Objections against the Churches continued Suc­cession solved.

Ob. ELias complained that he was left alone, 3 King. 19. therefore the Church then failed.

Answ. He spake figuratively, for God himselfe told him in the same chap. v. 18. that he had 7000. at that time in Israel (where he was) who had [Page 41] not bow'd their knees to Baal: and in the King­dome of Juda there was then publique profession of the true Religion in Hierusalem. Paralip. 22. 14. 15. so that consequence is false.

Ob. The Arian Heresie infected the whole world. Ergo, &c.

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 W [...]stern feeling little or nothing by it. S. Augustine answers the Dona­tists objecting the same, That even the Canonical Scriptures have this custome, that the word seem [...] to be address'd to all, when it reaches home only to some few. Epist. 48.

Ob. S. Hier [...]me sayes, The whole world groan'd and wondred to se [...] it self become Arian (in his book a­gainst Luciferius.)

Answ. If she wondred, she knew not when it was done; if she groaned, she approved it not be­ing done; therefore the major part were still Ca­tholique. Let S. Hierome answer for himself. The Bishops (saith he against Luciferius) that did the fact at Ariminum were d [...]luded, (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 then appeared in her most constant members, Athanasius and others. Epist. 48.

Ob. The Church will fail in the time of Anti­christ, [Page 42] christ, according to that, unless there come a re­volt first, &c. 2 Thes. 23.

Answ. No, she will not; she shall then 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 then? you hold [...]ee▪ will I hope?

Answ. With S. Augustine to the Donatists, as if the Holy Ghost were ignorant what would be the Free-will of men, which yet foreseeing, he fore­told, That the Church of Christ should endure for ever. De Ʋ [...]it. Eccles. ca. 12.

Objections solved.

Ob. IN all the ages before Luther, Protestants had a Church, though it were invisible.

Answ. This is a meer Midsummer-nights dream, [Page 51] that a Church (which is a Congregation of visible men preaching, baptizing, 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 Apostatiz'd 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 erre in faith, as shall be proved hereafter.

Ob. The Catholique Succession was our Succes­sion for the first five centuries.

Answ. You may as well tell me of a white Blackmoore; a Catholique is not a Protestant, nor a Catholique Succession a Protestant Succession. Who ever heard of a Protestant Pope? the Catho­lique Church was alwayes govern'd by a Pope in the first five centuries, as now it is, and hath defined our Tenets, and condemn'd yours, as you have seen. It is the very essence of a Protestant (as a Protestant) to protest against the Catholike Church, as Lutherans and you have done.

Ob. We protest only against her errours.

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 [Page 52] 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, then Cletus, and then Cle­ment, which is now the more common opinion of the Church.

Objections solved.

Ob. THe Roman Catholique Church is a particu­lar Church, therefore it is not Catholique 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 call'd 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 call'd a General, by reason of his power over all the Army.

Ob. You communicate not with us, and many [Page 63] others; therefore your communion is not Catho­lique 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, no, A man that is an Heretique, after the first and second admo­nition avoid, Titus 3. 10, 11.

Objections from Scripture and Reason solved.

Ob. ALl the Israelites adored the golden calf, therefore the whole church err'd.

Answ. Moses and the Levites did not, who were many thousands, Exod. 32. Numb. 3. 39. [Page 71] therefore both those Propositions are false.

Ob. The Jews council err'd in condemning Christ.

Answ. No wonder it was not perfectly oe­cumenical, for Christ himself was then Head of the church on earth, and the highest authority was in him, not in the Jews council; and if the Jews church could erre, it doth not follow that the church of Christ can; for it was built (as S. Paul sayes) on better promises.

Ob. S. Peter err'd in faith, when S. Paul con­tradicted him to the face.

Answ. No, it was only in a matter of fact or conversation, according to Tertullian, l. prae­scrip. c. 23. by withdrawing himself, and refu­sing to eat vvith 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 lyar.

Answ. In his own particular be it so, yet the Holy Ghost can and will teach the church all [Page 72] truth, he is no friend to truth that contradicts it: and albeit man of himself may erre, yet by the Holy Ghost he may be guided so, that he erre 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 churches authority and Apostolical tradition, that is the touchstone, not the dead letter, humane reason, or the pri­vate Spirit.

Ob. The church may erre, at least in point [...] which are not fundamental.

Answ. All that God hath revealed is funda­mental, at least for the formal motive of belief, to wit, the divine authority revealing (though not alwayes for the matter) and if it be once sufficiently propos'd to us by the church, as so revealed, we are then bound to believe it; so that their distinction of fundamentals and not fundamentals, is idle: Besides, if the church be infallible in fundamentals, then Protestants are Schismatiques at least, 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 explicitely 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 Judg 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 alter'd and corrupted.

Answ. That cannot be, for from S. Gregory the Greats time to this day, even the least 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 happen to any one par­ticular man or church, may happen to all: But it may happen to any one particular man or church to erre in faith, therefore to all.

Answ. I distinguish the first Proposition, that which may happen to one, may happen 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 happen to any one egg in the Parish, may happen to all; but [Page 74] it may happen to any one egg in the Parish to go into your mouth at once, therefore it may happen 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 sted­fastly 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 render 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 humane 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 Judg of contro­versies, therfore every mans private reason must be Judg 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 chiefe 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 our selves, for it is the gift of God, Ephes. 2. 8. We are not sufficient to think any good thing our selves, as of our selves, but our sufficiency is from God, 2 Cor. 3. 5. We must captivate 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 mans 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▪ then to captivate and even renounce private reason, where God the Author of reason com­mands it.

Thirdly, because if every mans private rea­son is to judg for himself in matters of Religi­on, then all the Heresies that ever yet▪ were in the world, were good and sound doctrines; for there was never any Sect of Heretiques, who did not pretend both to reason and Scripture for their Tenets (how damnable soever) and some of them, such as were unanswerable by humane reason, setting aside the churches 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 hu­mane in Christ, which notwithstanding are high fundamentals in Christianity. In all these, and many others, private reason must either bend the knee, and be captivate to faith, or be­come Atheism.

Finally, because if private reason were the only Judg 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 [Page 77] submit to their Decrees) were the most tyran­nical and unjust Assemblies that ever were, in usurping such a power over mens 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 church­government.

Ob. You therefore believe the church to be infallible, and whatever else you believe, be­cause you judg it reasonable to believe it, and your very act of faith it self is an act of rea­son; therefore reason is the only Judg of con­troversies.

Answ. The discourse and approbation of reason is alwayes 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 in­forc'd to captivate) but into the authority of God revealing▪ and the church proposing. I believe it (saith Tertullian) because it is impossi­ble (viz. to humane reason.)

Ob. There is no Apostolical Tradition for the churches Infallibility.

Answ. Yes, a more universal one, then for the very Canon of Scripture it self: (which notwithstanding you believe on that score, if [Page 78] at all) For there is not any one book, either of the Old or New Testament, which hath not been rejected by some Heretique 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 churches infallibility, which is vertually 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 Soveraign honor to Images, as you may see in the preface of the Caroline books.

Answ. The second council of Nice allowes no such honor to images, but only a salutation or honorary worship, not true Latria (or Sove­raign [Page 79] honor) 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 oecumenical decree or defini­tion, and if it were, it would be answer'd, 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, no more then to say, one part of any thing is bigger then a­nother, and the whole bigger then both; so that from hence it cannot be inferr'd, that ei­ther Council err'd; 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 er [...]'d, 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 comprized with the Prophet Hieremy, whose Secretary he was, and this 1200. years ago.

Ob. The Fathers err'd 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 write, and not to erre in any thing.

Answ. Neither do we, we esteeme not the writers of Councils infallible in all they write, nor yet the Councils themselves, but on­ly in the oecumenical decrees, or definitions of Faith.

