AN ADVERTISE­MENT TO THE ENG­LISH SEMINARIES, AMD IESVITES: Shewing their loose kind of writing, and negligent handling the cause of Religion, in the whole course of their workes.

By IOHN DOVE Doctor in Diuinity.

IEREMY 47. 10. Cursed be he that doth the worke of the Lord negligently.

LONDON, Printed for SIMON WATERSON dwelling in Pauls Church-yard at the signe of the Crowne. 1610.

TO THE MOST REVEREND FATHER IN GOD, MY VERY GOOD Lord, TOBY, by the prouidence of God, Lord Arch-bishop of Yorke, Primate, and Metropolitan of England.

MOST Reuerend Fa­ther in God, my especi­all good Lord. Albeit there is no end in Ecclesi. 12. 12. writing many books, and much reading is a wearinesse to the flesh (as the wise man speaketh:) yet doth the condition of this present age require a multitude of bookes: neither ought we to be weary, so long as the la­bour onely is ours, the cause Gods, and [Page] not our owne. Our Aduersaries are ne­uer weary of withstanding the truth, they neuer cease to prouoke vs by bookes, our names are daily traduced in their papers, that vnlesse the Spirit of God waxe cold, and the zeale of his house be quenched in vs, we cannot be silent. And as your Grace hath laboured these fourty yeares without intermission, like a silfull Maister-builder of Gods house, a painefull husbandman in the Ʋineyard, a vigilant Pastour ouer the flocke, and were neuer yet weary of wel­doing: so my trust is this small volume shall not seeme tedious, which heere I offer vnto your reading, and humbly present vnto your Grace. Since your Grace hath bene called to the office of a Bishop, (as with S, Paule, it is a wor­thy 1. Tim. 3. 1. worke) so it hath bene with you, [Page] all your time hitherto, a worke rather then a promotion, neither haue you fain­ted vnder so great a burthen. My pray­er is for you, that God wich hath begun this good worke in you, will also per­forme it vntill the day of Jesus Christ. That as you haue deserued that good re­port which the godly Emperour Theo­dosius [...]. Sixtus Se­nensis, Bib­lioth. sanctae lib. 4. in the Church of Constanti­nople gaue of S. Ambrose then Bi­shop of Milanie: so you may contiuue still another Saint Ambrose in our Church, to the glory and honour of God, to whose goodnesse and mercy I com­mend your Grace, and your godly la­bours.

Your Graces most hum­ble in the Lord. IOHN DOVE.

THE INTRODVCTION DECLARING WHAT IS THE drift and intent of the Author.

I Acknowledge my selfe with Saint Paul to be a debter vnto all men, to Rom. 1. 14. the Greeke and the Barbarian, to the wise and the vnwise, so farre as lyeth in me to win some of all sorts to Iesus Christ. Hauing already by the will of God, published a short treatise of perswasion to the igno­rant Recusants, to reconcile them­selues to our Church: I hold it my duty to speake some­what to them also which fit in the chaire of Moses; which would be accounted the great Masters in Israël, guides of the blinde, lights to them which sit in darknesse, instructers of them which lacke discretion, and teachers of them which are vnlearned. My purpose is not to speake of all points concerning which there is controuersie and difference be­tweene them and vs, (for so should I make a tedious vo­lume) but onely by instance in some few places for exam­ple sake, in liew of all the rest, to aduertise them of such er­rours as dayly they commit in the whole course of their writings, when they handle the cause of religion, to the preiudice of the cause it selfe which they take in hand, and to the slander of learning. That I may vse the words of the Apostle: This is not to cast away the cloakes of shame, 2. Cor. 4. 2. but still to walke in craftinesse, to handle the word of God deceiptfully, and not in the declaration of the truth; nei­ther so doing can they approue themselues to their owne [Page 2] consciences in the sight of God. They would beare the world in hand, that they are more exact in their iudgement, more painfull in their studies, more acute in their argu­ments, more aduised in their answers, more diligent in all things they vndertake, then any other of the contrary reli­gion; whereas, due examination being had, it doth ap­peare they slubber vp many things negligently, and per­forme them loosely. They despise all our Schooles of lear­ning, in respect of their owne Vniuersities; as if solid lear­ning, and true Schoole-diuinity were no where taught but among themselues, they hold all others to be superficiall: and yet contrary to all Schoole-learning they suppresse the truth by fallacies throughout their bookes, they trans­gresse the rules and lawes of disputation, and in no place will they stand to the orders receiued in Schooles. Their yong frye of Seminaries and seed-men, which are trained vp vnder them, see not with their owne eyes, but receiue their sophismes for true syllogismes, vpon the credit & trust which they repose in their teachers; as if it were impiety to call any thing into question which their Readers haue taught them; or heresie to examine their grounds by the rules of Art, which are the true touch-stone and onely try all of arguments. In their discourses which they publish, they vse such prolixity, that the matter which is plaine and ob­uious to any man of reasonable capacity, seemeth perplexe, and very difficult: they deliuer the state of the question so vncertainly, that the reader looseth himselfe as in a laby­rinth, not conceauing what is the scope and drift of the Author, whether he hold the affirmatiue part or the nega­tiue. In the end, hauing seemed to stand long in oppositi­on against vs, they concurre with vs. They alledge no o­ther arguments in defence of the religion which they do maintaine, but such as haue bene oftentimes answered by Caluin, Beza, Kemnitius, and other Protestant Writers: which arguments being already answered, are of no vali­dity, and therefore we expect they should reply against [Page 3] the answers, and not produce the same things againe. Nei­ther will their disciples take notice of any answer, but al­ledge these triuiall things for nouelties, and rare inuentions, as neuer heard of before.

These things are but Satan transformed into an Angel of light, deceptio visus to deceiue the world, as the Babyloni­an The Histo­ry of Bell and the Dragon. Priests did the King Astyages, making him beleeue that Bell did eate and drinke, and was a liuing God; when he was but a dead Idoll. The King at the first, because hee found the doore of the temple sealed vp with his owne sig­net, the meate deuoured, and the wine drunke vp which hee set before the idoll, but saw not the priuy entrance which was vnder the table, cryed out with a lowd voyce: Great art thou ô Bell, and in thee is no deceipt. But when Da­niel shewed him the footing of the Priests, and their wiues and children, in the ashes which he strewed on the paue­ments, and the priuy doore which they came in at; he con­fessed there was deceipt in the Priests of Bell, and he saw plainly, that Bell was no God but an idoll. So my pur­pose is to finde their falshood by their footing, to shew how they enter in at the false doore, and go not the right way; to detect their sleights and iuggling casts, whereby they aduance errour and falshood, but stand in opposition against the truth. Forasmuch therefore as if the Gospell be yet hidden, it is hidden to them which are lost; the Lord of his mercy take away from their disciples and followers, that veile or couering, which vntill this time hath continued vntaken away, and remoue from them the spirit of slumber, that hereafter seeing they may see. The Lord of his goodnesse endue the teachers themselues with his grace, that henceforth as sincere Pastors, and faithfull Stewards of his word, they may walke in simplicity, and handle his word plainly in the declaration of the truth, that they may approue themselues to euery mans conscience in the sight of God: that when the chiefe Sheepheard and Archbishop of our soules shall appeare, they may re­ceiue [Page 4] an incorruptible crowne of glory, through Iesus Christ our Lord, Amen.

CHAP. 1.

Of the Head of the Church.

ANd that I may first with Saint Iohn the Baptist, lay the axe to the roote of the tree; because the Cardinall de­riueth the Popes supremacy from S. Peter, let vs therefore Mat. 3. 10. examine by what right he entituleth S. Peter to that su­premacy. Bellar. de Rom. Pont. lib. 1. c. 10. For his supremacy being shaken, the Popes au­thority which is grounded vpon it, cannot stand. Our Sa­uiour vpon Saint Peter his confession, where he saith: Thou art the Christ, the Sonne of the liuing God: answered: Thou Mat. 16. 18. art Peter, and vpon this rocke will I build my Church. It is as impossible to reduce these words into a true syllogisme, or forme of argumentation, as it was for the Oracles to speake Caesar. Bar. in apparat. 13. Exod. 8. 19. when the Sonne of God had enioyned them silence, or for the Aegyptians to make lice when the finger of God was a­gainst them. Euery lawfull syllogisme must consist onely of three parts, or termes, as they call them; but here are fower, Petrus Petra, persona Petri, & structura Ecclesiae: the person of him that made the confession, his name, his confession it selfe which is called the rocke, or foundation stone; and the buil­ding of the Church. His person, and his name, where it is said: Tues Petrus, thou art Peter: the confession or founda­tion stone, vpon this rocke: the aedifice or building it selfe, will I build my Church. The medius terminus, or argument, whereby euery conclusion ought to be proued, must bee one and the selfe same as well in the Minor proposition as in the Maior: but here it cannot be so, for it is Petra in Ma­iori, & Petrus in Minors, the rocke in the Maior, and Peter in the Minor, as if they should conclude in this manner: The rocke is the foundation of the Church; but the Apostle which made this confession, is Peter: therefore the Apostle which made this confession is the foundation of the Church. But this [Page 5] is not in Moode and Figure, the medius terminus being not the same in both propositions. Therefore if they will cor­rect it, and reduce it into a true forme, they must conclude in this manner: Whosoeuer is the rocke, he is the foundation of the Church. But the Apostle which made this confession (mea­ning Peter) is the rocke: therefore the Apostle which made this confession, is the foundation of the Church. And then, besides that they do confound the confession and the confessor, S. Peters person and his doctrine, which are two seuerall and distinct things, the Minor is vntrue, and contrary to the as­sertion of our Sauiour Christ. For he doth not say: Tues Petra, thou art the rocke; but tues Petrus, thou art Peter: nor super hunc Petrum, sed super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam; vpon this Peter, but vpon this rocke will I build my Church. [...]. So then, where he saith THOV, he speaketh of his person; and men­tioning PETER, he telleth what is his name; speaking of the ROCKE, he iustifieth his religion, being three seuerall points besides the aedifice and building of the Church, whereof that religion is the foundation stone.

