for a sinfull Brother and truly this kinde of forgiuing and loosing is common alike to all such as deuoutly and charitably recite that petition of our Lord's prayer Forgiue us our trespasses as we forgiue the trespasses against vs as witnesseth S. Augus trac 58. vpon S. Iohn and doubtless by the mentioned word 's of the Apostle viêªt videlicet Ye ought rather to forgiue and comfort him and whome yee forgiue any thing c. is meant of this generall manner of forgiuing and loosing which is common alike to all the faithfull of the Church but to demonstrate that he himself laid claime to a higher and better kinde of forgiuing and loosing he professeth that he exercised his forgiueness and power of loosing in the person or room of Christ Wherby again appear's that the Apostle did not forgiue this adulterer the rest of the paine enioyned him in order to the rigour of Church-discipline only that is to the intent only that it should aduantage him in the ecclesiasticall Court but also in order to the diuine Court of Iustice that it might benefit him before God and this is so manifest a truth that no sectary can say the contrary without contradicting the Apostles own words viêªt videlicet I forgaue it in the person of Christ that is in the room of Christ and as his Minister to whom Christ had committed his power of loosing and binding vpon earth and indeed S. Paul should haue extreamly preiudiced the said miserable adulterer which were great impiety to think if his forgiuenesse should haue had no weight * S. Cypria Epis 14. agens de relaxatione poenarum impositarum peccatoribus ait illam fieri per intercessionem martyrum vel aliorum fidelium quorum satisfactionibus suffragijs adiuuantur in delictis apud Dominum id est in foro Dei with the diuine Court and been of no value before God for according to that supposall he should haue pardoned a pain of this life in respect wherof the adulterer should haue suffered a far greater in the next because the punishment a man endureth vpon earth is a thousand times lesser then the torment 's of Purgatory and therby S. Paul would haue brought his penitent Corinthian out of the frying pan into the fyer That is out of the prison of the ecclesiasticall Court into the prison of the diuine Court Conformably vnto this catholick doctrine Bishops in the primitiue Church enjoyned sinners penances to satisfye God and to compence the iniury done to him through their sin 's (k) According to Tertullian l. ad martyres and S. Cyprian Epis 10.11.12.13.14 sundry Christians that through frailty fell from the Church in tyme of grieuous persecution were wont to recur vnto the Martyrs and Confessours that their penances might be remitted vnto them and these ancient Fathers did not mean penances or pains enioynd and due only in the Churches Court but due also in the Court of God wherfore S. Cyprian Epis 14. faith expresly that they receiued help and deliuerance from their pains apud Dominum that is in the diuine Court in consequence whereof Indulgences remit penances or pains at the Tribunall of God as due there and not as due onely in order to the Churches Canons as wanton schollars of these dayes vnaduisedly teach for otherwise according to S. Thomas q. 25. a. 1. Indulgences would be more vnprofitable then profitable reseruing the penitent to more grieuous pains in Purgatory Besides according to the holy scriptures whatsoeuer priest 's shall binde on earth shall be bound in Heauen and whatsoeuer they shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heauen in consequence of which God has a Court in Heauen that remits the guilt and paine of sinne accordingly as they be remitted in the Churches Court and indeed if there were no remitting of pains in the Court of Heauen there would be no need at all of the Churches spirituall Treasure consisting of the aboundant satisfactions of Christ and the blessed Saincts and yet that there is this spirituall Treasure is an article of Christian faith for as such a Treasure could not be necessary vnto remission of pains in a ciuil Court so it could not be necessary vnto remission in an ecclesiasticall Court The ground on which the Digbean diuines build their opinion is a damned heresy namely that God does not forgiue us our sinnes as to the guilt thereof except her pardon the pain also as is plainely clear according to the definition of the Council of Trent sess 6. can 30. and this practice was both in order to such as had publickly sinned in reference to which canonicall pain 's were instituted only as also in order to such as had sinned in secret as doe demonstrate Burchard in the 13th book of decretalls and sundry others which haue made a full collection of the canonicall pains Furthermore no man can say without running into manifest errour that the Apostles forgiuenesse or indulgence in order to the penitent Corinthian was but an absolution of excommunication