neck etc. Isa. 52. shake of the Fetters of the servitude; I mean the servitude of Schism and heresy▪ That Monster, Schism, which first, through the insatiable luxury of an effeminate tyrant, broke the bonds of unity and obedience in God's Church, and has since (according to its proper quality) hatched an innumerable brood of Sects and Heresies, which yet are daily engendering more, and continually wander up and down in strange unknown paths, and can never find repose or settlement, whilst they are out of God's holy Ark, the Catholic Church; which alone has stood constant and amidst all those changes and revolutions these late unhappy years have produced: which alone yields true comfort and assurance to those that rely on her Authority. Return than (my dear Country) to thy own true mother, and embrace the liberty of her saving Faith. This is the freedom I invite thee to: This is the happiness I wish thee: This is the way I have chalked thee out by the straight line of Apostolical Doctrines, a milky way, which leads souls to eternal beatitude. God of his mercy grant thou mayst walk in it, through Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, to whom be all honour and glory for ever. Amen. AN APPENDIX TO THE Article concerning the Pope's Supremacy. Pag. 90. AFter I had finished this Treatise, a learned friend sent me a certain British testimony, taken out of Sir Hen. Spelman, de Concil. p. 1●8. and out of it an Argument framed against the Pope's power over the whole flock of Christ: and though it came not to my hands soon enough to be admitted to its proper place, yet I thought good rather to add it here, than not at all, jest as it has deluded some, it might seduce others, if not called to a just trial. Sir Henry says, he finds the Original Cambrian interlined with English in an old Manuscript of Peter Moston, a Cambrian Gentleman; copied so (if we may trust Sir Henry's conjecture) out of another of more antiquity: and, to fit it for other Nations, himself translates it into Latin, the English and Welsh remaining verbatim transcribed out of Mr. Mostons' pretended Copy; and so prints it in his ●ook. When, and by whom that Manuscript was composed, he professes himself ignorant: but sets down the testimony as the Abbot of Bangor's Answer to St. Augustin the Monk, when he demanded of the Britan's an acknowledgement of submission to the Roman Church: And affirms that this Abbot & first Author of the Cambrian lines was the learned and renowned Dinoth or Dionoth; one of those that, with the seven Britan Bishops, gave meeting to St. Augustine in the second Synod held at Worcester, as some will have it, in the year of Christ 601. the first meeting (of lesser and meaner persons) having been (as far as I can guess by History) not about Worcester, as Sir Henry puts it, but in the confines of the Vectians (the Isle of Wight) and Westsaxons. That all may better discern the vanity of this objection, I will here set down the Testimony, whence it's taken, word for word, and point for point, just as it lies printed in Sir Henry's book, in the original Cambrian (which is chief or only to be regarded) and as 'tis translated into English and Latin, thus▪ Bid ispis a diogeis i chooiyn, bod ni hall un ac aral, yn Be it known and without doubt unto you, that we all are, and every one of us Notum sit & absque dubitatione vobis, quod nos omnes sumus & quilibet nostrum uvidd ac ynn ostingedig i eglwys duw, ac it Paa●, oh Ku●ain, obedient and subjects to the Church of God, and to the Pope of Rome, obedientes & subditi Ecclesiae Dei, & Papae Romae, ac i boo● Kya● Grissdion dwyvol, y garu pawb yn i radd and to every godly Christian to love every one in his degree, & unicuique vero & pio Christiano ad amandum unumquemque in suo gradu mewn Kariad parfaich, ac i helpio pawb oh honaunt, are air a in perfect charity, and to help every one of them, by word and in perfecta charitate, & ad juvandum unumquemque eorum verbo & guecchred i ho● ynn blant y ●u●: ac amgenath ubyddod n●▪ hwn deed to be the children of God: and other obedience than this facto fore filios Dei: & aliam obedientiam quam istam nidadwen i vod, i● neb your yddeck ch●i y hemint yn Paa●, ne in I do not know due, to him whom you name to be Pope, nor to be the non scio debitam, ei quem vos nominatis esse Papam, nec esse Daad oh Daad: yw gleimio ac yw ownn, are uvidd●d ●iun idden father of fathers: to be claimed and to be demanded, and this obedience we are patrem patrum: vindicari & postulari, & istam obedientiam nos sumus ni y● varod yw rod ac yw dalu iddo efac i pob Krisdion ready to give and to pay to him and to every Christian parati dare & solvere ei & cuique Christiano yn dragwiddol. He●vid your ydym ni dan Lywodrath esco● continually. Besides we are under the government of the Bishop continuo. Praeterea nos sumus sub gubernation Episcopi Kaerllion a● wysc, your hien y stdd yn oligwr dan ●u●● arnom. of Kae●leon upon Uske, who is to oversee under God over Caerlegionis super Osca, qui est ad supervidendum sub Deo super ni▪ y ●●●●nthud i ni gadwe Fordd is brydol. us, to 'cause us to keep the way spiritual. Nobis, ad faciendum nos servare viam spiritualem. Though this Record be much insisted on by Sir Henry and others, more modern opposers of the Roman Church, Dr. Hammond in his Treatise of Schism, p. 112. and Dr. Bramhal, Bishop of Derry, as an argument lately found of great force, if not demonstrative against that power over the whole Church of Christ, which all Catholics