Ob. S. Augustine Epist. 112. sayes, 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 vaine ran about to seek councils, since the Scripture is more powerful then all councils.

Answ. He sayes it was vain for them, who had rejected the general council of Nice, nor doubt we but the Scripture hath in many re­spects a preheminence 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 Catholique Church is in­riched with so great priviledg by Christ our Savi­our, &c. that we firmly believe she cannot erre in those things which are necessary to salvation, Anno Dom. 1431. respons. Synod. de authoritate Consilii Generalis.

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 Chri­stendome.

Ob. Signs and miracles were given to unbe­lievers, not to believers, therefore they are now unnecessary.

Answ. No, they are not, for they very much confirm the immediate care and providence of God over his church, they excellently demon­strate [Page 89] his omnipotence, and there be many dis­believers still, the more's the pity.

Ob. Why do not then 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 Gods appointed time and place, (as the Records of the church will testifie) though not to satisfie your sinful curiosity. See Francis à S. Clara in his Paralipomena, who recounts many great and evident miracles.

Objections solved.

Ob. YOu have made frustrate the Commande­ment of God for your Tradition, S. Mat. c. 15. v. 4. Beware lest 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, then by Scripture.

Answ. Then by Scripture expounded by the Church, and according to the rule of A­postolicall tradition, I grant: then by Scrip­ture according to the dead letter, or expoun­ded by the private spirit, I deny. For so (as Tertullian sayes) there is no good got by disputing out of the texts of Scripture, but either to make a man sick or mad. De praescript. 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 acknowledg 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 lawfull to add Tra­ditions.

Answ. It followes immediately, And if any [Page 114] one shall diminish from the words of this prophecie, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, vers. 19. By which S. Iohn evidently restrains that text to the book of his own Prophecies onely; which is not the whole rule of faith, and therefore by that you cannot exclude ei­ther the rest of the Scriptures or Apostolicall Traditions from that Rule.

Ob. We may have a certain knowledg of all things necessary to salvation, by the Bible, or written Word onely.

Answ. No▪ we cannot; for there have been, are and will be infinite disputes about that to the worlds end, as well what books are cano­nicall 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 Apostolicall 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 ought 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 it self.

Ob. Many other signes also did Iesus 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, [Page 115] S. John 20. 30, 31. Therefore S. Johns Gospel contains all things necessary to salvation.

Answ. I deny your consequence; for S. Iohn omitted many things of great moment, as our Lords Prayer, and his last Supper, which are both necessary to be believed. And though he say, These things are written that we may be­leive, and have life, he sayes 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 Gos­pells 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 vertue, S. Matth. 5. and S. Paul, salvation to every one that shall call on the name of our Lord, or confesse with his mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe that God hath raised him from the dead. Rom: 10. 4. 9, 10. yet more then 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 [Page 115] 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, &c. and the things that are to come he shall shew you, S. Iohn 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. Iohn c. 21. v. last. therefore your consequence is false, and that saying of S. Luke is to be limited.

Ob. At least the whole Bible contains all things necessary to salvation, either for beleife or practise 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 foure first Councels are not there; there is no­thing expresly prohibiting Poligamy or Re­baptization, nor expresly affirming three di­stinct Persons in one divine nature, or the Sons Consubstantiality to the Father, or the [Page 117] 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, &c. all which notwithstanding are necessary to be known for the whole Church, and to be believed by us in particular (as Pro­testants will acknowledg) if they be once suf­ficiently propos'd to us by the Church. Nor is it sufficient, we believe all the Bible, unlesse we also believe it in the true sense, and be able to confute all Heresie [...] out of it, (I speak of the whole Church) which she can never do, with­out the Rule of Apostolicall Tradition, in any of the points forementioned.

Ob. Doubtlesse for speculative points of Christian doctrine, Books are a safer and more infallible way, or rule, [...]hen orall Tradition.

Answ. You are mistaken; Books are infinite­ly more liable to casualties, and corruptions, then 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 Copists, 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 [Page 118] not) or who can convince, that any one text of the Bible can have no other sense or mean­ing, then what is convenient for his purpose, insisting only on the dead Letter? all which dangers and difficulties are avoyded by relying on Apostolicall Tradition, which bindes 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 mee not foolish (saies S. Augustin) for using these termes; for I have so learned these things by Tradition, neither dare I deliver them to thee any other way, then 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 externall 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 signe of the Crosse used in the Sacraments, and set up in Churches. The death of Christ by the unbloudy sacrifice of the Masse, 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, &c. Now who can doubt, but that orall tradition thus secon­ded [Page 119] by the outward and uniform practice of the whole world, is a much safer and more in­fallible rule, for conserving revealed veritles, then 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 ge­nerall, or by himself in particular?

Answ. For the whole Church in generall, 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 onely is necessary to be believed, as is sufficiently propos'd to him by the Church, and her Ministers, for the Word of God, or would at least be so propos'd, 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 Churches infallibility by Apostolicall tradition, and tradition by the Scripture and the Churches infallibility.

Answ. No: We go on by a right rule to­wards [Page 120] heaven. We prove indeed the Churches infallibility, and the credibility of the Scrip­tures by Apostolicall tradition, but that is e­vident of it self, and admits no other proof. When we bring Scripture for either, we use it only as a secondary testimony, or argument ad hominem.

Objections solved.

Ob. WE separated only from the Church of Rome's errors.

Answ. Yes, from her Catholike and Aposto­licall Doctrines: She doth not erre in Faith, as hath been proved. I answer therfore 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, cont. Petil. Add, no nor with any Nation before Luther.

Ob. We refus'd only the Church of Rome's innovations and superstitions.

Answ. You slander. Her Discipline and Doctrines were the same then, 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 then brought forth the Donatists? (or the Protestants?) If she did not, what madness moved you to separate your selves 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 judgment) is damnable, and the sacriledge 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 Catholique, 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 Catholique Church (and such the Church of Rome then was in her particular) he consequently separates from the whole, and is an heretike, or schisma­tike.

Objections from Scripture solved.

Ob. The pronoune 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 it selfe only substance, without determina­ting either bread or body till it be determined by the words following, to signifie 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 signifie, paper, ink, a good hand; and not till now, where­fore your consequence is also false, Christ did not say, this bread is my bodie, but, this (that is the substance contain'd under these accidents) is my bodie, which is true in the literal and pro­per sense of the words.

Ob. If the word hoc, or this, do not signifie, and demonstrate bread, the proposition is iden­ticall, and nugatory, and signifies no more, then my body is my body, ergo.

Answ. I deny your antecedent, there is an accidental difference betwixt the subject and [Page 154] the predicate in the manner of signifying, which sufficeth to a formal predication.

Ob. The pronoune demonstrative hoc, or this, must needs demonstrate somthing then 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 commandement, that you love one another, Ioan. 15. there, this, demonstrats a thing to come; So likewise in our case the demonstrative this, when all the words are uttered, demonstrates the bodie of Christ which is made by the words; if you will not credit me, believe Chamier a grand Sacra­mentarian, it is false (saies he) even in the pronoune or adverbe demonstrative, that a present thing is required, for that is not alwaies, l. 10. de Eucha­rist. c. 18.

Ob. Those words of S. Luke, 22. 20. This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, &c. 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 Christs true and natural bodie and blood; there is a figure in the word, chalice, not excluding but asserting the verity of our Saviours true, and natural blood; It is the thing containing for the thing contained, and ought to be ex­pounded [Page 155] by the words of S. Matthew, which are plaine, literal, and proper, according to that generally received rule; That hard and fi­gurative places of Scripture are to be expoun­ded by plain and easie 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 ant [...]cedent, but deny your consequence. It is sometimes called bread, because it was made of bread, and still retaines the outward forme of bread, though it be now the body of Christ. So Eve when she was now a woman is call'd 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. Aarons Rod eat up all the Magicians Rods, Exod. 7.