or of his sinne giuen in the Sacrament of penance for first a deliuerance from an ecclesiasticall censure of excommunication is neuer named by scriptures or Fathers a condonation forgiueness or indulgence Again by the Apostles words appeareth that he forgaue part only of the punishment enioyned which cannot be meant of an absolution either from excommunication or sin 's in the Sacrament of penance where there is no sharing out by partes Yet notwithstanding all this the vsage of indulgences was not neer so frequent in the primitiue times as in the subsequent ages because primary Christians carrying the fresh memory of their crucifyed Redeemer and thereby much enflamed with loue towards his sufferings allwayes bore about his dying mortification that his life also might be made manifest in their mortall flesh 2. Cor. 4. so that then there was strict discipline and great penances enioyned sinners For example rigorous fasting much praying and other painfull afflictions * In 1. Concil Nicae cui intersuerunt 318. Patres indicitur poena vndecim annorum Item in Concil Ancyrano iniungitur poena septenij ijs qui bis vel ter Idolis sacrificauerant Porro vulgatum est vnicuique peccato mort ali poenitentiam septem annorum iniungendam esse iuxta Canones pro quo tam en nullus Textus reperiri potest Et contrarium tenet S. Tho. in 4. l. sent dis 20. sanè Gratianus qui allegatur pro contraria sententia non dicit Ecclesiam septemnem poenitentiam in singula peccata statuisse sed tantum pro grauissimis iniungi solitam fuisse deinde dicit illam poenit entiam non taxatam fuisse pro foro interiori sed exteriori constat illos Canones ad forum exteriùs pertinere as by the ancientest Councils appeareth Neuerthelesse such was their feruour of spirit and extream zeale in complyance to Christ's sufferings that they fullfilled them willingly and chearfully few sought after pardons vnto
as infected with errours crept into it in order to not foundamentall Articles of faith and to assert the quitting of these and not the Roman Church as to the sound part therof in consequence of which Protestants infer the now Roman Catholicks who perseuer in not themselues that rooted out the errours that were crept into the Roman Church to bear the infamous brād of schism thus the distinction of foundamentall and not foundamentall Articles of faith serues the Protestant Reformation and might haue weight with it if any exāple could be produced from any Christian Church preceding the Protestant Reformation that so distinguished between foundamentall and not foundamentall Articles of faith making it damnable to dissent from those and not damnable to dissent from these sufficiently proposed and indeed the going of the Children of Israel on drie ground thorow the mids of the sea the raising of Lazarus vnto life by Christ and sundry other Articles of faith which according to Protestās are not foundamentall neuertheless cannot be denyed without hurt of faith and loss of saluation Wherefore the primitiue Church taught that all Articles of faith sufficiently propounded ought of necessity to be belieued for the first Council of Nice condemned seuerall Hereticks euen for asserting errours which were not against foundamentall Articles of faith namely the Quartadecimani for celebrating the solemnity of Easter at an vndue tyme and Can. 8 made an ordinance forbidding the receiuing of certain hereticks called Cathari into communion with the Catholick Church vnless first they promised in writing that they would embrace and keep all the doctrines therof without making any exception as to foundamentall and not foundamentall Articles of faith * Aug. l. de haeresibus vbi enumerasset multas haereses quarum plures non erant cōtra Articulos fundamentales in fine tamen vniuersaliter de omnibus ait christianus Catholicus ista non debet credere Besides not one scripture testimony or one authority of ancient Father can be alledged to proue that diuine faith is consistent with one sole errour that is against any * S. Chrysos in Gal. 1. ad illud volunt subuertere Quemadmodum inquit in moneta Regia qui parum aliquid amputauerit de impressa imagine totum nunisma reddit adulterinū ita quisquis sacrae fid ei vel minimā particulam suhuerterit in totū corrumpisur idem docet Theodor. l. 4. his cap. 16. 