Now before we proceed any further in this argument, let vs auoyde such exceptions as the aduersary bringeth a­gainst the analysing of this text. First, Bellarmine obie­cteth, De Rom. Pontifice. l. 1. c. 10. that our Sauiour spake in the Syrian tongue, and in that language this one word CEPHAS is nomen proprium viri, & commune saxi, the proper name of a man, and a name common to all stones, as also in the Greeke tongue [...] signifieth both Peter and a stone; and it is plaine in the Sy­riac text he said: Thou art Cephas, and vpon this Cephas will I build my Church. And thereupon he concludeth, that Ce­phas in the first place should not signifie his name, and in the second the rocke, as I deliuered in my Analysis, but in both places the rocke; so that there may be tres tantùm ter­mini, onely three termes or parts to make a true syllogisme, and consequently that Peter is the rocke. To which I re­ply: there can be no good argument drawne from the au­thority [Page 6] of the Syriac text, not onely because of the ambi­guity of the word, which maketh the matter doubtfull, ac­cording to the grammaticall construction, and very vncer­taine; but also because that text is disalowed by the Church of Rome: whereas the Latine text, out of which I made this Analysis maketh for me, and is vpon paine of anathe­ma to be receiued as authenticall; and so I touch him to the quicke, and slay him with his owne sword. As Cephas ac­cording to Grammer signifieth both the name of a man, & a stone, yet in this place it cannot signifie both of them; be­cause it is otherwise in the Greeke, which is the originall, & without exception, and in the vulgar Latinetranslation, which do make that very plaine, where the first Cephas is Peter, and the second a stone: and so that which is, or might seeme to be ambiguous, and yeeld matter of controuersie in the Syriac, is cleared in these editions, and all ambi­guity is taken away, there is no starting-hole left for the Sophister to cauell vpon. Concerning the Syriac text Bel­larmine maketh doubt, where he writeth thus: De testamen­to De verbo Dei. l. 2. c. 4. nouo maior est dubitatio, Of the whole edition of the Syriac new testament, there is a greater doubt, whether it were written in that tongue by the Authors themselues or no? Againe, hee deliuereth his owne iudgement in these words: Quod si e­ditio Syriaca aetate horū patrum posterior est, vt ego quidem mi­hi certè persuadeo, non potest eius authoritas tanta esse vt cum e­ditione Graecâ aut Latinâ meritò comparari possit, vt interim il­lud non omittam, quod non desunt etiam quaedam in eâ editione quae viris doctis & pijs non admodum placeant. If the Syriac edition be of lesse antiquity then these Fathers (meaning Cle­mens Alexandrinus, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, & others of whom there he spake) as I certainly perswade my selfe it is, it cannot be any way of equall authority, with the Greeke and La­tine; besides, that many things are found in that edition distasting to men, both godly and learned. Againe, Valde probabile est Euangelium Matthaei, & epistolam Sancti Pauli ad Hebraeos Syriacà linguà scripta esse: There is great probability onely that [Page 7] S. Matthew his Gospel, and S. Paule his Epistle to the Hebrews were written in the Syrian tongue. There he doth not take it as a cleare case that S. Matthew his Gospell was written in Syriac by himselfe, but onely he leaueth it as a probable coniecture. But the Greeke he will haue to be without ex­ception: Constat nouum testamentum Graecè scriptum ab ipsis De verbo Dei, lib. 2. cap. 7. Apostolis vel Euangelistis, quorum nomina in titulis singulorum librorum vel epistolarum praefiguntur, exceptis duntaxat euange­lio Matthaei & Marci, et Epistola ad Hebraeos. It is manifest that the new testament was written in Greeke by those Apostles or Euangelists whose names are praefixed to euery booke or Epi­stle, excepting the Gospels of S. Matthew and S. Marke, & the Epistle to the Hebrews. But Athanasius existimat ab Apostolo Iacobo Matthaei euangeliū in Graecam linguam esse translatū; alij verò Iohāni Apostolo; at alij ipsi Matthaeo eam translationē attri­buunt: sed cuiuscun (que) sit, it a recepta est ab Ecclesiâ illa trāslatio, acsi eâ linguâ scriptū fuisset euangeliū Mathaei. Athanasius thin­keth S. Matthews Gospel was translated into Greeke by S. Iames the Apostle, others by S. Iohn the Apostle, others by S. Matthew himselfe; but by whomsoeuer it was translated, the Greeke trans­lation is so approued by the Church, as if it had bene originally written in that tongue. Againe: Ita (que) Graeca editio noui testa­menti vniuersa Apostolos & Euangelistas authores habet: There­fore all the Greeke edition was set forth by the Apostles and E­uangelists, And as for the vulgar Latine edition it is by the Councell of Trent imposed vpon all Romish Catholickes Concil. Trid. Sess. 3. vpon paine of excommunication, to be receiued as authen­ticall, and without exception. Therefore according to the rules of their Catholicke religion, I argue against the Ca­tholickes more safely and firmly out of the Greeke and Latine which are plaine, and of whose authority they make no question, then Bellarmine doth against vs out of the Syriac, which is both ambiguous, and of no authority in the Church to build vpon. So then, for asmuch as by the decree of that Councell, nothing can be held for truth in the Syriac which is repugnant to the Latine, but the Latine [Page 8] maketh for vs; I conclude that my Analysis of the text, is without exception, let him refute it if he can.

Now this being the question, whether the Church be founded vpon the person, or vpō the doctrine of Saint Pe­ter? If they say, vpon his person: I reply: the Church was from the beginning of the world, and it stood as firme as now it doth, before the conuersion of S. Peter. When S. Peter was not, the Church was one and the same which now it is, and it could not stand without a foundation. But the faith which he professed, was more ancient then himselfe, euen from the beginning common to the whole Church; so that the Church might well be builded vpon that faith, though not vpon Saint Peter, nor vpon the person of any sinfull man. And therefore our Sauiour saith: he will build his Church, that is the members of the Church vnder the Gospell, which make but vnam Ecclesiam aggregatam, one Church ioyntly with that which was vnder the time of na­ture, and the time of the law, vpon the same foundation, be­ing all stones of the same building. But Bellarmine alled­geth out of Saint Chrysostome Hom. 55. in Matth. Where he De Rom. Pont. lib. 1. cap. 10. saith: Tues Petrus, & super te aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, Thou art Peter, and vpon thee will I build my Church. And Hom. 4. in Esaiae cap. 6. Quid autem Petrus ille basis Ecclesiae? What shall we say of Peter the foundation of the Church? As if Saint Chrysostome did not acknowledge the doctrine, but the per­son, not the confession, but the confessor himselfe, to be the foundation of the Church. To the first place I answer: I haue examined, but finde no such place in that Homily, but that which is contrary to it. But supposing that to be true, which he hath so faisified, I answer to it, as likewise to the secōd place which is rightly by him produced, that it is but the fallacy of aequiuocatiō. For he alledgeth that out of Chrysostome, as a speech proper, which is but metonymically vnderstood. It is a figure called Metonomia causae. So A­bram speaketh to the rich man: They haue Moses and the Luk. 16. 29. Prophets; meaning not the men themselues which were [Page 9] dead, but their bookes which were extant. So Saint Paul Eph. 2. 20. teacheth that we are built vpon the foundation of the Pro­phets and Apostles, that is: vpon the faith which is taught in the Propheticall and Apostolicall writings; so that there is but one faith, one ground or foundation, vpon which the old Church from the beginning, and the new Church vnder the Gospell are builded vpon: these two be­ing but one, as before I haue deliuered. And that the mea­ning of Saint Chrysostome is metonimicall, and not proper, Chryss. hons. 55. in Mat. it appeareth by his owne exposition of himselfe, where he saith in the same Homily, contrary to that which Bellarmine hath alledged: super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, id est, fidem & confessionem, I will build my Church vpon this rocke, that is, vpon this faith and confession which thou hast made. And it is iustified to be a true exposition by the consent of other Fathers, as of Saint Hilary, which saith: super hanc confessio­nis Lib. 6. de Trinit. Lib. 4. de Trini [...] Petram aedificatio Ecclesiae est, vpon this rocke of confession, is the Church founded. And of Cyrillus, which saith: Petram opinor nihil aliud quàm inconoussam & firmissimam discipulifidē vocauit, He called the faith of S. Peter arocke, because it was stedfast as a rocke that cannot be moued.