Ob. It is the spirit, that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, Jo. 6. Therefore Christ did [Page 156] 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 grosly 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 seing thou saiest, unlesse one shall eat my flesh and drink my blood he shall have no life in him, doth life profit nothing? &c. what is this then, it profits no­thing, but as they understood it, for they so under­stood flesh as it is borne in the carkasse, or sold in the shambles, not as it is quickned with the spirit. Thus he on this very place. And againe, They thought our Lord would cut certaine pieces of his body and give it them, and they said, this is a hard speech; but they themselves were hard, not the speech, &c. 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 d [...]clare the death of our Lord vntill he [Page 157] 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 it selfe, as in another. His body as unbloodily offer'd in the Sacrament, is a memory of it selfe as bloodily offer'd and dying on the Crosse.

Ob. His death was future and to come when he ordain'd the Sacrament at his last Supper. Therefore it could not then 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, consecrate ye bread and wine into my bodie and blood, as I have here done, in memory of my death; now 'tis cer­taine, he did not command his Apostles to consecrate then, nor did they ever do it till af­ter his death though he then ordain'd 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 [Page 158] no more of the fruit of the vine, S. Lu. 22. 18. re­late to the legal cup, and are set immediatly 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 celestiall fruit, and of a heavenly vine; Such as was to be drunk by them in the kingdom of his Father, there is no Vintners 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, otherwaies there would be no difference betwixt it and [Page 159] 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 onely a bare temporal death, but such as imply'd an exclusion from ever setting foot on the land of promise.

Ob. Christ affirmed bread to be his Body.

Answ. No; 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 &c. Therefore he gave bread.

Answ. I distinguish your major: What he took, he gave; unchanged, or in the same manner he took it I denie: 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 fallacie lies.

Ob. The Sacrament is as plainly affirm'd to be bread, and that three severall times in one [Page 160] Epistle, 1 Cor. 10, 11. as 'tis affirm'd to be the Bo­dy of Christ in the three Gospells. Therefore the balance is equall in respect of Scripture. Ergo.

Answ. You will play at small game, rather then not be fencing against the truth; if this were so as you pretend, then nothing at all could ever be proved touching this point, ac­cording to your grounds, who will admit no other Judge or Rule then Scripture only; and so the mystery were quite destroid, 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 Judgment to himself, not discerning the body of our Lord. v. 28. 29.

Naturall and common bread is not a parti­cipation of the body of Christ, it requires no such examin of our selves 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 promis'd in the sixt of S. John. That bread which Paul tells you Christ took [Page 161] 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 equall; 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 saies, 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 proofe 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 signe, not in the substance, and this sufficeth to represent and signifie 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 saies, as the Fathers did eat Christs body, so do we under a divers Sacrament, tract. 26. In Johan. But they only eat and drunk [Page 162] a figure of his Body and Blood, not the very thing it self. Therfore we eat & drink no more.

Answ. The Apostle speaks there only of the Jews, and saies, they compar'd 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 spirituall meat, or drunk the same sprituall 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 humane 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. Augustines words, I Answer, they infer but a similitude, not an identity betwixt the Fathers and our eatnig Christs body: They eat it in effect, by eating the figure only, we eat it in the verity of the thing it selfe, by eat­ing both the figure, and the thing figured; wherefore, granting your minor, I deny your consequence. Besides S. Austin expresly names divers Sacraments, though both seem bread, so [Page 163] that his meaning concludes somewhat more then 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 Spirituall manner of being, and is not subject to any intrinsecal 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, no more then did the old Heathens blasphemous suppositions of his being eaten by a Beare, or some other wild beast▪ by which they sought▪ to infirme the verity of [...]is Incarnation; as you do of his real presence: but all in vaine.

Ob. Ʋnless [...] I g [...]e hence the Comforter shall not come unto you, S. Jo. 16. 7. The poore you have alwaies with you, but me you have not alwaies▪ 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 alwaies 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 doore, I am the vine, my Father is the husbandman, I am the way; Sara and Agar are the two testaments &c. 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 affirme 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 ought 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 signifie a vine, or a doore, &c. but I truly am the vine of life, doore of heaven &c. and the last of all is purely an interpretation of an Allegory.

Objections out of Fathers solved.

Ob. TErtullian saies 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 receiv'd 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 lesse doth he deny it, to be Christs true flesh.

Ob. S. Athanasins saies, 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 Christs 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 faithfull.

Ob. Origen saies, if we understand those words, unlesse 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 [Page 166] eaten hath in the Sacrament, it kills, true; for that is spirituall, and sacramental. If we un­derstand it literally, touching the verity and substance of the flesh eaten, I deny it kills; nor doth he affirme it. So it gives life, as hath been proved.

Ob. Origen in [...]. 5. Math▪ saies, 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 formes, 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, & therfore as they could naturally be corrupted & changed into our nourishment, whilst they were in the substance, so likwise they may now, & because the quantity hath by force of the miracle of consecration obtained the property of sub­stance, by being it selfe 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 [Page 167] chang'd, supply substance againe to them, by means whereof, the mutation, and nutrition, may be natural?

Ob. S. Augustine saies, the Sacrament is after a manner the body and blood of Christ, Epist. 23.

Answ. That is after a spiritual, and saera­mental manner, (yet reall and substantiall) not after a visible, corporeal, or carnal manner. So he saies, that place, (unlesse 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 oft been told. And for the verity of the thing done, S. Augustine is clearly on our side. We receive (saies he) with faithfull 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 mans flesh then to kill, and to drink mans blood (viz. in a visible and carnal manner) then to shed it, l. 2. cont. adversar. leg. &. Prophet. c. 9 and it is to be observ'd, that S. Aug. in explicating this Sacrament often applies his speech to the Church, the mistical body of Christ.

Ob. S. Augustine brings in Christ himselfe saying, That which I have spoken, understand ye spiritually, you shall not eat this body which you see, [Page 168] 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 saies, he that disagrees from Christ (viz. by sin) neither eats his flesh, nor drinks his blood, though to his own damnation be dayly 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 signe or figure is wont somtimes in Scripture to be called by the name of the thing signified or figured. There­fore [Page 169] though the Sacrament be call'd the body of Christ, it is not really his body, but a signe or figure only of it.

Answ. I admit your antecedent, and in this they say no more, then 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 signe, type, figure, or symbol.

Answ. True, so do we, but they in no place call it a signe, 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 call'd and confess'd the bread and wine to be his body and blood.

Answ. They speak of his practick 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 councel at Constantinople celebra­ted in Trullo it was decreed, that in the holy mi­steries nothing should be offered, but the body of Christ as our Lord himselfe delivered, bread and wine mingled with water.

Answ. This Canon is expresly against you, for it defines, 1. That the oblation in the sacred [Page 170] misteries, is and ought to be nothing else, but the body of Christ, as our Lord himselfe 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 acknow­ledg, not wine only without water, as the Ar­menian Heretiques, (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 Catholique 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 somthing more would be offered then the body of Christ, contrary to our Saviours 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 then 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 [Page 171] of God, and in a spiritual or sacra­mental manner, I deny it, for this is not to be in place properly or by it selfe, but improper­ly and by reason of another thing, viz. the quantity and accidents of bread under which it is.

Ob. If Christs body could be in many places at once, it would be divided from it felfe, which implies a contradiction, ergo.

Answ. I distinguish your antecedent, by an intrinsecal 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 extrinsecal and accidental division of the places, in which it is from one another, I grant it; nor is this any contradiction, more then for one place not to be another.

Ob. If Christs 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 it self, which are gross contradictions.