5. Prosper Epis ad Virginem Demetr alienus inquit est à numero fidelium à sorte sanctorum qui in aliquo à Catholica veritate dissentit one Article therof For indeed euery errour against an Article of faith is an errour against faith in cōsequence of which one act of hereticall infidelity expelleth faith as darknes dissipateth light and as one sole mortall sin driueth away christiā charity and although naturall habits as they are got leasurly by frequēt acts of the same liknes ād so lost at leasure by sundry acts of contrary likenes neuertheless faith that is a diuine habit supernaturally infused is wholly lost * Io. 2. qui offendit in vno factus est omniumreus prasertion quoad incturam totius habitus gratiae charitatis qui habitus tam facilè vno peccato mortali quam pluribus deperditur 1. Cor. 6. Rom. 6. stipendium peccati mors vbl dicitur peccati in numere Tingulaeri by any one act of errour that importes a voluntary dissent from any whatsoeuer Article of faith sufficiently propounded and the reason hereof is manifest because whosoeuer so dissenteth reiecteth diuine reuelation together with the veracity of God which is the indiuisible object and consistency of diuine faith and regardeth all the Articles therof alike wherby is plainly euident that t is vnaduisedly and in vain conceiued that the Roman Church is one indiuiduall body partly sound and partly exulcerated or one indiuiduall field that in part is filled with thistles and netles and in part purged of all euil hearbs by the industry of a carefull husband man seeing that the true Church of God is inconsistent with errours against Articles of faith as appeareth by the reasons alledged and indeed the true Church is the spouse of Christ without spot or wrinckle and so shall continue to the end of the world vnder the the infallible conduct of the holy Ghost who will neuer suffer the gates of hell to preuail against her Mat. 18. in consequence of which she shall neuer lose her spousall innocency integrity and fide lity wherfore if we will auerre that the Roman Church was once the true Church of God of necessity she ought to continue so and if we will cōfess that the present Church of Rome containes all foundamentals that is all necessary requisits vnto saluation of necessity the opinion of errours crept in in order to not foundamentall Articles of faith ought to be laid aside But to whom shall it belong to distinguish the foundamentall Articles from not foundamentall and meer arbitrary not to the Pope surely and such Christiās as yeeld obediēce to his Holines because these acknowledge for foundamentall Articles what the Council of Trent hath defined nor to the ancient Church in regard that frō tyme to tyme she hath condemned and excommunicated those which dissented from any poynt of the generall faith or from generall Councils for though the Pelagians Donatists and other sectaries confessed the misteries of the Trinity and Incarnanation and other foundamentall Articles of Christian faith neuertheless they were not tolerated but anathematised by the ancient Church and by the Fathers execrated as Heretiks Yet perhaps it will be answered that the determination belong's to the vnanimous accorde of all those which in any manner confess and worship Christ But if the vniuersall consent of these were required for the making or appointing foundamentall Articles necessary to the obtaining of saluation this should be none viz The Diuinity of the son of God Because the Arians denyed it nor The Diuinity of the holy Ghost Being the Macedonians denyed it nor The blessed Trinity because the Sabellians denyed it Nor the vnion between the diuine and human nature in one diuine Person for Nestorius denyed that vnion wherby euidently appears that t is not possible for Protestāts to determinate which Articles of faith be foūdamētall and which be not foūdamētall That is to set down precisely such Articles of faith as can not be denyed without loss of saluation and such again as to deny is not damnable Howeuer it is euident enough that Protestants haueing neither vnion as to diuine faith nor communion as to the ministery of Sacraments with the Roman Church cannot make a good claim to a visible existence and perpetuall succession of Pastors as deriued from her Again their going out from that Church which they confess to haue been once the true Church of God and still to retaine requisits necessary vnto saluation argueth them guilty of
him that is ordained a Bishop which is the Tenet of all catholick writers that assert Episcopacy to deriue it's institution from Christ and to be an ecclesiasticall order taken in the proper sense for the Council of Tent sess 23. c. 4. can 4. doth define the Sacrament of Order to imprint a character which definition being absolute without restriction or distinction between one order and an other it doth euidently follow that all orders doe imprint a character which is a spirituall signe deriued into the soul wherby a man is muested with power to exercise certain ecclesiasticall functions in order to the ministery of the Eucharist and it matters not that the priestly is more worthy and excellent then the Episcopall character as distinct from it for the impression of a new and distinct character is not grounded in the more or less perfection and excellency of a precedent character but in the distinction of powers and abilities in reference to exercising the ministery of the Euchariste neither Matters it that Fathers and Councils when they