acknowledge the Pope's right, by Christ's institution: yet how unapt it is for that purpose, how unworthily alleged by persons of any ordinary judgement or erudition; and how easily convicted to be a simple imposture, is clearly demonstrated by what follows. First, there is not the lest scrap of Antiquity so much as pretended to prove, that the Cambrian lines cited were the Abbot of Bangors answer to St. Augustine upon the occasion specified; nor that the renowned Dinoth was that Abbot; nor that the old Manuscript, whence Sir Henry extracts the Testimony, was copied out of any other more ancient: All these are but Sir Henry's bore conjectures, without any proof at all. And certainly, if his Manuscript be no elder than the interlined English, he hath grossly wronged himself and his Reader, by honouring it with the stile of ancient: For, as every one sees, the English is purely modern, & cannot be so old by many years as Henry the eighths cashiering the Pope's authority, and arrogating the supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters to himself; for maintenance whereof it is alleged, and was certainly forged. Secondly, the Welsh lines are so un-Cambrian for Orthography, so mixed with English words, and so just to the mode of the present English or other strangers, writing imperfectly, as they are apt to speak, when they are but young smatterers in that language, as every one but of indifferent skill therein can testify, that it cannot be in the lest degree credible, either Dinoth or any other Abbot of Bangor should be author of them. The imperfection I point at, ●s (among other instanc●s) apparent; First, in the ordinary use of V consonant instead of the Cambrian F, (though rightly used in one place) which is the ordinary error of the present English or other strangers, when without skill they begin to w●●te Welsh after the spelling of their own language: The like error is committed in writing v consonant for w, in the word guec-thred, and for b in the word varod. Secondly, by the use of the letter k as in Kiar Kariad▪ Kaerllion, Krisdion, and by terminating the word Yddeck by ck, all persons indifferently skilled in the language knowing that the letter k is not in the Cambrian Alphabet; the letter C bearing the sound of K before all vowels in Cambrian words; and that the termination of words in ck is an Anglicisme, not admitted in the British Language. Thirdly, by inconstancy in spelling the same word; as grissdion in one place and krisdion in another, and neither of them right; yn in one place, and ●nn, in others; hwn, in one place, hiun in another, and hien in a third, all for the same word hwn: idden, in one place, and ydim in another; boob, in one place, and pob in another; uvyddod for ufuddod: the word duw every where written for dhuw, which duw in those places is just as Englishmen or other strangers, not acquainted with the Euphonia's of the Cambrian, are want to writ according to their ungenuine pronunciation of the language. Fourthly, by the use of these two words, helpio and gleimio; which (though now often used by the Welsh, especially borderers, whose language is more mixed with the neighbour English, yet) are known to be no Cambrian, but words of the present use among the English: helpio (or more usually helpu) being but the English verb help, brought into a Cambrian termination; and gleimio, taken after the same manner from the English claym, as that formerly from the French clamer, and therefore most probably never known even among the English, till the laws and language of the Norman Conqueror came to be mingled with theirs. The Cambrian testimony being thus looked into, it cannot be more credibly thought, that Dinoth, or any ancient Abbot of Bangor was the author of it, than it can be imagined that one, renowned for learning, and celebrated for an ancient writer (as Dinoth was) or one of special note above others for erudition (such surely was the Abbot of Bangor) should (1050 years since, when the language was pure, and the Britan's commerce with the Saxons little, unless it were to war) in writing his native ancient language (which was the sole idiom of his Country) use modern English words; or characters, which not his own, but the English Alphabet admitted; or be inconstant or divers in writing the same word; or fall just into such errors of Orthography, as the English or other unskilful commonly do at this day, when they writ Cambrian: And whether this be not extremely incredible and unlikely, I appeal to all rational judgements. But though all these exceptions, observable only by the Britan's, should be winked at, and the testimony only considered in its English and Latin translation; yet is the Author thereof easily convicted to be an ignorant Impostor by his putting Bangor six or seven years after St. Augustine's coming into England, under the government of the Bishop of Caerleon upon uske. For, besides Bangors being very near to if not in the Diocese of lan Elwy (in antiquity Episcopus Eluiensis, as may be seen in Sir Henry Spelman, p. 106. speaking of his coming to meet St. Augustine at the second Synod, and now commonly called St. Asaph) all histories testify, that the Archiepiscopal seat was removed or translated from Caerlion upon uske, to Menevy, in King Arthur's time, by St. David; who (by Dr. Pits, de Illust. Britan. Script. de St. Davide) died about the year of Christ 544. which was fifty years before St. Augustine's first entrance into Britain: whereto Sir Henry