Answ. It would follow, it might be moved with all those contrary motions at the same time, by it self, properly, and according to the same thing, I deny your antecedent. By acci­dent, improperly, and according to divers quantities or outward formes of bread in which it is, I grant it; nor is this any contra­diction. [Page 172] 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 it self, 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 it self, 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, then the generality of the whole world▪ Philosophers, as wel Heathen as Christian) neither is the place of the right hand, the place of the left, no more then 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 then 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: ther­fore it cannot now be made by the Priest.

Answ. It was made a natural Body, and present in the B. Virgins 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 Masse. Therefore in this sense I denie 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 Christs 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 Philosophie 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 then that which is only infinite in Potentiality, would be infinite in Act▪ which is a contradiction.

Ob. Christs Body in the Sacrament may be every where, according to you, which is one of Gods properties: Therfore it may be God.

Answ. Your antecedent is false; it can be no where, but only in the place of consecrated Bread: And there will alwayes be somthing else in the world besides that, I warrant you. But to favour your argument all that may be, let us press on the supposition grosly as you do, and I suppose for once, that God will an­nihilate all other things, and fil the whole cor­poreal space of the Universe with nothing else but consecrated Hosts, were this enough to make it have Gods property, and to be every where as He is every where? No, nothing less: For it would stil be limited and finite, and shut up under the accidents of bread; whereas it is Gods property to be every where, not as con­tained, but containing all things, after an infi­nite, and unlimited manner. Nor is your con­sequence less 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, &c.

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, &c.

Answ. I deny first your major, for though to be at London, and not at London, is a cleer con­tradiction, yet to be at London and York at the same time, is as cleerly 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 it self, that is, by the intrinsecall 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 extrin­secal 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 intrinsecal entity [Page 176] or nature. Therefore according to the same thing.

Answ. I deny your whole argument, sub­stance or a spirit is not determined to place, of it self, or by its own entity, but by reason of some accident. It is the common opinion a­mongst wise men (sayes Boetius) that incorporeal things be not in place. l. an. omne quod est bo­num sit? The soul is only in place by accident (sayes 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. Christs 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 therfore will not be altered or discredited upon your whimsical & heretical fancie. When Aristotles Philosophie will serve your turn, you triumph in it, but when it contradicts you, then you sleight it, and set your self 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 lowd, and furiously, against the real presence, and Transubstantiation.

Ob. Your real presence is a very idol, for it [Page 177] makes Christ have eyes and not see, ears and not hear, &c. 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,) no more then they were taken away by his sleeping in this life, or being in his mothers wombe. And this kind of explication you must know is but an opinion among some Divines; others, in my judgment, upon better grounds, affirm Christs hearing and seeing to bee in the Sacrament as truly as his body, though both alike imperceptible to our senses; nor does this hinder, but that he alwaies 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 vertual contact, I deny both your antecedent, and cons [...]quence, for as to the un­worthy [Page 178] 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, then this of his real and substantial presence alwaies 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 Christs 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 en­creases charity by the help of our senses.

Ob. You pray in the Mass that giving thanks for the Sacrament receiv'd, 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 then he.

Answ. I grant your antecedent, but deny your consequence, because though nothing can be greater then he, and the same Christ be received both in heaven and in the Sacrament, the manner of receiving him shall be fuller [Page 179] and more perfect there, then here; here we re­ceive him veil'd or clouded under the accidents of bread and wine; There in the clear and beatifique vision of his divine and humane na­ture, which is the fulness of the heavenly Sacra­ment.

Ob. Christ hath no where commanded the Sacrament to be adored, therefore if his body were really there, yet ought 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 humane 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 formes 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, then 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; witnesse the woman whom he cured of the bloudy flux, for only touching his garments hem.

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 your selves to great danger of idolatry by adoring it.

Answ. I deny your antecedent, we have a morall certainty of it by the outward action of the Priest applying the true matter to the true form, and then elevating, and adoring the Host himself, to signifie 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 [Page 181] the foresaid outward actions, sufficeth to the validity of the consecration, whatever the speculative or inward intention of the Priest may be: therfore your consequence is not va­lid. And if in any possible supposition, the Priest should not consecrate, 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 sate when they commu­nicated, therfore 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 walk [...]d here in that flesh, and hath given us the same to be eaten to salvation; and no man eateth that flesh (viz: worthily)) unlesse 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.

Objections out of Scripture solved.

Ob. VVHat Christ promised in the sixt of S. John, is bread and flesh too. The bread which I will give is my flesh. There­fore [Page 187] the Sacrament is bread and flesh too; ther­fore 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 chang'd into the substance of Christs 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 [Page 188] body, it were an identical and not a formal pre­dication, and would signifie 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 contain'd 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 Christs 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 somthing frangible in the Sacrament, to signifie 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 ought 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 Councel, assisted by the Holy Ghost, may safely enquire into and define those things, which private men and Doctors ought rather to believe, without enquiring. Had not the inquisitive and overcurious why's and how's of Sectaries inforc'd her to it, by obtru­ding their false glosses on the words of conse­cration, 'tis more then probable to me, the Church had never defined so far in it as now she hath.

Ob. Tertullian sayes, God in the Gospel called bread his body, that hence we might understand, he gave to bread the figure of his body, whose body an­tiently the Prophet figured by bread. Lib. 3. cont. Marcion.

Answ. The sense of Tertullian is plain: His question against Marcion was, whether Christs 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 Christs body, therefore Christs body is true. Now this Father (as it is confessed by all) having a [Page 190] cross manner of expression, delivers himself in the words alledg'd, 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 then 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 spake, and by which he figur'd 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 then the Prophet, and not fulfilled the figure of the Prophesie, but repeated it. But Tertullian will have us understand, that by these words of our Saviour, the nature of bread, which the Prophet spake of, got truly to be the figure of Christs body, to wit, be­cause Christs body by these words became tru­ly alimental to us, and therfore with great propriety to be figur'd by bread, as the Pro­phet had done. Tertullians 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 [Page 191] by saying, This is my body; that is, a figure of my body, l. 4. cont. Marcion. c. 40. That Christ made bread his body, he plainly and positively affirms; how he made it his body, is no less plain, viz. by saying, this is my body; and that he made it likewise a figure, signe, 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 unusuall in him. He sayes in another place, Christ is dead, that is, the Annointed, for, Christ, that is, the Annointed, 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 bloudily offered on the cross; what does this place advantage you, or prejudice us?

Ob. Clemens Alexandrinus sayes, The bloud of Christ is twofold, the one is carnall by which we are redeemed from death, the other spirituall, by which we are annointed. Paed. l. 2. c. 2.

Answ. He calls the Bloud of Christ carnall, [Page 192] as it was shed on the cross, because it was there shed in a carnal manner; He calls it spiritual, as it annoints 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 bloud 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 bloud, the bloud 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 shewed again, saying to his Disciples▪ I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, untill I drink it new in my Fathers King­dome.

Answ. It was heavenly wine, proportiona­ble to the Vine it came from, as appears by those words, Ʋntill I drink it new in my Fathers kingdom: the fruit of no earthly vine is drunk there.

Ob. S. Cyprian sayes, Christ, at his last Supp [...]r with his Disciples, gave bread and wine with his own hands, but on the cross he gave the souldiers his body to be wounded. Tract. de Unct.

Answ. He calls the things signified (viz. his body and bloud) by the names of the signes: He expounds himself, saying, Christ did this, that in the Apostles the sincere truth, and true [Page 193] sincerity being more secretly imprinted, he might explain to the Gentiles how bread and wine should be his flesh and bloud (mark what it was that he called bread and wine) and by what reasons di­vers names and kinds (bread and wine, flesh and bloud) 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, then against us. We know the Fathers somtimes 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 meer trifling and of no strength against us.