And by the way to preuent that which may in subtilty, but not in sincerity be obiected against vs; that the foun­dation must be answerable to the building, but we which are builded vpon that foundation, are all liuing stones, and 1 Pet. 2. 5. we come to him which is also a liuing stone, disallowed of men, which is Iesus Christ; as the building is personall, so there must be a personall foundation, the persons of men are these liuing stones: I answer, the onely true and pro­per foundation of the Church is Christ, as the Apostle teacheth: No other foundation can any man lay, then that which 1. Cor. 3. 11. is already layed, which is Iesus Christ. I will therefore ex­plaine the meaning of Saint Chrysostome, Saint Hillary, and Saint Cyril, in what sort faith may be verified to be the foun­dation of the Church; and yet with a due reseruation of that prerogatiue which belongeth to our Sauiour Christ, [Page 10] and which Saint Paul ascribeth to him; and so I will recon­cile Luther l. de potestate Pope. Caluin In­stit. li. 4. c. 6. sect. 6. Luther which saith, faith is the rocke, vnto Caluin which affirmeth, that this rocke is Iesus Christ. As a gold ring of very small weight, hauing a precious stone in it of great value, may be iustly estimated at an high price; not for the due value of the gold it selfe, but for the worth of the precious stone which is set in it, it may be said to be worth an hundred pounds; so faith is said to saue, though salua­tion belong to Iesus Christ; and to be the foundation of the Church, though Christ be properly that foundation, because he is the obiect of our faith: and our Sauiour Christ and faith are so inseparably ioyned together, that they can­not be diuided one from the other, or conceiued one with­out the other. Thus haue I briefly declared how the Church is not founded vpon S. Peter: But suppose it could be proued, how can it be deriued from him to the Pope? The office of Apostleship was personall, and died with S. Peters person. The Apostles were equall in authority. It was said to them all: Go and preach, as well as to Peter. Math. 28. Mat. 16. That which was said seuerally to Peter: To thee will I giue the keyes, was said ioyntly to all the Apostles; Whose sinnes Ioh. 20. 23. ye remit, they shall be remitted. And this confession of Peter was made in the name of them all: so saith Theophilact, and Theoph. in Mat. 16. Ambrose in Psal. 38. Saint Ambrose. But if it were granted that Saint Peter was aboue all the rest of the Apostles, this giueth no prehemi­nence to the Pope being no Apostle. For Apostleship con­sisteth in these things; They were immediatly called of God; they saw our Sauiour in the flesh; they could giue the holy Ghost by imposition of hands; the Spirit of God did so direct them, that in their writings they could not erre: which things belonged personally vnto them, but are not left hereditary to the succeeding ages. The foundati­on being thus shaken, the building falleth of it selfe.

That I may come nearer to the man of Rome, to dis­cusse this question, whether there ought to be one head ministeriall of the Church vniuersall militant vpon the [Page 11] earth or no? Bellarmine to proue the affirmatiue part, argu­eth De Rom. Pontifice. l. 1. c. 9. out of Aristotle in this manner: A Monarchy is the best, & most absolute state of gouernment: therefore the gouernment of the vniuersal Church ought to be monarchicall. I answer: It is a fallacy called Ignoratio Elenchi, in so much as Aristotle his Antecedent, and Bellarmine his Consequent, are not vn­derstood, Ad idem, secundum idem, &c. A Monarchy is the best state of ciuill gouernment, and for one country, but not of Ecclesiastical gouernment, nor for the whole world. No one secular Prince is sufficient to gouerne a world, nei­ther if any one man could be supposed sufficient, could it stand with iustice that one should gouerne a world; because no man can attaine to be such a Monarke, but by oppres­sion, and violent inchroching vpon the dominions of o­ther Princes. Againe, a Monarchy is the best state of ciuill gouernment of one country; but the Ecclesiasticall gouern­ment cannot simply be so, but onely when the Church so gouerned is in such a country as is subiect to one secular Prince, and not in an Aristocraticall, or Democraticall state: because the Ministers of the Church must be subor­dinate to the supreme secular magistrates, and the Ecclesi­asticall gouernment of the Church must be subordinate and answerable to the ciuill gouernment of the country where that Church is. Againe, as one man cannot gouerne the ciuill state of the world: so much lesse can one man be head of the whole Church; all authority both ciuill and Ec­clesiasticall being deriued from our Sauiour Christ, which is both the head of the Church, and the Prince of the Kings Eph. 1. 22. Apoc. 1. 5. Ma. 28. 18. of the earth, and all power is giuen to him from God his Father both in heauen and earth. Our Sauiour Christ is considered two manner of wayes: as he is God, so is hee the King of the whole world by the right of his creation: as he is the Redeemer, so is he the Head of the vniuersall Church by right of his redemption: as he is God, he hath his Vicegerents ouer the world, and they be his secular Magistrates. Ego dixi, vos dij estis, I haue said ye are Gods. But Psal. 81. 6. [Page 12] as hee is the head of the Church he hath no Copartener nor Vicegerent: no copartener, for so he were an vnper­fect mediator: no vicegerent among men, for no man is a­ble to supply his place in that behalfe, which I proue by this argument: The office and worke of his mediation pro­ceedeth from his two natures, God and Man, which con­curre in one action of the same person; so that he which supplyeth his office, must be of an infinite power, which is not to be found in any man besides himselfe. Now lest it should be obiected that he hath said of Ministers also: Ego dixi, vos dij estis, I haue said ye are Gods, as well as of Princes, Ioh. 10. 34. and therfore it should be concluded that they are his vice­gerents for the Church, as Princes for the common wealth: I answer, the argument doth not hold. For as both Princes & Ministers haue their authority deriued from him, so af­ter a different manner; Princes as vicegerents: Ministers onely as actiue instruments. For the keyes of the Church being in number but two: the one of the Word & Sacra­ments, the other of Gouernment: In the opening and shutting with these keyes which is the execution it selfe, are to be considered two things, the actiue instrument, and the principall agent. The Ministers are onely the actiue in­struments, to preach to the outward eares of men, when God alone giueth the gift of Faith, & conuerteth the heart inwardly as the principall agent: they conferre the out­ward elements only in the ministration of the Sacraments: hee alone sealeth remission of sinnes, and giueth inward graces: they lay hands vpon men to ordeine them Mini­sters, which is the outward calling: he doth call them in­wardly, and make them able by giuing them his holy Spi­rit: they testifie and pronounce before the congregation in iure fori, that wicked men are excommunicated out of the Church; but God onely ratifieth it in iure poli, and cut­teth them off from being members of Christ, and shutteth the kingdome of heauen against them. From the Head to all the members must be such an influence as possible can­not [Page 13] be from any sinfull man, as I haue deliuered in my former Treatise. Thus you see how idly and weakly the Popes supremacy is by them defended. And therefore vn­lesse stronger arguments be alledged, and more substan­tially proued, they cannot iustly blame vs for withdrawing our neckes out of the obedience to the sea of Rome.

CHAP. 2.

Of Image Worship.

BEcause they write, that worshipping images they com­mit no idolatry, in that they distinguish betweene an Bellar. de imaginib. lib. 2. c. 5. 1. Reg. 7. image & an idoll: that an image is the representation of somthing that is in the nature of things, as in Salomons tem­ple were the images of Lions, and Oxen: but an idoll is made onely to represent somewhat that neuer was, as the idols of Mercury and Iupiter, which are but false Gods of the Gentiles, Gods by imagination, and not indeed. And therefore they hold it for a slander to their religion, that their images are called Idols. Let the first question therefore be concerning the truth of that distinction, that yee may examine their fiue reasons whereby that distinction is by them auouched. First, saith Bel­larmine, Images which are a true representation of somewhat, are neuer called Idols in the holy Scriptures; as in Salomons tem­ple: The images, but not the idols of Lions, and Oxen. To which I answer: first, it is but a kinde of [...] or con­tention about words, which, be they vnderstood howsoe­uer, be they confounded or distinguished, the worship­ping of them is the breach of Gods commandement, where we are forbidden to worship any grauen image, or Exod. 20. the likenesse of any thing. Secondly, this negatiue proofe drawne from Scriptures, is no sufficient argument, but contrary to the lawes of disputations, as is plainly set downe in the Topic called Pronunciatum, Authoritas non va­let Rodolphus Agricola. in negatiuis. Thirdly, I bring instance against him, out [Page 14] of the holy Scriptures, where the image of a Calfe is cal­led an Idoll. For so saith Saint Stephen: [...], they made a calfe in those daies, Acts 7. 41. and offered sacrifice to an idoll. There in plaine termes the i­mage, or true representation of a calfe, is called an idoll. By this you see what smal credit is to be giuē to this distin­ction, and what false grounds Catholike doctrine is buil­ded vpon. Againe, Idols by Bellarmine himselfe are called statuae, and are so translated in the Latine, 1. Kings 10. 16. 17. and what is statua but an image? Secondly, saith he: An idoll is in the Hebrue tongue. Leuit. 19. 26. Num. 23. Ose. 6. a vaine thing, a false thing, a lye, alwaies signifying some false representation, a false image, and not a true image; as Abacuc. 2. 18. Which reason because it is but colewoorts twise sodden, a mere tautologie, and all one with the former, I answer to it as before. Thirdly, he argueth out of Saint Paul 1. Cor. 8. 4. We know an idoll is nothing. It is something (saith he) in respect of the matter whereof it is made, as wood, stone, mettall; but nothing in respect of the forme, because it repre­senteth that which is not. To which I answer as before, by deniall, in as much as the golden calfe, being for the mat­ter gold, represented that which in forme was somewhat, a bodily substance, animal mugibile, a lowing beast. And that I may make a better exposition of Saint Pauls words, out of S. Paul himselfe, of that proposition: Idolum nihil est, an idoll is nothing: as in matter it is something, so in respect of any diuine vertue in it, which the idolater ascribeth to it, it is nothing. And againe, by the analogie of that place, it is nothing either in respect of sanctification or pollution of those meats which are offered to it. And if there be any that cannot, or will not be satisfied with this answere, let them reply against it. Fourthly, saith he: S. Hierom vpon Abac. 2. & Zach. 13. compareth heresies and idole together, because as an i­dol is a false image, so an heresie is a false imagination. To which I answer: S. Hierom might as iustly haue compared heresies with images, which are many times as vnlike the man for [Page 15] whose pictures they are made, as heresy is different frō the truth. But he fayleth in the maine point of his comparison, because this proposition is not generally true, that an idol is a false image, because the calfe in Horeb, of which I first spake, was both an idoll and a true image. Fiftly, out of Eustachius lib. 11. Odyss: (saith he) an idoll is properly such a representation as the shadowes of men, flying phantasies, and imaginations of the braine, which we thinke we see, when nothing is before our eyes, ghosts, apparitions of such as be dead. To which I answere out of the vulgar Latine Bible, which is of better authority with the Church of Rome then euer Eustachius was: that the word image, is also vsed in the same manner, as: In imagine transit homo, Man passeth away as an Psal 39. [...]. Iob. 4. 16. image or a shadow. And Iob saith: In the thoughts of the vi­sions of the night, when sleepe falleth on men, feare came vpon me, and dread which made all my bones to tremble, and the winde pas­sed before me, and made the haires of my flesh to stand vp: then stood one, I knew not not his face, & imago, animage was before mine eyes, and in silence heard I a voyce, &c. Thus vnder a co­lour and shew of learning, hath he made an idle and fruit­lesse discourse, to intangle the simple reader, with no small preiudice to the Romish religion, which is defended by such sleight shifts, rather then by manifest truth.