number the Sacraments of the new law do acknowledg seuen only comprehending holy order for one for in so numbring of them they consider holy Order in (l) According to the Ancient Fathers ordination of a Bishop and a Priest is said to be one and the same that is taken in the generall sense and holy order so taken is but one Sacrament onely but a Bishop taken in the proper sense euen according to S. Hierom. Dial. con Lucif hath in the Church the preeminence which Aaron had in law of Moses and to meer Priests he giues that Degree of preeminence onely into which the sons of Aaron were inuested Besides s. Epiphan l. de Sacerdot dignit c. 6. calleth Episcopacy a Deified Order and cap. 7. assert's difference between a Bishop and a meer Priest being God exact's not the same thing 's from a Priest as from a Bishop that has preeminence aboue him a genericall signification as it containeth all it's sundry species or kinds Wherfore in as much as according to the rules of Logick what can be rightly affirmed of a thing taken in the generall sense may be also affirmed of all the sundry species contained therin it doth plainly follow that since ecclesiasticall order taken in its genericall signification is a Sacrament and doth imprint a Character euery true species therof is a Sacrament and imprinteth a Character In like manner Fathers and Councils reckoning seuen Orders they do coÌ„prehend Episcopacy vnder Priesthood And for as much as Christ had but one spouse which is the Church a Bishop and a Priest that supplieth his room and representeth his Person in the ministery ought to be married to the Church only * S. Hieron in sua Apolog con Jouin Apostoli inquit vel virgines vel post nuptias contineÌ„tes fuerunt id est absquo vxorum consortio wherfore the Apostles after they were ordained Bishops and Priests led their life 's in all godliness purity and chastity and this apostolicall practice Bishops and Priests down from them to these times haue religiously obserued S. Hierom L. in vigilantium exclaimeth against some Modern Hereticks of those times for taking such of the people only to be Priest's as had (m) According to the second Council of Carthage continency was enioyned to Bishops and Priests the ancient Fathers there assembled declaring with one accord that they ought to obserue it being the Apostles taught it and antiquity kept it Besides the first Council of Nice put forth an ordinance that Bishops Priest's and Deacons should entertaine no woman in their families except Mothers Grand-mothers sisters and Aunts making no mention of wifes From whence S. Basil Epis 17 infer's that to take wifes after the receiuing of holy Order was not permitted And indeed Clergy-men of those dayes had so great a reuerence to chastity that euen the Arian Bishop's ordain'd no man that was marryed as witnesseth S. Epiphan her 37. moreouer it was neuer permitted in the Church of Christ that a Bishop or Priest might marry as appear's by the Testimonies of ancient Fathers of the Greek Church though now this Church faln into schism differs from the Latins in opinion and practice as to such as had wifes before their ordination wiues contrary to the custome of both the Eastern and western Churches that allwaies promoted to the Maior-orders Virginia or such as were esteemed chast and pure from all carnall vncleaness and though in the primitiue times when there was great scarcity of single persons as proper and fit to be ordained Bishops Priest's Deacons and Sub-Deacons the Church-gouernours tooke of married men for the exercising those functions neuertheless these did not accompany with their wiues after their ordination but led their liues in all purity and chastity as did their wiues also according to a mutuall promise of continency and since the Priests of the old law to whom marriage was permitted as it were of necessity to multiply the people of God and who did sâ—adow only in their ministery what the Priests of the new law do really offer in their sacrifices viz. the true and reall body and blood of Christ in memory of his death and passion did abstain not only from the carnall embracement's of their wiues but also from the houses wherin they resided before they were to enter into the Temple for the performance of their spirituall functions respectruely it is most consonant as to reason that Priest's of the new law doe obserue continency together with purity and holyness Besides the vnmarried careth for the things of our lord how he may please him but he that is married careth for the things of the world how he may please his wife 1. Cor. 7. Wherfore such as leaue the world to be ordained Bishops Priest's Deacons and Sub Deacons ought to leade a single life without wifes and truly in regard therof there is less danger of dissipating ecclesiasticall goods and conuerting them to the making vp of inheritance for Clergy-mens children Furthermore