Ob. S. Chrysostome sayes, 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. cont. 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 [Page 194] freed from the name of bread, and deemed worthy to be called our Lords 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 sayes, It is a wonderfull 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 no less then a wonderfull power. But it were no wonderful power if it should make the bread no other thing, then what nature and the Baker made it, but onely change it into a signe 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 [Page 195] 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 &c. 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 sayes, who deliver but their own private opinions, and those also with submis­sion to the Churches judgment. Tell us what is plainly said in Scripture, and so expounded by the Church, or what hath been delivered by Apostolicall tradition from age to age, or what the Fathers have plainly and unanimously taught, or what hath been defined in Councile perfectly oecumenicall. These, and nothing less are testimonies sufficient, to prove a contro­verted point to be of faith, or not.

Ob. Transubstantiation was not heard of til 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 expresly 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, expresly or implicitly, the Churches authority and expo­sition, or definition being added. Otherwise the mistery of the Trinity, the necessity of infants Baptisme, &c. would not be points of faith, they be not expresly and plainly in the Scrip­ture; nor be the words there at all, no more then transubstantiation, therefore your conse­quence is false.

Ob. It is imposible for one whole substance to be chang'd into another, ergo.

Answ. Naturally, or by a mere natural agent, whose activity is limited and alwaies presupposeth a subject to work upon, I grant it; By a supernatural agent, whose power is infinite, and unlimited, I deny it; Christ is al­waies 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 remaine as they do, [Page 197] 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 least, 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 metaphisically, inwardly or in order to it selfe, is essentiall 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 Gods omnipotence. It is most proper to quanti­ty (saith Aristotle) to be equall, 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 Christs 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 destroid, if it be not in some determinate place.

Answ. That Proposition is not universally true. Aristotle saies 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 Christs body in the Sacrament is alwaies 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 formes of bread and wine as ne­ver to be out of the place of the said dimensi­ons or outward formes.

Ob. nothing can be in two divers times at [Page 199] 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 Gods omni­potence. Therefore quantity which is natural­ly divisible in order to place, cannot be made indivisible in order to place even by Gods 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 it selfe. And he that could make the Sea a solid path to his own feet, S. Math. 14. enter to his disciples the doores being shut, S [...]o. 20. make a bush burne 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 your selfe, as I have shewed above; [Page 200] 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. No it could not. The soule of man is made one thing with his body, and yet the body cannot be call'd▪ the soule, nor the soule the body.

Ob. Man in Christ is called God, and God man. Therefore bread in the Sacrament may be call'd 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 call'd the thing contained; so we call a barr [...]l, sack, a purse, Gold &c. Therefore bread containing [Page 201] only the body of Christ, may be call'd the body of Christ, though it remaine unchanged.

Answ. Your antecedent is true in a figura­tive sense, because a barrel, and a purse are of their own nature made to containe, 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 formes of bread only by Christ at his last Supper) but to contain and be the nourish­ment of mans body.

Ob. S. Austine saies, 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 maintaine 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 Mani [...]hees, who held the body that was [...]rucified 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 deceiv'd in its proper object, and sense tels us 'tis bread after conse­cration, ergo.

Answ. Substance is not the proper and [Page 202] immediate object of sense, but colour, quan­tity &c. 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 vaile 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, &c. 1. Jo. 1.

Answ. You deceiptfully leave out the first, and principal part of his proofe, viz. That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, &c. v. 1. his chiefe probation of that mistery 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 [Page 203] therefore believed them, and declared them to us to be beleived. The other part of his proofe 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 knowledg of bodies, and sense must needs be the perpetual cause of deception in this mistery to all the world, which is absurd, ergo.

Answ. They are infallible about the pro­per objects of sense, if they be duly propos'd, 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 then that of sense, to regulate our assent by, in this matter; viz. the divine authority reveal­ing; he that will credit that, & captivate the uncertain notions of sense to the obedience of faith (as all good Christians ought to do) is n [...] in the least dainger of being deceived by sense in this mistery, 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 [Page 204] to be slaved for ever to the deception and fal­lacy of sense, may God deal better with you, then you deserve, which is my hearty prayer for you.

Ob. If the doctrine of Transubstantiation were true, and Christs 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 Laicks can consecrate, as well as Priests, because when they divide the host in their mouthes, they make Christ (who before was present only in one place) to be now pre­sent in many; riddle mee this riddle.

Answ. You please your self with your own mistakes. I deny the sequel of your argument, that action of the Laicks of it selfe and pro­perly speaking reaches only to the division of the signes, or accidents, not to the presence of Crists body to the signes, 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 signes 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 [Page 205] by the evidence of sense, when he said to his disciples: see my hands and feet, that it is I my selfe, 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 phantasme, 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 proofe then that of sense, viz. the autho­rity of the Prophets and Christ himselfe reveal­ing it. They will kill him, and on the third day he shall rise againe, S. Lu. 18. 33.

Ob. In the profession of faith prescrib'd to Berengarius by the Pope, it is said; That the Body of Christ is sensibly touched by the hands and chew'd 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, &c. 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 saies the relection of that Council) to be sensibly touch'd by the hands of Priests, and chew'd by the teeth of the faithful, not only in the Sacrament, but in verity, &c. all this we grant [Page 206] in a sound sense. His body is said to be sensibly chew'd by the teeth and touch'd 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 devided host; that is, his body is said to be sensibly touch'd by the hands, and chew'd by the teeth, not by it selfe or according to its own entity, but by acci­dent and by meanes of the signes 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 Christs body in the Sacrament or signes, not for hold­ing it to be there after a spiritual manner of being, this was ever most true and Catholique doctrine, therefore it cannot without absur­dity be imagined that the meaning of his pro­fession should be, that Christs Body is in the Sa­crament after a sensible, & corporeal manner.

You reply; His body is sensibly touch'd and chew'd not only in the Sacrament, but in verity.

Answ. We grant it; for by the words▪ In verity, is meant no more, then truly and without fiction. That which we sensibly touch & chew is not only a Sacrament or signe, 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 touch'd & chew'd in verity, that is, without fiction, not by it self, or according [Page 207] to its own entity, but by means of the Sacra­ment or signes, which are so touch'd and chewd, and under which it is in verity, that is truly and without fiction. I declare this by an example: Jonas was sensibly swallow'd by the Whale, both soul and body, and this in verity, that is truly and without fiction; yet he was not sensibly swallowd according to both, but according to his body only, & his soul is said to be sensibly swallow'd by means of the bo­dy, in which it was in verity & without fiction.

You reply, though Jonas his soul may be said to be sensibly swallow'd by means of his body in which it was, or by accident, yet it can no waies be said to be sensibly eaten or chew'd. Therefore though Christs body be in the Sacrament, yet it cannot be said to be sensibly chew'd or eaten in it, seeing the man­ner of its being is spiritual.

Answ. The disparity is, that Ionas was not chew'd or eaten either according to his soul or body; But Christs body is sensibly chew'd 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 fals imaginary suppositions: Or in exaggera­ting [Page 208] 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 beliefe 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) then to lay his whole weight of malice upon persons that live in­nocently by him, and who for their Reli­gion, have already burthens enough to satis­fie the uncharitablenesse 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 shew'd 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 finde protection for his people, or if it be his wil to have us sufferers for justice sake, we know he wil re­ward our sufferings with a most full and overflowing measure. His wil be done: Amen.

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 Layty, but the Apostles only▪ appears in S. Luke, who has exprest it thus; Take ye and d [...]vide it amongst you, S. Luke 22. 17.

Ob. Do this for a commemo [...]ation of me, S Luke c. 22. 1 Cor. 11.

Answ. By those words Christ made his A­postles Priests, and gave them power to con­secrate his Body & Bloud, as he had there done, which cannot appertain to the Laity; unlesse perhaps you would have them Priests also, and [Page 216] then we shall have Priests enough. Besides, S. Luke has those words after the consecrati­on of the bread immediatly, not after the con­secration of the Cup, & S. Paul has them abso­lutely after the consecration of the bread, but conditionally onely after the consecration of the cup, and with limitation Do this as oft as y [...] shall drink, in commemoration of me, both which circumstances rather evince a non-necessity of communion under both kinds, then 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 bloud of Christ, as actually divided on the cross; and therfore Priests have a command to receive it both kinds, but not the Laity, to whom it ap­pertains not to sacrifice.