This scruple being remoued, it remaineth in the second place, that we discusse this question: whether images are to be worshipped or not? And herein the practise of the Romish Church is contrary to the doctrine they do teach, because in their Churches they worship images, & set them vp to be worshipped; and inioyne the people to adore them; and yet not able to stand in the defence thereof, by their Writers they forsake their old defence, and by their Canons deny that any diuine worship is due vnto them. For the Councell of Trent hath these wordes: Imagines Concil. Trid. Sess. 25. Christi & sanctorum honorandae sunt, modo tamen in imaginibus non collocetur fiducia, nec ab ijs aliquid petatur, nec in ijs esse cre­datur aliqua diuinit as, sed solum honorentur propter eos quos no­bis [Page 16] repraesentant: Images are to be honored (not to be adored:) and they are to be honoured onely with such limitations, that we put no trust or confidence in them; that we pray not vnto them; that we ascribe not any diuine vertue to them, but onely they are to be honored for their sakes whose images they are, and whose likenesse they represent to vs. There you see plainly what their do­ctrine is, how they deny them adoration. And yet by their practise, they do not onely prostrate themselues before them, as the Gentiles did before their idols, but plainly shew in action, that they suppose some diuine power to be in them, in that they pray to them, and by their long pere­grinations weary themselues in visiting some images ra­ther then others; yea they trauell very farre to prostrate themselues before the images of our Sauiour Christ, and the virgin Mary, and other Saints in farre countries, when they haue in their owne Churches at home the images of the same Saints; yea farre more beautifull then are abroad. Bellarmine saith: Omnes cruces ador amus, we adore all images of the crosse: And yet by his owne exposition, this word a­dor De imag. Sanct. lib. 2. cap. 12. amus, we adore them, is no more then if he had said; We honour them, and thinke reuerently of them, or vse them reuerently; because they be for exercise of deuotion, and make difference betweene them and other things which are appointed only for ciuill vses. And to make good this his expositiō, he referreth vs to that decree of the Councel of Trent, which before I haue alledged. Moreouer he sheweth, that as there is one adoration which is religious belonging to God; so there is an other onely officious, belonging to all Ecclesiasticall rites and ceremonies; and such things as are vsed in the Church. And to that purpose he alledgeth the authority of the 2. Councell of Nice, which speaketh more in fauour of images then all o­ther Councels, and decreeth in this sort: Imagines sunt ve­nerandae, non quidem cultu latriae, sed honore illo quo prosequi­mur Concil. Nic. 2. Act. 7. sacras literas, vasa sacra: Images are to be worshipped; but how? not with such worship as belongeth to God; but onely to be [Page 17] honoured, as the Church bookes, and the Church vessels. (But I thinke no Catholicke, holdeth that the Bible, the Basen, the Font, and the Chalice, are to be worshipped by adora­tion.) And so they call them sacras imagines, sacred images; as they call other things which belong to the Church, res sacras, holy things; as the Communion cuppes, vasa sa­cra, holy Chalices; the Font, lauacrum sacrum; their Priests, personas sacras; their Churches, Aedes sacras; their Bibles, Biblia sacra: and yet adore them not. And thus, as men a­shamed of themselues, they qualifie the matter by such sub­tilties among the learned, to auoid suspition of idolatry, & continue the people in ignorance and grosse idolatry. A­gaine, whereas Aquinas, and other Catholicke Doctors, haue before deliuered in grosse tearmes, that images are to be worshipped, cultu latriae, with diuine worship, or such worship as is due vnto God. Bellarmine to qualifie the matter, and to reduce them to the meaning of the Councell De imag. li. 2. cap. 25. of Trent, would seeme to make a more milde exposition of these words, coigning this distinction: Inter sanctos & eo­rum imagines, & reliquias, betweene the Saints themselues, and their images and reliques. So inter Christum & eius imagines & reliquias, betweene our Sauior Christ, & his images & reliques. And so he hath written that the images & reliques are to be worshipped with the same worship, as they whose images & reliques they are; and so the images & reliques of Saints with the worship of doulia, and of Christ with latria; But yet at the length, as a Cow that giueth a paile full of milke, and then kicketh it downe with her heele, he doth by a di­stinction so qualifie the matter, and set downe such a state of the question, whereby all is ouerthrowne. For, saith he, that worship which is called latria, and that which is doulia, are of two sorts, one is cultus verus, a true wor­ship, which is due to the persons themselues: the other but analogicus, an analogicall, or equiuocall worship onely, which is due to the images and reliques. But what difference is be­tweene analogum, and analogatum, a liue Saint, and the pi­cture [Page 18] of a Saint, I referre the consideration thereof to the iudgmēt of all Scholers which haue learned but Aristotle his Antipredicaments. As a painted man, or analogical man is no man, so analogical worship is no worship; a painted man is but the resemblance of a man, so analogicall worship is but a resemblance of worship, and not worship it selfe. But it is hard to deuise how they should make such a resemblance of worship before the image, and not worship the image. And howsoeuer, if it were possible, yet the Apostle teacheth how they ought to auoid all shew of euill. And thus hath he auoyded that which was alledged against him by aequi­uocation, which is contrary to the law of Schooles.