Priests vnmarried are in a better condition to reproue the vices of lay-people then if they were married and for as much as they are single men they be less vnquiet contentious and troublesome to their flock not seeking to enrich children which they haue not Iouinianus and VigilaÌ„tius were the first sectaries that stood vp in defence of Priests marriages and Luther and Caluin raysed vp againe that heresy after that it had been dead and buried for many ages teaching that it is not only lawfull for Peiests to marry before but euen after their ordination These are followd by all the sectaries of the present times And knowing well that the opinion contradicteth all antiquity they labour to make it agree with the holy scriptures whence they cut out weak interpretations and form coniecturall deductions only abusing sundry text's for Example God says Gen. 1. bring forth fruit and multiply whence they very weakly
likwise defined that vnwritten Tradition the faithfull of these dayes might haue been * S. Basil dicit Sabellianismum esse queÌ„dam Iudaismum Sabellius voro qui omnibus hareticis impietate antecelluit eirca annum 260. haresim Trinitatis propagauit quod Prâ—xeas omniuÌ„ primus humo Romanae inuexit proximè accessit ad errorem Iudaeorum Sabellians or Iewes as for any clear speaking scripture to hinder them Again we belieue that the holy Ghost is not the son of God nor that his procession is generation taken in the proper sense notwithstanding without tradition and interpretation of the holy Church it cannot be proued sufficiently that is to say by express scripture-testimony nor matters it that the Euangelists doe name the second person of the blessed Trinity the only begotten son for hence it follows not by necessary consequence that the holy Ghost is no son for Salomon is styled the only begotten son Prouerb 4. Howeuer it plainly appeareth by the first booke of Paralipomenon or cronicles that he had many brothers yet he was named the only begotten son in regard he was beloued as if he had been the only begotten We must belieue that such (f) The Council of Nice hath defined that such as are baptized by hereticks must not be rebaptized And in regard the Donatists impugned this assertion which is grounded vpon tradition and the Churches definition they were counted hereticks and S. Aust I. de vtilitate credendi cap. 22. expresly affirms that the said assertion is not contained in any express scripture and indeed practice and tradition of the Church only was obiected against S. Cypri that asserted rebaptizing of such as were baptized by hereticks as appeares by his own Epistle ad Iubaian 74. ad Pompeium he conceiuing that he had scripture authority on his side left the Churches tradition and practice yet S. Austin in sundry places of his writings excuseth him from heresie because he was not obstinate in defending of his opinion neither did he break vnion with the Church Besid that controuersy rose before any generall Council defined validity of baptism conferred by Hereticks as are baptized by hereticks ought not to be baptized again wee must belieue that we are bound to keepe holy our lords day which is sunday and we must belieue that there is a necessary obligation to receiue the Apostles Creed yet for as much as none of all these doctrines be contained expresly in or can be deduced out of the holy scriptures by immodiate necessary and euident consequences they would haue nothing of weight with vs in the conuincing of our vnderstanding if the tradition and definition of the Church were laid a side Moreouer the Lutherans and Caluinists in regard they reject Church tradition adhering to the meer letter of scripture and their own interpretations thereof cannot as yet after frequent disputes euince against the Anabaptists that the SacrameÌ„t of Baptism ought to be administred vnto infants where they alledge the words of Christ set down Math. 19. suffer little children and forbid them not to come to me for of such is the kingdom of Heauen as also the practice of the Apostles that baptized whole housholds Act. 19. it is plainly euident that from neither of these testimonies they can as much as deduce by any necessary consequence what they assert as a doctrine of their faith namely that baptism ought to be applied to young children that want the vse of reason especially supposing (g) Caluin l. 4. insti c. 16. and the whole sect of Lutherans though they denyed baptism to be a requisit necessary to the saluation of children neuertheless in their conferences with Anabaptists ingeniously confessed that baptism might lawfully and indeed ought to be ministred vnto children what Lutherans and Caluinists hold as an other article of their reformed religion viz. that baptism is not absolutly necessary to saluation for as to the first testimony though by litle children Christ meant not such only as can goe and speake