Ob. Ʋnlesse ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his bloud, you shall have no life in you.

Answ. Such as deny the reall presence of Christs 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 [Page 217] 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, unlesse every one, &c. but un­lesse ye eat, &c. So when Christ said, Go ye teaching all nations, baptizing them, &c. he did not command every particular Apostle to teach and baptize 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 fore-skin, Gen. 17. 11. And let every one take a lamb &c. 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 circum [...]ise, 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 morall pr [...]cepts of Christ oblige all and each particular man of the same state or calling his sacramental precepts not so; but the whole mul [...]itude onely, 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 foure speciall texts it affirms one [Page 218] 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 injoyns both.

Answ. This probation, or trial of our selves is necessary for all sorts of men, and at all times, as often as they communicate, and therfore he extends his speech to all, as wel Priests as Laicks; That he knew it to be lawful for the Laity to receive under one kind onely (if holy Church should so command) is evi­dent by the precedent verse, in which he sayes, 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 bloud of our Lord, vers. 27. And after the consecrati­on of the bread he sayes absolutely, Do this for a commemoration of me: But after the conse­cration of the cup, he sayes, 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 bloud of Christ.

Answ. No; there is both body and bloud, [Page 219] whole Christ under either kind: his body and bloud cannot be now divided; for he is now immortal and impassible, 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 Manich [...]es (who held the cup to be unlawfull, and not the bloud 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 here­tikes as hold that whole Christ is not under ei­ther kind.

Ob. The cup is the Legacie of Christ to his Church, and therfore belongs to all.

Answ. No, 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 heires according to hope of ever­lasting life, Rom. 8. 17. Or if you will needs have the cup a Legacy, at least it was but a part of his Legacy, and appertains not to all by a­ny precept or necessity, but to those onely 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 bloud, 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 [Page 220] understood of drinking, I answer, it commands Priests, but not the Laity.

Ob. S. Austin sayes, All that will have life are exhorted to drink bloud, 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, & ought 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, therfore 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 it self. 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 meales. 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.

Objections solved.

Ob. WHen Christ said, This is my body which is given for you. This is my bloud which is shed, &c. He spake onely of what was given, and shed the day following on the Cross.

Answ. No; He spake of what he himself there gave and shed at his last Supper, com­manding his Apostles to do the same, Do y [...] this, &c. They were not commanded to give his body or shed his bloud 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 bloud, 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; [Page 230] neither was his bloud shed out of the cup on the cross, but only the night before, under the form of wine. This argument was used by S. Chrysostome, Theophylact, and Echumenius a­bove a thousand years ago, to prove the Mass a true unbloudy sacrifice, in 1 Cor. 10. 16.

Ob. The vulgar Latine 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. Christs body is not broken in the Eu­charist, nor his bloud shed.

Answ. Bloudily, 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 bloud, as under the form of wine, was shed and pow­red 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 bloud, S. Luke 22. This chalice is the new Testament in my bloud, &c. 1 Cor. 11. 25. Now a Testament [Page 231] cannot be made betwixt God and man, with­out shedding of bloud. Neither was the first (Testament) dedicated without bloud, Heb. 9. 18. And again, Without shedding of bloud there is no remission, vers. 22. Therfore at his last Supper Christ shed his bloud, at least in an unbloudy manner.

Ob. Christ entred once by his own bloud into the Holies, eternal redemption being found, Heb. 9. vers. 12.

Answ. True; he entred once, and but once, by his own bloud, bloudily shed, and to re­deem us, but often by his own bloud shed un­bloudily, and to apply the redemption to our soules. 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 a­postatize 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 bloudy, here unbloudy; And wheresoever S. Paul sayes, that Christ offered himself once, or but once, he apparently speaks of the bloudy offering, using the words [...], and [...], which signifie a bloudy sacrifice, and to sacrifice bloudily.

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 bloudy sacrifice was sufficient for all; therfore the unbloudy is superfluous.

Answ. I grant the antecedent▪ but deny the consequence. For though the bloudy 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 bloudy sacrifice; therefore not a sacrifice it self.

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 [Page 233] of the last Supper, which was to come. The same thing in one time or circumstance may commemorate and represent it self as in an­other.

Ob. You equalize the sacrifice of the Mass, to the sacrifice of the cross.

Answ. No, 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 onely a Priest, but a high Priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech; And therefore must have others under him, to the worlds 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 sayes the Priests offered for sins [...] (Heb. 5. 1. cap. 8. ver. 3. c. 9. v. 9.) that is, unbloudy and bloudy 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 bloudy, and therfore 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. Therfore 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 [Page 235] could not need to have been yearly repeated, or to be offered more then 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 prone to sin, so need we a daily sacrifice for sin.

S. Pauls principal intent in his Epistle to the Hebrews, was to shew 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 bloudy oblation for sins, or with yearly change of the Host, I grant: Now there is not an unbloudy oblation for sins, made alwayes with one and the same Host, I [Page 236] deny, and so doth S. Paul, saying in the person of Christ, This is my body which is broken (un­bloudily sacrificed) for you, &c. Do ye this for a commemoration of me, 1 Cor. 11.

Objections solved.

Ob. IF I come to you speaking with tongues [unknown] what shall it profit you? 1 Cor. 14. 6. And again, If then I know not the vertue 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 ayre? vers. 9.

Answ. S. Paul in those places speaks only against the publike use of strange tongues mi­raculously inspired, and not intelligible, but by the special gift of interpretation, not against tongues gotten by industry, and wel under­stood by the more learned sort of all Nations, such as Greek and Latine 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 publike Li­turgie is; that he allowes, at least in general termes, as you have heard. That this is S. Pauls scope and mind, appears partly by the very texts objected; for it followes in the first of them, What shall I profit you, unless I speak to you in revelation, or in knowledge, or in [Page 241] prophecy, or in doctrine, vers. 6. And a lit­tle before, For he that prophecieth 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 publike Liturgie, but exhortation; and if it did concern prayer, our answer would be, Our publike Liturgie 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 knowes not what thou saist, 1 Corinth. ch. 14. ver. 16.

Answ. He speaks there only against ex­temporarie prayer in an unknown tongue, and that not interpreted, not against set form of prayer in an unknown tongue (such as the publike Liturgie is) and that expoun­ded and approved by the Church; to this the Clark may boldly say Amen. Let him expli­cate his own meaning: He that speaketh with [Page 242] 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 publike Liturgie 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 alwayes in the knowne, 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 publike Li­turgie in an unknown tongue, please to note,

First, There is not any one text or word in all that chapter, concerning the publike Li­turgie, or set form of prayer, which is ad­dressed to God onely, but meerly 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 [Page 243] and such as will, may also have the Mast translated for them, and pray in the same words with the Priest, what then is here to be complained of? By keeping the Li­turgie 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 Litur­gie, when any differences arise about it, which otherwise it could not.

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 baptize. Go ye teaching all nations, baptizing them, &c. 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 Jewes 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 [Page 492] of himself, or by his own proper power, mans 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 least, as hath been pro­ved. Some have rejected baptism on the same score, but such as really intend 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 ought to confess their sins to God▪ and that confession to a Priest was not necessary.

Ob. You think then 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 [Page 250] to it, but as the Minister, and through the me­rits of Christ, and by commission received from him.