To leaue their doctrine, & come to their scandalous pra­ctise, we charge them with breach of the second comman­dement, because they fall downe before their images, Bel­larmine in defence thereof, saith: They do not cultū tribuere De imag. l. 3. cap. 11. simulacris tāquam Dijs, worship their images as Gods, but onely they worship God in the images of God, & Saints in the images of those Saints before whom they fall downe, and that such worship is not prohibited in holy writ. Now therefore vpon this point let vs ioyne our issue. If to prostrate themselues before the image, and say they worship not the image, but God in the image, might be lawful; then might both Iews & Gen­tiles which did the like, haue excused their idolatry, foras­much as neither of them hold their idols to be Gods when they fall downe before them. For knowing by the light of nature there was a God, but knowing him not as he ought to be knowne, nor in what sort he should be worshipped, they framed idols, & worshipped him in those idols; & yet for so doing, they were condemned in the holy Scriptures, because he being a Spirit, would be worshipped in Spirit, but not in an idol; and so he will not be worshipped in an image. Concerning the Iewes, which were idolaters, they knew their golden calfe was no God, but worshipped God in the calfe. Bellarmine therefore asketh why they said: Fa­ciamus De imag. l. 2. cap. 13. Exod. 23. Deas qui praecedant nos: let vs make Gods to go before vs? [Page 19] & Hi sunt Dij qui eduxerunt te de terra Aegypti: these be the Gods which brought thee out of Aegypt? I answer, their maner was to call idols Gods; but Deos repraesetatiuos, gods by repre­setation, because they made thē to represent God, vsing the figure called enallage numeri, Gods for God, the plural num­ber for the singular. I answer him also by his owne distin­ction, they did meane Deos analogicos non veros, Gods analo­gically but not truly & vniuocally vnderstood. So in the story of the Iudges, speaking of Micha the idolater, the text saith: This man Micha had an house of Gods, the holy Ghost would Iudg. 18. 5. not call his idols Gods but in this sense, because they were idols. There it is plaine that in the Scriptures that which is knowne & vnderstood to be no God but an idol, yet is cal­led a God. And that I may somwhat inlarge this point for the better satisfaction of the reader. The Iewes knew that God in particular which brought thē out of Aegypt before Exod. 19. 9. 11. the golden calfe was made; for a little before he came down in their sight vpon mount Sina, they heard him speake with Exod. 20. 19. their own eares, he appeared in thundering & lightning; his presēce was so terrible they were afraid, they said to Moses: Talke thou with vs and we will heare thee, but let not him talke with vs lest we dy; & therfore could not think this calfe which they made afterward, to be the same God; which could not speake, nor terrifie them at all, and consequently they held it to be but an analogicall or representatiue God. But saith Bellarmine, though first they knew him, yet whē they made the calfe they had forgotten him. How proueth he that? Fe­cerūt Psal. 105. vitulū in Horeb, they made a calfe in Horeb, they worship­ped the molten image, & forgat God which saued them, and did wonderfull things in Aegypt. To which I answer by distin­ction, that forgetfulnesse is of two sorts; one which is ig­norance, when a man letteth slip out of his memory that which once he knew, or heard, or saw, as when Peter heard the cocke crow, he remembred the words of Iesus: the other of ingratude, as where it is written: The Butler did Mat. 26. 75. not remember Ioseph, but forgat him, that is, he was ingrate­full Gen. 40. 23 to him. And in that sense the Israelites forgate God. [Page 20] Againe, any impiety, negligence, presumption, disobedi­ence, is called forgetfulnesse; as Dauid speaketh: The wic­ked shall be turned into hell, and all they which forget God. Psal. 9. 17. And that the forgetfulnesse of the Iewes, could not be the obli­uion of ignorance, I proue by the text it selfe: cras erit so­lemnitas Iehouae, tomorrow shall a solemne feast be kept to the God Iehoua. (Which Iehoua is the proper name of the God of heauen, knowne then onely among the Iewes) so that they worshipped Iehoua in the calfe. But, saith Bellarmine, Respondeo fortè Iudaeos illos qui plures Deos veros esse tradebant, non putasse hoc nomen esse proprium sed appellatiuum: Perad­uēture those Iewes which held a multitude of true Gods, thought that Iehoua was not a name proper to one, but common to many. To which I reply: That besides religion must not be grounded vpon Bellarmine his PERADVENTVRES, and idle coniectures, how can he auoid this text parallell vnto that, to shew what was the opinion of the Iewish Idolaters, where Mica his mother saith: Sanctificaui, & voui Iehouae, &c. I haue sanctified the siluer, and dedicated it to Iehoua, to Iudg. 17. 3. make a molten Image? Forasmuch as there by his owne words, Ieboua & sculptile, God and the molten Image, are two seuerall things, votum quod est sculptile, & numen cui sculptile vouetur, the vow which is the molten image, and the God Ieho­ua, to whom the image is deuoted, she could not thinke that image to be Iehoua. To come to the worship of the Gen­tiles, what answer doth he make to these arguments? First they did, vni Deo plura simulacra erigere, erect many idols to one God. For example, they acknowledge but one Iupiter, yet in euery country were idols of Iupiter: therefore they made a difference betweene the God himselfe and his i­doll: consequently they did not thinke the idoll to be a God. His answer is, Habuerunt alios Deos in coelo, alios inter­râ; De imag. li. 2. cap. 13. nec putauerunt absurdum si vnus Deus coelestis, vt Iupi­ter vel Apollo haberet interrâ multos collegas minores, id est, multa idola eiusdem nominis: The heathens had some Gods in heauen, some on earth; neither did they thinke it an absurdity [Page 21] that one God in heauen, as Iupiter or Apollo, should haue many fellow Gods inferiour vpon earth, that is, many idols to beare their names. And I pray you what is this answer, but a confession, or grant of that which I haue alledged, that the heathens accompted their Gods which they thought to be in hea­uen, to be Gods indeed, & these vpon earth, before whom they prostrated themselues, to be but idols, and represen­tations of them which were in heauen? therefore they did not thinke they were Gods. Secondly, they framed dayly new idols, and yet said not that they made new Gods. His answer is: Putarunt Gentes senouos Deos facere, saltem terre­stres: The Gentiles so doing, thought at the least, they made such Gods as were vpon earth, although not such as were in heauen: which is no more then he spake before to the first obiecti­on, a grant of that which I haue obiected. Thirdly, Muta­runt simulacra pro arbitrio, nec tamen Deos mutarunt: They changed their idols at their pleasure, whereas their Gods conti­nued the same. To it he saith: Respondeo Ethnicos eâdem stultitiâ quâ putabunt Deos posse fieri manibus hominum, potuisse etiam credere Deos aliquos potuisse destrui manibus hominum: As the heathens in their foolishnesse thought they could make Gods with their hands: so in as great folly they thought they could destroy the Gods which they had made. And this is no more then was in the answer to the first obiection, where he confessed that in the opinion of the heathen, their idols were but idols, and no true Gods. Fourthly, S. Augustine relateth, that when the Gentiles were accused of idolatry, they answered that: Non colebant idolum, sed numen quod per idolum significa­batur: August. in Psal. 113. they did not worship the idoll, but the God which was represented by it. This obiection Bellarmine repeateth in his 2. booke and 11. chapter. But in the 13. chapter, where he taketh vpon him to answer the arguments go­ing before, as I haue shewed, he passeth this ouer with si­lence.

But to to come the reasons which Bellarmine produceth against vs for proofe of this defence. If (saith he) they did [Page 22] not beleeue these idols to be very gods, but representations only of God, and so worshipped not them, but God in them; why do the Prophets labour so much to perswade them that they were no gods? I answer: whatsoeuer we prostrate our selues before Esay 46. Psa. 13. Act. 19. in our prayers, consequently we make it our god, not by our opinion, but by that adoration, which is the prostra­ting of our selues before it; not directly, but by a conse­quent. And because the people did so, the Prophets, and S. Paul in those places by him cited, do not so much labour to proue them no Gods, as if the people had thought them to be so, but because they prostrated themselues before them, and so by a consequent made them gods. But (saith Bellarmine) if they did not thinke them to be gods, why did they inuocate, and call vpon them? why did they pray vnto them vn­lesse they thought that they did heare them? I answer out of the Roman Catechisme which holdeth this doctrine: that they must pray to the images of saints in the Romish Churches, not Catechis. Rom. pars. 4. cap. 6 sect. 3. thinking that the images can heare them, but that the saints, which by those images are represented, should heare them when they pray before their images. The words are these. Quum ad imaginem sancti alicuius quis dominicam orationem pronun­ciet, ita tum sentiat se ab illo petere vt secum oret, sibi (que) postulet ea quae Dominicae orationis formulâ continentur, & sui deni (que) sit interpres & deprecator apud Deum. When any man saith the Lords prayer before the image of any saint, let his meaning be thus, that he craueth of the saint himselfe whose image it is, that the saint would pray with him, and obtaine for him those petitions which in that forme of prayer are comprehended, and so that he would be for him insteed of an interpreter, and a spokes man for him with God. So then, as the Catholike prayeth to the image of the saint, that the saint his selfe may heare him, and not the image: likewise, the Gentile prayeth to the idoll, not that the idoll, but God should heare him. Other arguments he produceth, weaker then these, as namely: That the Gentiles thought their idols to be gods, because they were so taught by their Priests; and the world did so beleeue, be­cause [Page 23] the idols did seeme to speake, when indeed, not they, but the diuels spake out of them, as also because they had the shape of men, they thought they had in thē life & motion. To which I an­swer: their Priests did not so teach them, neither did the world beleeue that they were gods, but analogically as be­fore: For the Gentiles held that God was a spirit and not a body; the diuels speaking out of them could not make the Gētiles beleeue they spake, no more thē the friers speaking out of the rood-loft maketh the Catholike thinke that the image in the rood-loft speaketh. Again, the diuels speaking out of them did imitate God, which spake out of the fiery Exod. 2. bush, whē it could not seeme probable that the bush spake, but God out of it. Lastly, that their idols had the shape of men, it maketh against him, for that should be an induce­ment rather to make them thinke they were no gods, but rather men.

And to conclude, that I may not be tedious, concer­ning the erecting of images in the Church, whether it be lawfull or no? They alledge for proofe of the lawfulnesse thereof the example of God himselfe, which commanded images to be erected in the temple of Salomon, and there­upon conclude, we may by that warrant erect images in Catechis. Rom. pars 3. cap. 2. Bell. de ima­ginib. li. b2. cap. 5. our Churches; which is but to deceiue the simple with a fallacy called, A dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter. Salomon lawfully erected images in his temple hauing re­ceiued a commandement from God; therfore we may erect them in our churches, when God hath not giuen any such commandement. The Israelites lawfully robbed the Ae­gyptians, Exod. 11. 2. when God appointed them so to do; but we may not do the like, hauing no such dispensation from God. He is liberrimum agens, a free agent, and aboue his law; but we are vnder it, and may not breake it without warrant from him. God saith: Non facies tibi sculptile, thou shalt make to Exod. 20. thy selfe no grauen image; and yet we may Deo sculptilia fa­cere, make grauen images to God, that is, when he doth so ap­point it, and so Salomon did.


Of Predestination.

FOr the better vnderstanding what predestination is, it behoueth vs to know first; that God hath written three bookes, the one of nature, to hold vs without excuse, in which we may reade there is a God; and that is the fabrike of the world. The other of Grace, to saue our soules, which is the holy Bible, where he hath manifested himselfe in his Rom. 1. 20. Psal. 19. 1. 2. Tim. 3. [...]5. Sonne. The third of life, for our farther assurance, which is his secret counsell, and it he reserueth to himselfe in his owne bosome. In it we cannot reade particularly whose names are written, because it is not published as the two Apoc. 20. 15. Apoc. 5. 1. other are, but it is sealed vp with seuen seales, and none can open it, but the Lambe Christ Iesus. Yet out of the booke of Grace we are taught that some few are written in the booke of life, and the lambe Christ Iesus hath reuea­led to S. Paul his chosen vessell seuen leaues of that booke, containing seuen heads, or principall chapters, to giue vs some small light and taste thereof, that we may not be meerly ignorant of so much as in his wisedome he thought fit to impart vnto vs.