but also infants sucking their Mothers breasts neuertheless the words of Christ declare them only capable of blessedness without mentioning baptism at all Since then Lutherans and Caluinists doe teach that baptism is not an expedient absolutly necessary to blessedness they can infer nothing of moment and efficacy from these words of Christ to conuince the Anabaptists because the blessedness that is to say the kingdom of Heauen whereof Infants are declared capable may be obtained without baptisin according to Lutherans Caluinists and Anabaptists yet for as much as catholick faith teacheth absolute necessity of baptism out of S. Iohn Cap. 3. that except a man be borne againe of water he cannot enter into the kingdom of Heauen Catholicks can by a clear inference from the said words of Christ proue that Baptism ought euen of necessity to be administred to children because Christs words declare theÌ„ capable of the kingdom of Heauen and consequently of baptism that being an expedient absolutly necessary vnto the obtaining of it whosoeuer is capable of any end is likwise capable of the expedient or medium which is of absolute necessity in order to the purchasing of it As touching the latter scripture testimony though it containes a most pregnant coniecture or presumption that the Apostles when they baptized whole families baptised children with all neuertheless it is not sufficient enough to the grounding of an euident and necessary consequence vnto prouing that de facto they did so because experience sheweth that many whole housholds haue no children at all Wherefore it is cleare that neither of the scripture testimonyes do proue effectually the baptism of Infants laying aside the tradition and definition of the Church And truly Lutherans and Caluinists haue only meer coniectures and remote inferences drawn from the interpretation of their own priuat spirits which is the Mother of heresies to euince the foundamentall and essentiall doctrines of their reformed religion namly that faith alone iustifieth that there are but two Sacraments that no addresses of intercession ought to be made vnto Saints or prayers offered for the benefit of soules departed c. and it is a foundamentall article of Caluinism that the Sacrament of the Eucharist signifieth only the body of Christ being a meer figure thereof contrary wise it is a foundamentall article of Lutherans that the body of Christ is really contained in the Sacrament together with the substance of bread and though both Caluinists and Lutherans teach that the scriptures speake and propounde clearly doctrines of faith howeuer they haue not as yet reconciled that controuersy which notwithstanding the many conferences and disputes held about it continueth in debate Caluinists impute to the Lutherans an heresie or errour in faith for admitting and the Lutherans ascribe heresie vnto the Caluinists for denying the reall presence of Christs body and bloud in the Eucharist whereby appeareth plainly the necessity of Church tradition and interpretation for the deciding all hard
whose souls likwise must be allowed to haue essētiall blessednes afore shall receiue full blessedness that is shall be inuested with a double stole of glory whereof one regardeth the body and the other the soul Of this consummate and perfect felicity speaketh S. Mat. cap. 20. and the Apostle 2. ad Tit. 4. whereby the hire or reward there mentioned is signified full blessedness giuen to all the good labourers together when the euening was come that is to say to all the Saints at the day of the generall resurrection for though all of them were approued by the testimony of faith and translated into the kingdome of Heauen as to their souls neuertheless as the same Apostle teacheth Heb. 11. they receiued not the promiss God prouiding that they without vs shall not be consummate that is (e) S. Aug. ser 4. de festo Innocent nameth the full reward of the blessed which imports the glorification of soul and body the felicity of the generall resurrection And Epis 66. he calleth it the whole mans compleat immortality and Epis 99. he expounds the sacred Text Heb 11. of consummate blessedness and the particles When euening vvas come Mat. 20. of the generall iudgment shall not haue the enioyment of full and perfect felicity till the generall resurrection and indeed S. Paul doth not say that they should not be crowned without vs but that they should not be consummate without vs that is should not receiue the whole promised reward consisting in the blessedness of the soul togeather with the glory of the body which is S. Chris obseruation expressed in his 28. hom vpon the Epistle to the Hebrews and noe man can say that there the Apostle meaneth by promise blessedness as to the soul only without hauing him contradict himselfe for he says in the same Chapter that Dauid Samuel and the other Prophets had obtained promises or