Ob. At least you believe, though your sins be never so great and enormous, if you do but onely 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 stedfast purpose of amend­ment and a desire to make all possible satisfa­ction (by doing such penance as shall in the Sa­crament be injoyned us) is requisi [...]e 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' [...] no 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 [...] aime at, are only Indulgen [...], which con­cern [Page 251] 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. Christs passion is sufficient for all.

Answ. True, but not efficient, unless appli­ed, and this is one effectual mean [...] of doing it.

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 signifie Hell and Purgatory (for ought you know) and then nothing against us, but if you will needs have it signifie Hell and Heaven, yet is not Purgato­ry excluded by that text; for it allowes of o­ther places, Or in what place soever it fall, &c.

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 onely, who have no Purgatory. Calvin ex­pounds, [Page 257] Who die in our Lord; for our Lords cause; but it is rather spoken of the day of judgment, when it is said from henceforth: and after that there shal be no Purgatory.

Ob. When he shal 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 shal cease.

Ob. Come O ye blessed▪ &c. and go ye accursed, &c. conclude all.

Answ. A [...] relating to the day of judgment, of which they are spoken I grant it; as rela­ting to the houre of death, I deny it; all do not presently either possess heaven, or enter hell.

Ob. S. Augustine sayes, Beware brethren, 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.

Obiections solved.

Ob. TThere is a sin to death, for that I say not that any man ask, 1. S. Iohn 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 perse­ver'd in till death, and for such a sin we are not taught to pray; so that I distinguish your con­sequence. Therfore we must not pray for the sins of the dead who die impenitent, I grant; who die penitent and confess'd, I deny; and so doth S. Iohn in the words immediately pre­ceding; He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin not to death, let him ask, and life shal be given him, sinning not to death.

Ob. Whatsoever thy hand is able to do, work it instantly; for neither work, nor reason, nor wis­dome, nor knowledge shall be in hell, Eccles. 9. 10.

Ansm. S. Hierome tells you that place is [Page 263] 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 evill 2 Cor. 5. 10. Therefore the pray­ers of the living cannot profit the soules of the dead.

Answ. Your consequence is false; for as S. Augustine sayes, The soules in Purgatory re­ceive more or less 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. Soules cannot merit in Purgatory: Therefore they cannot satisfie 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 satisfie, though compel'd to it by the Judg; and so do soules in Purgatory: Therefore our prayers are available for them, to free them from that compulsorie 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, [Page 264] S. Luke 23. 43. therfore 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 antient Fathers, which was then made a Paradise, or place of blessedness, by reason of the presence of Christs humane Soule, 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. No, nor the Scriptures, nor the A­postles Creed, farther then it pleases your phansie: The Scriptures teach: Thou (Christ) in the bloud 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 rose 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 dayes and three nights, S. Matth. 12. 40. That God did [Page 265] not leave his soul in hel, 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 dayes 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 Toletan 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, &c. This is the faith of the Catholike Church, &c. c. 1. an. Dom. 681.

Obiections solved.

Ob. THe merits and satisfactions of Christ (as you confess) are infinite: Ther­fore 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 somtimes 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 seldome so perfect as it might, and ought, or as the whole gravity of our sins requires; hence it was, that Christ gave his Church power to injoyn us penances, and to release them also, if we were heartily contri [...]e, and gave sufficient signes of our amendment.

Ob. If there were any such thing as Indul­gences, they would be rather hurtful then good, seeing they release men from good works, and penances injoyn'd for sin.

Answ. They are very good, and much con­ducing to true piety, because though they free men from some outward penal works, they alwayes 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 confess'd, 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 [Page 273] of his satisfactions to our soules.

Ob. You hold, that you can free soules out of Purgatory at pleasure by the Popes In­dulgences.

Answ. The Church holds no such Doctrine▪

Ob. I forgav [...] th [...] all the debt, because thou besoughtest me, oughtest not thou therfore 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 Martyrdome and very perfect contrition, we grant, all the debt, not only of sin and eternal, but of temporal punishment, is forgiven; but not alwayes.

That text of S. Matthew is a parable, and concernes onely 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 onely Bi­shops and Ecclesiastical persons; therfore this place is nothing against us.

Ob. You buy and sel Indulgences.

Answ. No, 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 injoyned 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 sayes, 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.

Obiections 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, &c. 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 Devill. 1 Joh. 3. 8.

Answ. S. John speakes 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. Therfore 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 commandements, 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 instified. 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; Davids adultery, Peters denial of his master, and Mag­d [...]lens incontinence were no venial sins, yet these were all predestinate Saints.

Ob▪ These sins were pardon'd 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 damne a man for vnial sin, if he so please.

Answ. Speaking of him, as absolute crea­tor and Lord of all things, I grant it, as a just J [...]dg, 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 humane imperfection, as for murther, 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.

Objections solved.

Ob. HOnor and glory be to God alone, 1 Tim▪ 1.

Answ. Supreme and soveraigne honor, true; Inferior honor, I deny it; and so doe▪ S. Paul, saying, Glory and honor, 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 fathers children shall adore the [...], Gen. 49. 8.

Ob. Come unto me all ye that labor, &c. 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, Brethren 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 Angells, Colos. [...]. 18.

Answ. It followes▪ Not holding the head (Christ) of whom the whole body is composed, v. 1 [...]. He writes there against a Sect of Here­tiques, who offered sacrifice to Angels, and neglecting Christ esteemed them immediate and principal mediatours, independent of Christ, all this we abhominate as grosse Idola­try, this h [...]resy 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 beli [...]ved? 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 mediatours 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 yee 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 ought not do it.

Answ. God spake that only in a particular case, forbidding them to imitate the sacrifices of the heathens, who sacrificed t [...]eir children to the devill; as is plaine by the words imme­diately preceding. Not that he forbad us to practise any devotion in the Church without an expr [...]ss command for it in Scripture, other­wise the invocation of the Trinity it selfe un­der that notion, with all publike Liturgy and set forme of prayer, as also the changing of the Saturday into Sunday, with many other things, must be laid aside; there being no ex­presse 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 know­ledg of approbation, and signifies, that Abra­ham and Israel did not approve or own them for their Children, by reason of their sinfull and wicked ways, not that they had no know­ledg at all of them; let S. Hierom expound this text; Abraham knowes us not &c. because we have off [...]nded thee, neither do they acknowledge for their children, whom they unsterstand not to be beloved of their God, &c. 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 forbad Cornelius to adore him, Acts 10.

Answ. S. Hierome sayes, He apprehended some divinity to be in Peter, and so did John in the Angel▪ when the Angel forbad him to adore him the first time, Apoc. 19. We do not honor 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 Devills are with us upon, or neere the earth, therefore, if they did see and know our actions, it would not follow that the Saints and Angells do.

Answ. Yes, it would, for spirits, which are not limited with matter, or confined to bodies, neither see, nor understand with cor­poral eys as we do but with their glorified un­derstandings, which are illuminated by the light of the Lamb: And therfore cannot be hin­dred in their operations, by any distance of place, or interposition of Bodies.

Ob. If the Saints and Angells knew God perfectly with all his Attributes and all our actions besides, there would be no difference assig [...]able betwixt their knowledg and Gods Omniscience.

Answ. Yes, infinite difference; because God knows not only all our actions, absolute­ly speaking, with all created nature (which is [Page 299] much more then hath been hitherto asserted of Saints and Angells) but also his own es­sence and perfections, with a most comprehen­sive, infinite, essentiall, and uncreated know­ledg, which Saints and Angells are not capable of, their knowledg (how great soever it may be) being always limited, finite, create, and a participation only of Gods knowledg.

Quere. If there be such eviction both of Scripture, and authority, for the worship and Invocation of Angells and Saints, as you af­firme, why should all Sectaries cry out so much against it?

Aansw. Because, having rob'd 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 bare, and praying to Angells and Saints, they should seeme 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 professe, without robbing God of his honour) why not rather to the Angells and Saints? but one absurdity being admitted, many will follow, and so it doth with them.