The Apostle hath these words: We know that all things worke together to the best to them that loue God, euen to them Rom. 8. 28. 89. 30. that are called of his purpose, for those whom he knew before he hath predestinated to be made like the image of his Sonne, that he might be the first-borne among many brethren. Moreouer, whom he hath predestinated, them he called, whom he called, them he iustified, whom he iustified, them also he glorified. And in another place: He hath chosen vs in him (meaning Christ) before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and Eph. 1. 4. 5. blamelesse before him in loue, who hath predestinated vs to be a­dopted through Iesus Christ, vnto his selfe, according to the good pleasure of his will. In which words are deliuered these se­uen principall heads, to wit, Purpose, Fore-knowledge, [Page 25] Predestination, Election, Vocation, Iustification, Glorifi­cation, which all of them I define after this manner.

His purpose is his eternall and immutable decree in ge­nerall, that he will be glorified by his creatures.

Fore-knowledge is his eternall and immutable decree, proceeding meerly from his will and pleasure, that he will be glorified by the saluation of men. Which fore-know­ledge called in Latine praescientia, is not deriued of the verbe scio, which signifieth barely to know, but of s [...]isco, which is So Beza in annot. main in Rom. 8. So Bell. de grat. & lib. arbit. l. 2 [...]. 13. 2. Tim. 2. 19. Mat. 7. 23. antè decernere, to know with a certaine decree, or determi­nation that he will haue it to be so, as where it is written: This foundation remaineth sure; God knoweth who are his. And againe where our Sauiour saith in the gospell to the false apostles: I know you not. For otherwise, though the foreknowledge of God be immutable, it cannot be the cause that any thing should come to passe; for nothing co­meth to passe because he knew it would be so, but because he ordained that it should be so.

Predestination is his eternall and immutable decree, proceeding onely from his will and pleasure, that he will be glorified by the saluation of some particular men aboue the rest, as where it is written: I haue loued Iacob, and hated Mal. 1. 2. Rom. 9. 13. Esau.

Election is his eternall and immutable decree, procee­ding from his will and pleasure, that the whole lumpe be­ing a lumpe or masse of iniquity, they which are predesti­nated to be vessels of honour should be separated from the other clay, which serueth to make vessels of wrath and de­struction. And all these foure go before the conception of Rom. 9. 13. man, the other three follow after, not in Gods secret deter­mination, but onely in his execution, two of them in this life, and the other in the life to come.

Vocation is an action of especiall grace in this life, in which by the holy Ghost inwardly working, the Minister of the word outwardly preaching, and the will of man vn­fainedly consenting, man is effectually conuerted to the [Page 26] faith, and piety of life.

Iustification is a sentence of grace in this life, out of which they which are effectually called, are by him through Christ absolued from sin, and consequently from the sentence and decree of death.

Glorification is an action of glory in the life to come, by which corruption being cast off, he doth cloath them with immortality after the similitude of the resurrection of Iesus Christ.

These are subordinate one to the other, the first foure being before one another in order but not in time; because they are eternall: the other three, though in Gods booke they be also eternall in respect of his determination, yet in respect of the men that are called, iustified, and glorified, as they are acts proceeding from his decrees to execute and accomplish that in them which God hath decreed, not on­ly in order but also in time, they follow after, as they are not in eternity but in time. These things being duly consi­dered, let vs come to the state of the question.

Our doctrine is, that God by eternall decree hath or­deined some to saluation, others to damnation; the cause which moued him so to do, being not in them, but only in himselfe, and that is onely his will and pleasure. The sub­iects therefore of this disputation are two sorts of men, Paucitas saluendorum, the paucity, or small remnant of them which are saued. And concerning them, Bellarmine his de­fence is all one with ours; that they are saued, no cause be­ing in themselues, but onely in God, without any foresight of any thing in them. He saith it is a doctrine consonant to Degrat & lib. arbit. l. 1. cap. 10. Scriptures, to the tradition of the Church, & to reason grounded vpon Scriptures and Fathers. The difference betweene him and vs is only concerning them which are comprehended in the second ranke, which is numerositas damnatorū: the great multitude of them which are damned. Of them he saith: Cal­uiniani contendunt homines ante praeuisionem paccati ad mortem Degratiâ & lib. arb. l. 2 cap. 16. destinatos quod cum Dei iustitiâ pugnat: It cānot stand with the [Page 27] iustice of God to ordeine men to destruction without foresight of some cause to be in themselues. Our answer is: God ordeined them to destruction of his owne will, not for their sinnes, and yet not being without sinne, but bringing with them into the world from their natiuity and conception, suffici­ent matter of condemnation before his decree should be put in execution: as the Hebrues when they were in Ae­gypt did both build for Pharaoh, and also finde straw their selues to make morter for the building. We distinguish Exod. 5. 7. inter vasa ipsa, & vniuersam massam, betweene the vessels in particular which are made to condemnation, and the whole lumpe out of which they are fashioned and framed. Though they were ordeined to damnation for no iniquity which was particularly in themselues; yet that there might be no in­iustice with God, he had a generall respect to the mould of iniquity whereof they were made. He hated Esau in his owne person, not for any thing that was in Esau, but there was matter enough in the whole lumpe out of which he was created, wherefore he should hate him. Saint Augustine saith: Merito iniustum videretur quod fiunt vasa ad perditio­nem nisi esset in Adam vniuersa massa damnata: It might Eucherid. ad Laur. c. 98. seeme iniustice that any should be vessels ordeined to destruction, had it not bene so, that the whole lumpe out of which those vessels were formed, had bene damned before in Adam. So he ma­keth the foundation of this decree to be the fall of Adam; and yet so, that the fault and guilt of condemnation should rest in themselues; and yet this fall of Adam not to be an antecedent or cause of this decree, but a consequent or sequele of that decree. But concerning the vessels in particular which are comprehended in this lumpe, the A­postle saith: God hated Esau that his purpose might remaine according to election, not by workes, but by him that calleth, Rom. 9. 11. where he plainly deliuereth this doctrine: That God in this reprobation of Esau, respected nothing in his person, but the cause which moued him to this hatred, was onely in himselfe. If the aduersay alledge (as vsually he doth) that albeit God did [Page 28] no hate him ex operibus, for his euill workes which were in in him, because then he was vnborne: yet he did hate him ex praeuisis operibus, because he foresaw those euill workes which afterward when he should be borne he would commit: I answer: That obiection is preuented, and fully satisfied by the words themselues in that which followeth after. Concer­ning the words themselues Saint Augustine saith: Si futura opera quae Deus vti (que) praesciebat vellet intelligi, nequaqum dice­ret non ex operibus, sed ex futuris operibus, eo (que) modo istam sol­ueret Euchirid. ad Laur. cap. 98. quaestionem, immò nullam omnino quam solui opus esset fa­ceret quaestionem: If the Apostle had vnderstood foresight of workes to be any cause, he had not said as he did NOT OF WORKES, but he would rather haue said: God hated him be­cause of the workes which he foresaw in him, and so he would not onely haue resolued this question, but also haue made it so plaine, that it should haue bene without question. But in the words which follow, Saint Paul expresseth his owne meaning to be as I haue deliuered, first by making answer to this ob­iection: Is there iniquity with God? God forbid. For flesh would obiect that it were iniustice condemnare hominem non natum, to condemne the child vnborne: To which obiection he answereth: It is no iniquity, which answer in defence of Gods iustice, had bene needlesse, and the obiection as fruit­lesse, if it were so that God did in his decree condemne him out of a foresight of sinne, which he knew he would com­mit, forasmuch as God in his foresight could not be decei­ued, and his decree was not to be executed vntill the sinne were committed, and that were in mans iudgement no ini­quity or iniustice. Secondly he cleareth the matter by in­larging that point to make it more apparant to mans capa­city, where he saith: He will haue mercy vpon whom he will haue mercy, and where he will, he hardeneth. And againe, it is not in him that willeth (meaning mans indeuours) nor in him that runneth (meaning the workes of man) but in God that sheweth mercy. There he, reacheth that the onely law of iustice, and rule whereby God in his predestination and [Page 29] reprobation is directed, and the highest cause which mo­ueth him thereunto, is onely his will. Non potest iniuste agere cuius volunt as est iusticiae regula: He cannot do iniustice which is tyed to no other rule of iustice, but his will. Whatsoeuer is the will of God, the same with him is iustice. Hauing thus layed open the state of the question, and shewed briefly what is our defence, let vs examine what may be said a­gainst vs.

Our aduersaries which we are to conclude withall, are Bellarmine and Becanus, two famous Iesuites. Bellarmine seemeth in words somewhat to discent from vs by wilfull mistaking both of vs and of Saint Augustine, from whom he would deriue the grounds of his disputation, as a man that will not see that which plainly he seeth. He goeth a­bout the bush by sleights and subtilties, that he might at the least, beare the world in hand he standeth in op­position against vs, but when he commeth to the point, he discenteth not from vs. As for Becanus which hath written after him, he would be thought to see more then others did before; and therefore feedeth his owne phan­tasie with new trickes, and busieth the reader with strange conceipts farre fetched, and nothing pettinent to the matter. In his whole tract hee beateth the ayre, and fighteth with his owne shadow, but commeth nothing neere vnto that which is cardo questionis, & prora quasi, & puppis totius controuersiae, the maine matter now in contro­uersie betweene him and vs. But that we may first come to Bellarmine.