himself assents, putting that translation betwixt 70 and 80 years before St. Augustine's coming. Was he not than an ignorant Impostor that put Bangor six or seven years after St. Augustine's coming, under the Bishop of Caerleon upon Vsk? Is it likely, or possible that Dinoth (or any other Abbot of Bangor at that time) should be ignorant of the aforesaid translation, or not know under what immediate Bishop or Metropolitan their famous Monastery was seated? Dinoth, I say, of all others, who is famous in the Catalogue of ancient Writers, (as for other Treatises, so particularly) for his defence of the jurisdiction of the Sea of Menevy. To say with Sir Henry, that the Archbishop of Menevy, even after the translation, retained the title of Caerleon, is not worth regard. First, because it is but his word, without proof. Secondly, because it implies a contradiction, to say, the Sea was translated, and the former title still retained; Translation importing, not a joint possession of two titles, but the taking a new, and a desertion of the old. To all my former exceptions against the Testimony, add, First, that there is no likelihood Dinoth, a writer of Latin books, or any other, that could either writ Latin himself, or get a Latin Secretary to help him, should return a Welsh answer to St. Augustine, who (as all know) was an Italian, not many years before come from Rome, and cannot reasonably be presumed either to have understood the Britan's native language, or to have made his demand to them otherwise than in Latin. Secondly, that both the English, nor to be father of fathers: to be claimed, etc. and the Latin, nec esse patrem patrum: vindicari, etc. are false translations of the Cambrian: the true being, whom you name Pope, or father of fathers, etc. quem vos nominatis Papam, vel patrem patrum, etc. Nor is the Cambrian rightly translated by Sir Henry's passive vindicari; or Dr. Hammonds vendicari & postulari; but by the active vendicare & postulare, to claim and to demand. This legerdemain discovers the Reformers humour, to be still corrupting what falls into their hands to help out their cause against the Roman Church: and an ill cause it must be, that needs such shifts. Thirdly, that (however it goes with the Cambrian) there is no good sense either in the English, Nor to be the father of fathers, to be claimed, etc. or in Sir Henry's Latin, nec esse patrem patrum: vindicari, etc. as every Reader may see. And this Dr. Hammond, if affected to sincerity, should rather have acknowledged, than use so much paraphrastical liberty and addition of his own, to make a falls translation and senseless words speak his mind against the Pope. Fourthly, that the Testimony makes as much against the aim of the Protestant Prelatic Reformers, I mean the late King's supremacy, which Dr. Hammond and others (to keep of the guilt of schism from themselves) labour to support, as against the Popes: for those words, who is to oversee under God over us, make the Bishop of Caerleon next to God over Bangor, and exclude the King as well as the Pope. Fifthly, if Sir Henry and those others that borrow out of him had been willing to see the truth themselves, and communicate it faithfully to others; they would not have made reflections upon that upstart Testimony, which appeared not till within these fifteen years, and than only brought in by head and shoulders, to witness against the Pope's supremacy a hundred years after it was taken from him, by their forefathers who produce it: but upon that true antiquity, which, having endured the shock of almost a thousand years, Sir Henry hath delivered a little before, pag. 105. transcribed out of Venerable Bedes History of the Church of England, l. 2. c. 2. wherein every one may read, that when St. Augustine, in his dispute with the Britan's, at the first meeting, demanded their conformity to the Church of Rome in the celebration of. Easter and Baptism, and that they would join with him in preaching the Gospel to the Heathen Saxons, and could not otherwise incline them to it, he offered to try by miracle, whether he or they were in the right; whether he did well in demanding, or they ill in refusing: which, the Britan's failing, he effectually performed, miraculously giving sight to a blind man: And when, in the second meeting he found them still refractory to his proposals, he prophetically foretold God's revenge, which soon after fell upon them. That miracle and divine vengeance more than sufficiently prove, that St. Augustine, sent by the Pope, came in the Name of God, from a lawful authority; and that his demands of conformity to the Church of Rome in the points specified, were good, and to be yielded to by the Britan's. Miracles, the proper works of the Almighty, and proper seals of his Missives, being never wrought to confirm unlawful missions or false Doctrines. And were there no other exception against the Cambrian pretended Testimony, but that Miracle; it clearly evidences, that when, and by whomsoever it was first written, the Author was either very ignorant, or in a worse error, and that there was more obedience due to the Pope from those of Bangor and all other Christians, than acknowledged by it. I wish the present refractory opposers of the Roman Church, and her Missionaries, sent by the same Authority, to preach the same doctrine with St. Augustine, would reflect without prejudice on that miracle, and prediction of divine revenge: they are a seasonable theme for the present Pulpit. FINIS.