promised blessedness without vs which is meant of the souls blessedness obtained at Christs Ascention into Heauen and truly seeing that a pure soul remoued out of the body is capable of beatificall vision as the reward of its merits in reason it is fitting that it should be beatified before the resurrection of the body whereof Christ is our example whose soule was blessed before his resurrection and it matters not that S. Iohn saith Apoc. 6. that he saw the souls of martyrs vnder the Altar for by the word Altar he cannot meane an * Lutherus in gen ex Staphilo 2. p. de tripartita eius Theologia Et Cal. li. 3. Insti cap. 25. docent sanctos homines tātum esse in Atrio paradisi ibique exspectare diem vniuersalis iudicij outward Court or porch of Heauen where some sectaries will needs haue all the Saints to abide without knowing god vnto blessedness till the generall resurrection because the Apostle saith immediatly after in the same Chapter that white stoles were giuen to euery one which signifies the clear vision of God Besids in the following Chapter he expresly affirmeth that they were in the presence of the throne of God and serued him day and night in consequence of which it is plain that souls are not banished Heauen and depriued of the crowne of iustice which is the clear sight of God till the day of generall resurrection Wherefore of necessity the Apostle S. Iohn meant by the word Altar so ne secret intellectuall room vnknown to vs and in the house of God are many lodgings Io. 14. where those blessed souls offer continually sweet in cense of prayses to their Creatour notwithstanding all this the holy Church had not declar'd this catholick doctrine as an express article of faith before the time of Pope Bennet the twelth who was the first that defined it which is noe strang thing for though the present Church laies no claime to new reuelations neuertheless all reuealed doctrines were not at once propounded if the Church had defined the validity of baptism administrated by Hereticks before or in that age S. Cyprian liued he would neuer haue asserted an opinion contrary there to as witnesseth S. Aus who often excuseth him in regard that controuersie arose before the definition of a generall Council and the same may be said of sundry other controuersies pertaining to faith or generall manners which the authority of the Church guided by the holy Ghost hath determined according to the occurring exigence thereof in all times respectiuely in consequence of the premises such ancient Fathers if any such were as denyed the enioyment of the clear sight of God before the generall resurrection in any age preceding the definition of the Catholick Church in reference thervnto are excusable yet it is certaine that euen all Fathers generally doe declare in their writings the doctrine which the Church now propoundeth in her definitions in order to the said controuersy as doe plainly proue Coxius Egid. Bellar. c. and the common vnanimous consent of Fathers ought to be preferred before the priuate opinion of a few only howeuer truly no man can say that euen S. Irenaeus and S. Bernard which seem to speake darkly and as it were doubtfully in relation to the said catholick assertion S. Irenaeus li. 5. aduersus haereses cap. 31. S. Bern. ser 4. de omnibus sanctis did exclude Saints from the clear sight of God or did confine them to an outward Court or porch of Heauen till the generall resurrection without haueing them (f) Albeit S. Irenaeus in some parte of his writings may seem to exclud from heauenly blessedness good souls till the day of generall resurrection neuertheless l. 1. con Haer. cap. 29. l. 2. cap. 63. and in sundry other places he asserts the enioyment of beatificall vision in order to iust souls clensed from all vncleanes before the reassumption of their bodyes the same teacheth S. Bernard Epis ad Fratres de Hyber ser de obitu Humberti Monachi Epis 229. notwithstanding that in some places of his writings he may seem to incline to the contrary opinion Wherefore Sixtus Senensis l. 6. Biblio sanct annota 348. piously aduiseth euery man to expound the sayings of these Fathers in order to the fulnes of glory that blessed souls receiue in the generall resurrection when their resumed bodyes are glorified contradict themselues in other places of their writings and as to Pope Iohn 22. if it was his priuate opinion that the Saints doe not see God face to face till the generall resurrection yet he proceeded not to a definition in reference thereto * Benedictus 12. in extra quae incipit benedictus Deus ait Ioannem 22. morte praeuentum nil potuisse definire circa illam difficultatem as witnesseth Pope Bennet 12. his successour in the Pope dome Besides * Ocamus 2. par sui dialogi cap. 8. Ocham that was a profess'd enemy of Iohn 22. writeth that in a consistory of Cardinalls this Pope declared that as to that matter of controuersy