Of reprobation he speaketh thus: Causâ reprobationis De gratiâ & lib. arb. lib. 2. c. 16. partim ad solam Dei voluntatem, partim ad peccata prauisare­ferenda est, The cause of reprobation is partly the meere will of God, and partly the foresight of sinne. In these termes he see­meth to impugne vs. But afterward he explaneth his meaning by a distinction, saying: Reprobatio duos actus com­prehendit, vnum negatiuum, alterum affirmatiuum, Negatiuus est: Non habet Deus voluntatem eos saluandi, & quantum ad [Page 30] illum actum, nulla datur eius causa ex parte hominum. Affir­matiuus est: Habet Deus voluntatem eos damnandi, & huius causa est praeuisio peccati; There are two acts of God in his repro­bation, the first negatiue, the other affirmatiue. His negatiue act is this: He hath no will to saue them, and of that act there is no cause at all in men, but onely in himselfe. The affirmatiue act is this: He hath a will to damne them, and the cause of this is the foresight of sinne. For proofe of the negatiue saith, Bellar­mine: God hated Esau, antequam aliquid mali agisset, non solum coram hominibus, sed etiam in praescientià Dei, before he had done any euill, not onely in the sight of men, but also in the fore-knowledge of God. He hated him (saith he) not for originall sinne, for then should he as well haue hated Iacob, because origi­nall sinne was common to them both; nor because he was worthy of hatred, for so they were both, and so he should haue hated all men, and elected none, because all were worthy of hatred. By the way (saith he) it is to be noted, that these words: to hate, to harden, which in termes are affirmatiue, in sense are negatiue, as odisse est nolle diligere, indurare nolle misereri, to hate, is not to loue, to harden, is not to be willing to shew mercy. Againe (saith he) that a man is hardned, though it be a punishment for sinnes past, yet it is an effect of this reprobation, so that God doth har­den him because from eternity he appointed him to be a repro­bate. Last of all (saith he) facere vasain contumeliam, to make men vessels of dishonour; though being vnderstood in this sense: deputare ad contumeliam, to depute them to dishonour and shame is affirmatiue; yet, being thus vnderstood: Facere vasa qualia requirit totius massae conditio, & sic relinquere, & nihil aliud addere, to make them such vessels as the nature and condition of the whole lumpe requireth, and so to leaue them, and do no fur­ther act, is negatiue, and of all these there is no cause in men, but onely in God. But for proofe of the affirmatiue, which is: Habere voluntatem damnandi, to haue a will to damne them (saith he) that is by reason of the foresight of sinne, we haue in­stance. Ite maledicti in ignem aternum, Go ye cursed into euerla­sting fire, the cause of this damnation is shewed to be in them­selues: Math. 29. [Page 31] I was hungry, and ye gaue me no meate, &c. Bonus Deus est, iustus Deus est, God is good, and God is iust, he can August. lib. 3. aduersus Iulianum cap. 18. saue, though men haue not deserued saluation, because he is good, but he cannot condemne them vnlesse they haue deserued condem­nation, because he is iust. Condemnare aliquem sine culpà est pu­nire sine causà, quod iniustum est, To condemne a man without fault is to punish without cause, and that cannot stand with iu­stice. So farre goeth Bellarmine.

Now, that I may speake to euery point, I will first re­peate his words: Reprobation (saith he) hath two parts, one negatiue, that God will not saue, the cause of that is in God, the other affirmatiue, that God will condemne, the cause thereof is in man. First, I say this is no lawfull distinction, to make a diuersity of that which is an identity; for there is aequipollen­tia in re, they be different onely in termes, but are equipol­lent one to the other in substance. He sheweth out of Saint Augustine that to hate, and to harden, which in termes are affirmatiue, are in matterall one with nolle diligere, nolle misereri, not to loue, not to haue mercy, which are negatiue. But after the same manner I come vpon him, Deus vult damnare, God will condemne, is a proposition in voyce affir­matiue, and equiuolent to this: Deus non vult saluare, God will not saue, which is negatiue. And as there is no meane betweene loue and hatred, mercy and induration, but he that is not loued of God is hated, he that findeth no mercy is hardned: So, in Gods predestination there is no meane or third thing betweene saluation and damnation, but ne­cessarily by this decree, he that is not saued must be damned, he that is not separated from the lumpe of ini­quity must be left to continue in the lumpe of iniquity, no meane betweene separation from it, and continuance in it.

But secondly, to leaue his idle termes to himselfe, which sauour of subtiltie, and not of substance, and which make that to seeme darke and obscure, which is as cleere as the day light; I will shew plainely out of himselfe that in do­ctrine [Page 32] he consenteth with vs: For, concerning this affirma­tiue act God will condemne Esau, which he saith is an act of Gods reprobation, let him acquit himselfe if he can. I would know whether he will haue it to be a part of repro­bation, as it is in ipso decreto, in the decree it selfe, or in decreti executione, in the execution of the decree? in intention or in action? one of them it must be.

The decree it selfe which is Gods intention is eternall, the action which is the execution of his decree, is tempo­rall. If he meane it is to be referred to the decree it selfe, I proue by his owne argument, that then the cause why he would condemne Esau, was not in Esau, but only in God. For, he framed his argument to proue the negatiue part in this manner: That God would not saue Esau, it was not be­cause he foresaw sinne in him, for then he should not haue saued Iacob; for he foresaw sinne in Iacob as well as in Esau. So I come vpon him with his owne argument: That God would condemne Esau, it was not because he foresaw sinne in him; for then he would haue condemned Iacob, because he did foresee sin in Iacob as well as in Esau; Therefore, as Bellarmine inferreth: the cause was onely in God that he would not saue Esau. So I in­ferre, the cause was only in God that he would condemne Esau. But if he meane that the affirmatiue part is to be referred to the condemnation which is the execution of reprobation, which is temporall, and not to the decree it selfe, which is eternall (as needs he must) and it appeareth plainely by his words following that so he meaneth, we hold with him, and his defence is all one with ours. For, how doth he proue the affirmatiue part: That God will condemne them, it is in themselues? but by this sentence of Scripture, Math. 25. Go ye cursed into eternall fire, the cause being shewed to be in themselues: I was hungry, and ye fed me not. These words are a finall sentence to be pronounced at the end of the world, and not the decree it selfe, which was before the beginning of the world, these words put the decree in exe­cution, and are a sentence published to the world by the [Page 33] mouth of our Sauiour Christ, whereas reprobation is a secret which God reserueth to himselfe in his owne bo­some. And, whereas he calleth this finall sentence of the Iudge reprobation, it cannot properly be so called, but onely by the figure called metonimia effectus pro causa, where the effect is vsed for the cause; for this is condemnation, and not reprobation, an effect of reprobation, but not repro­bation it selfe.

And, where for proofe of the affirmatiue part he sayth out of Saint Augustine, Condemnare sine culpâ ost punire sine August. l. 3: aduers. Iu­lian. cap. 18. causâ quod iniustum est, To condemne without fault, is to punish without cause, and that is against iustice; I hold with him, God cannot in his iustice punish or condemne any man which hath not deserued condemnation or punishment: but what is this to reprobation? Peter Martyr acknowledged so much long before Bellarmine his workes came forth, where he sayd: Peccata sunt causa cur condemnantur, non tamen cur Petrus Mar­tyr locorum comclassis. 3. cap. 1. à Deo reprobantur, Sinnes are the cause why men are damned, and yet no cause why men are reprobates. So where he saith that God doth make vessels of dishonour, the cause is in himselfe; but that he doth deputare ad contumeliam, appoint them to wrath and dishonour: It is in the men themselues, we consent with him, in as much as this deputation is an action which is temporall, but that making of vessels of wrath is a decree which is eternall. Peter Martyr saith: Peccata sunt causa damnationis quae fit in tempore, sed non reprobationis quae fuit ab aeterno, Sinne is the cause of damnation which is in time; but not of reprobation, which was before time, sinne is an effect of reprobation, and therefore it cannot be a cause of reprobation. As the Apostle Saint Paul, and Bellarmine his selfe do shew, Eph. 1. 4. De gratiâ & lib. arb. l. 2. cap. 10. that good workes are no cause, but an effect of election: so the argument followeth: sinne is not a cause, but an effect of reprobation. The sinne of Pharaoh was hardnesse of heart, he would not let the people go; this could not be the cause why God eternally did reiect him, but God reiected him eternally; and therefore in time he hardned his heart, [Page 34] that he should not let the people go.

Last of all, there are two sorts of causes, one the highest, an other subordinate, which go betweene the decree, & the execution thereof. So that albeit Gods will was the first and highest cause that he ordained some to damnation: which cause was onely in himselfe; yet there are found o­ther causes inferiour and subordinate, sufficient to stand with the rule of iustice, that his decree should be put in execution, as hardnesse of heart, infidelity, and other sins, which causes are inherent in the men themselues.

Becanus writeth in this manner: The doctrine of predesti­nation Euchirid. cap. 1. (saith he) is vnderstood two manner of wayes: either ac­cording to the Catholike defence, that God did, post praeuisionem originalis peccati, quum vniuersae esset massa perdita, aliquos ali­gere ex suâ misericordia ad gloriam, alios in massâ perditionis relinquere vt essent vasa in contumeliam, After he foresaw ori­ginall sinne in the whole lumpe being corrupted, of his mercy choose some to be vessels of honour, and leaue others in the lumpe of perdition to be vessels of dishonour: Or according to Caluin, that God before he fore saw originall sinne, Ex massâ integrâ, Out of the lumpe being sound, ordained some to life, others to death without any offence of theirs or their parents. And as it is taken in that second sense he argueth against Caluin, and out of this diuision so made by himselfe, he frameth his dispu­tation.