Obiections solved.

Ob. CHrist reproved the Jewes for adorn­ing the sepulchers of the Martyrs, S. Matth. 23.

Answ. No, he did not reprove them for that, but for not imitating [...]heir lives, whom they counterfeited to honour, and shewing themselves the children of thos [...] who had murthered them, as is manifest by the text.

Ob. Neither the soules nor bodies of the Saints are in their sepulchers, what therfore 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 Reliques 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 honor, and veneration, which we give them.

Ob. You rather dishonour, then 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 Christendome, as also to our be­nefit and growth in vertue.

Ob. The worship of reliques is a meere will worship.

Answ. No, 'tis a worship of divine inspi­ration, witness the texts of Scripture and the authority of the Church already shew'd you.

Ob. God himself commanded Moses his body to be hid from the Jewes, for fear [Page 306] they should adore it, Deut. last vers. 6.

Answ. For feare they should adore it with divine adoration, I grant; for the Jew [...] after the death of Moses were a people most pron [...] to idolatry; but not for fear they should venerate it with a relative honor; for God himself was pleased to honor it, as you have heard above.

Objections solved.

Ob. THou shalt not make to thy selfe any graven image, &c. Ex. 20.

Answ. You corrupt the Text; the Greek word is Idol, the Latine and Hebrew word is graven thing, &c. 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 Gods honor, 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 meere artificial re­semblances, and representations of heavenly things; and for their sakes whom they are made to represent; whereas Idolatry is not committed, unlesse the honour due to God only, (that is supreme, and soveraign ho­nour) be given to a creature.

Ob. Honour and glory to God alone.

Answ. Supreme and soveraigne honour▪ true; relative and inferior honor may be gi­ven to creatures; Honor, 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 spake to you in Horeb from the midst of the fire, l [...]st perhaps deceived you might make to your selves a graven similitude or image of male or female, Deut 4. 15.

Answ. That place onely forbids the ma­king idols, or vain images to our selves, and therefore it followes, Of those things which God hath forbidden thee, vers. 23. God never forbad 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 intend not to picture the nature of divinity, or essence of God, that we are taught is impossible, and unlawfull to at­tempt; we compare not any image to him, we know all descriptions of him are infinite­ly short of his perfection, we only meane to represent some apparitions of God, and those in such formes or shapes, as he himselfe hath pleased to appear in, or else represent some attribute o [...] his by some analogical similitude; as his un [...]peakable [...]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 appear'd to Daniel, Dan. 7.

Ob. Whereunto have you resembled me and made me equall, and compared mee? Isa. 46. 5.

Answ. This is also against Idols only (as is plaine 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 wilfull in your uncharitable mistakes; we do not, they adored their Idols as gods, and offer'd 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, &c. 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; no, we abhorre and renounce it.

Ob. Some of your Divines hold it lawful to worship the Cross with soveraigne honor.

Answ. By or for it self I deny; by acci­dent, and as it makes one thing, with Christ crucified, whom they conceive, as hanging [Page 320] on it, I grant some Divines hold; but this is a meer 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 soveraign ho­nor, nor otherwise, then the Books of the Gospel, Act. 7. and last, Can. 3. Urge not therefore what some particular Divines may say, but hearken to the doctrine of Gods Church, that we rely upon.

Ob. You call the Cross, O holy Cross, &c.

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 Hymnes, O Cross, our only hope, &c.

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 hearken O earth! Deut. 32. 1. In which ad­dress, by the words, heaven and earth, he spake 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 therfore leave in this to imitate her Teacher the Holy Ghost. And for the words, Our only hope, the Cross is no [Page 321] otherwise, our only hope, then it was S. Pauls only glory. God forbid, I should glory, but in the Crosse 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 Patriarks 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 antien [...] 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 wals in time of perse­cution, lest Infidels should prophane, 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 phantasticall image, and therefore they denied all honor 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 ought 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 Heretikes) 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 signe of it on their foreheads, and before their doors, as S. Cyril of Alexandria relates, l. 6. cont. [Page 323] Julian, which image of Julian was burnt with lightning from heaven. These were all arch­heretikes; let therfore all deluded people take notice who they were that hated the Cross and holy images.

Objections solved.

Ob. I Know, Lord, that mans way is not his own, neither is it in man to direct his own steps. Jerem. 10.

Answ. It is not his own alwaies in order to [Page 330] execution, I grant, for so it may be hindred divers waies; 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 saies who worketh all things according to the councel of his will, 1. Cor. 12. 11.

Answ. These places only prove Gods co­operation with us in all our actions, which doth not exclude nor destroy, but rather perfect the freedom of our wills; we ac­knowledg 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 mee, unless the Father that sent mee draw him. S. Jo. 6. 44.

Answ. Here the Maniches (saith S. Cryso­stome) rise up contending by the testimony of this text, that we can do nothing our selves; but this takes not away our free will but shewes it needs Gods help. In Joha [...]: Homil. 45. and on the same place, wherefore it is evident, that it is in our choice, whether wee 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, &c. 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 quickned by Christ, ibid [...]m.

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 compar'd to the immediate, and second causes.

Ob. God necessarily and infallibly fore­knows all things that will ever come to passe. Therefore whatsoever we do, we do by unavoidable necessity.

Answ. I deny your consequence, for God [Page 332] 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 infalibly 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.

Objections solved.

Obj. The Spirit himselfe giveth testimony to our spirit that we are the sonnes of God, Rom. 10.

Answ. It gives not testimony that we are the sonnes of God, by believing so only, or by assuring our selves that our sins are forgiven us; but by and through a faith in Iesus Christ, working by charity; and though his testimony be alwaies infallible in it selfe▪ yet it is alwaies doubtfull, 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 sonnes of God, who are indeed the sons of the divel, as Christ proved to the Jewes, St. Iohn 7.

Obj. Paul says, I am sure that neither life nor death, &c. shall separate us from the charity of God, &c. Rom. 8.

Answ. He doth not say, That this assu­rance justified him. No, 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 then I am confidently perswaded; nei­ther can we without presumptuous pride, pretend to such assurance in that be­halfe as holy Paul in likelihood might have.

Obj. Know you not your selves that Christ Jesus is in you, unless perhaps you be reprobates? 2 Cor. 13. 5.

Answ. He speaks only there of Christs 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 speciall power, providence, and miracles shewed to them.

Ob. A man is justified in Baptisme, and that without any works.

Answ. Without external works, or works pretending justice, I grant; those are not alwaies requisite to the first justice, without internal works, or at least 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 denyed [Page 341] the faith, according to St. Paul.

Answ. He hath denied it in his deeds, as many doe, but may notwithstanding have true, though not justifying faith; a man may have all faith (in St. Pauls supposition, 1 Cor. 13.) and no charity.

Obj. He that says he knows God, and doth not keep his Commandements, is a lyar.

Answ. If he say he knows him with friend­ly or informed faith, I grant it; and of such only St. Iohn there speaks. Hence it is, that your faith only, or faith of speciall mercy, will not suffice to justifie.

Obj. Every one that believeth that Iesus is Christ, is born of God, 1 Joan. 5. Therefore ju­stified.

Ans. He speaks of Faith formed with Cha­rity, and so I grant your consequence. Here is no exclusive particle; he says not, He that beleeveth only.

Ob. The Saints by Faith overcame kingdoms, Heb. 2.

Answ. Not by faith only, but by faith joynd with Hope and Charity.

Ob. We account 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 [Page 342] some boasted much, or works preceding faith, and done by the meere 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 grat. & [...]ber. arbit. c. 7. And in another place, Paul speaks of works that goe before faith (we doe not hold that those wil justifie. Iames speaks of works which follow faith, these doe justifie) l. 83. q. 76. in fine, & l. de fide & operib. c. 14.