By the way, before we come to his arguments. First, it is superfluous and idle, to suppose that God did predesti­nate antè aut post praeuisionem peccati, before or after the fore­sight of originall sinne, because he did both praeuidere & prae­destinare ab aeterno, foresee and predestinate from euerlasting, with him there is nihil prius aut posterius, nothing before or af­ter, because he is before all time. Againe, this were to im­pute ignorance vnto God, as if some thing had bene to come to passe which once he did not foresee. Thirdly, our question is not of the time when? but of the cause why God did predestinate? I confesse with Bellarmine these [Page 35] termes: Post praeuisionem operum & expraeuisis operibus, Af­ter Degrat & lib. arbit. l. 2, cap. 10. the foresight of workes, and out of a foresight of workes (ma­king this foresight to be the cause) are all one, so that he disputeth not of the time when? but of the cause why God did predestinate? But, with this Iesuite it is otherwise, as it appeareth by the sequele of his disputation; and there­fore he commeth not neere the question which he propo­seth. As also, massaintegra & corrupta, the state of innocency and of sinne, though in time they succeeded one another; yet in Gods foresight they were both at once. But let vs come to his argument.

That God did not predestinate any man to life ex massâ integrâ, out of the lumpe being sound, before he foresaw ori­ginall sinne in him, he taketh vpon him to confirme by two reasons, the first is this: If God did so, then the decree of pre­destination was before the decree of Christ his incarnation, but that decree of predestination was not before the decree of Christs incarnation; Therefore God did not predestinate man to life out of the lumpe being sound, before he foresaw originall sinne in him. He proueth the sequele of the Maior; because the foresight of sinne is more ancient then the decree of incarnation: for had not Adam sinned, Christ had neuer bene incarnate. He proueth the Minor, because else our election had not bene grounded vp­on the merits of our Sauiour Christ. For Saint Paul saith: E­legit nos in Christo, he hath chosen vs in Christ, &c. To which Eph. 1. 4. I answere: This is [...], a skirmish with his owne sha­dow, but no combat with Caluin, because he obtrudeth that to Caluin which is not his doctrine. Caluin doth not hold that God did predestinate any man to life ex massâ in­tegrâ, out of the lumpe being sound: for the lumpe being sound, men were in state of life iure creationis, by the right of their first creation, and if the lumpe had continued sound, there had bene no vse of predestination; for that is groun­ded vpon Christ his merits, which were to take place massâ perditâ, & corruptâ, the lumpe being corrupted. And much lesse did Caluin hold that God did predestinate or ordeine [Page 36] to death, ex massâ integrâ, out of the lumpe being sound. For, besides that it was impossible that man should dye, the whole lump [...]uing in the first integrity, it could not stand with Gods iustice. But Caluins doctrine is, that God did ab aeterno ante [...] creatam, multò magis antè massam integram aut corruptam, eternally before the lumpe was created, and therfore before the integrity or corruption of it, pre­destinate out of it by his decree, some to life, some to death, fore­seeing that it should be corrupted. For in his predestination, he had a generall respect to the whole lumpe, which hee foresaw should be corrupted, though not to the corrupti­on of euery particular vessell which was to be framed out of that lumpe: so his predestination which was decreed from eternity was executed in time, after the lumpe had receiued corruption; for so long as it cōtinued sound, there could be no vse of predestination, nor possibility of death. And so, euen as they which are saued, are the children of God before they are borne, by eternall predestination, but not by actuall adoption vntill they be sanctified; likewise they which are damned, be eternally by reprobation be­fore they are born, but not actually before they be infected with sin, the children of Belial, and vessels of destruction.

Secondly, how could there be praeuisio peccati in massâ in­tegrâ, aforesight of sinne in the lumpe being sound? when inte­gritas massae & originale peccatum, the soundnesse of the lumpe and originall sinne cannot stand together? God did foresoe that the sound lumpe should be infected, but not so long as it continued in integrity. The lumpe so long as it was found, consisted but of two persons, Adam and Eue, both which are saued, by all mens confession: how then did God pre­destinate any to damnation out of the lumpe being in in­tegrity? I confesse that in respect of the corruption of the whole lumpe which God did foresee, there was first afore­sight of sinne, then a decree that Christ should be incar­nate, and then the decree of predestination founded vpon the merits of Iesus Christ, which were in order, & as we do [Page 37] apprehend them, one before the other; yet in eternity, with God they were altogether, but in respect of massa integra, the lumpe being sound, there were none of these; so that this syllogisme confuteth not Caluin.

His second argument is this: Infants (sath he) dying with­out baptisme, according to Caluins doctrine, are saued by the faith of their parents; therefore God hauing a respect to their faith predestinated them, non sine intuitu operum, not without a foresight and relation to somewhat which was in the persons of those men. To which I answer: That in the state of inno­cency Baptisme was not instituted, neither was Faith prea­ched, and therefore he disputeteth idlely. Againe if he had brought this argument to proue predestination after the lumpe was corrupted, to proceed from any thing that God respected in man: It were but a Fallacie, non causa pro causà. For faith which God foresaw in any man, is not the cause why hee did predestinate him to saluation, but contrarily his predestination is the cause why man is comprehended vnder the couenant of Grace, and why hee giueth him faith that hee may bee saued. For whomsoeuer he vouchsafeth the end, them also he vouch­safeth the meanes whereby they may attaine to that end. Gods predestination consisteth with good workes as it doth with faith, though he predestinateth freely without the merit of good workes, the workes being an ef­fect and end of Gods election, and not the cause that mo­ued Eph. 1. him to elect vs: for the Apostle saith: He chose vs that we might be holy, and not because we were holy, or because he did foresee that we should be holy. And his election is made sure to vs by good works, which are the effects and fruits thereof. 2. Pet. r. 10.

Against reprobation, or predestination to death, ante praeuisionem originalis peccati ex massà integrâ, before the fore­sight of originall sinne, out of the lumpe being sound, he argueth in this manner: First, God decreed to create man to perpetuall happinesse, where it is said: Faciamus hominem, let vs make Gen. 2. man according to our owne image. Secondly, he decreed not [Page 38] that man should dye vnlesse he were disobedient: Quacun (que) die, Gen. 2. what day soeuer thou shalt eate of the middle tree, thou shalt dye. Thirdly, he decreed to shew mercy to all mankinde rather then cruelty, vniuersae vie eius misericordia, all his waies are mercie. Psal. 24. Yea God was mercifull euen to the reprobates, because he gaue his Sonne to be the Redeemer of mankinde. And there digressing from his argument, he exclaimeth against Caluin, as if Cal­uin should say, that God did execute cruelty vpon mankinde, elect but a few, and damne a great multitude, condemne man be­fore his cause is heard, stirre man vp to commit sinne, that there­upon he might take occasion to punish him. My answer is as be­fore. First, that he did not foresee any originall sinne that could be in man so long as man was to continue in the state of innocency; and therefore he doth but beate the aire as before, to proue that against Caluin, which Caluin neuer meant, that God should predestinate any man to death the lumpe being pure: for reprobation and the state of inno­cency could not stand together. As he created man to euer­lasting happinesse, so he decreed not that man should con­tinue in that happinesse. As his decree of death was but conditionall, if man were disobedient: so he gaue not man constancy to perseuer in obedience. As all the wayes of the Lord are mercy, so his mercy belongeth onely to the faith­full, but he gaue not to all the gift of faith. As he was mer­cifull euen to the reprobates, in that he gaue his Sonne to be a redeemer of the whole world; so this benefite did not extend any way to the reprobates, but onely to the elect. Hee gaue him to bee a sufficient Redeemer of the whole world, if the whole world would haue receiued him, but he was an effectuall redeemer onely to the beleeuers. He offe­red his grace through Christ to all men, euen to the repro­bates, but he sealed and confirmed it onely to the elect. So these arguments refute not Caluin. And that I may answer his exclamations. This cannot be cruelty in God, but as the Apostle saith: It is iustice. Nunquid deo non licebit quod figulo licet? May not God do as much as the Potter may do? Neither Rom. 9. 21. [Page 39] is this to condemne men the cause being not heard: for the whole lumpe being corrupted, the particulars could not be cleare, neither was any particular to expostulate with God, the whole lump being iustly damned, more then Moses was to be admitted to plead for himselfe why he should not be cast into the water, when it was decreed generally that all male children of the Hebrues should be cast into the wa­ter. Exod. 1. It was sufficient without further arguing the case, that Moses was a male childe of the Hebrues: so it was suffi­cient that Esau was the sonne of Adam. That God ele­cted but a small remnant, and damneth many millions, it is no new doctrine, our Sauiour saith: Many are called, but few are chosen. Saint Augustine saith: God is glorified as well by destroying, as by sauing of mankinde, else he would not create so Ad optatum epist. 157. many millions whom he knew before should be damned. If all (saith Augustine) which are borne of Adam should be saued: lateret beneficium quod donatur indignis, Gods mercy to them which are saued (which are indeed vnworthy of saluation) would not appeare. Plures Deus facit damnandos quàm saluandos in­comparabili multitudine, vt reiectorum multitudine ostendere­tur quàm nulli momenti est apud Deum iustū quantalibet nume­rositas iustissimè damnatorum, at (que) vt hinc quo (que) intelligant qui ex ipsâ damnatione redimuntur, hoc fuisse massae illi vniuersae de­bitum, quod tam magnae eius parti redditum cernerent: God ordeined more to condemnation then to saluation without all cō ­parison: first, that it might appeare by the maier part of them which are damned, how little God, which is so iust regardeth the destruction of whole multitudes of sinners, which are most iustly punished. Secondly, they which are redeemed from that damnati­on, may by their owne redemption confesse when they see the maior part damned, that that damnation was due to the whole lumpe, which was adiudged to the greater part. And last of all, if he thinke it an hard speech in Caluin to say that God inciteth men to sin, that so he might take occasion to punish them, let Saint Paul answer it out of whom Caluin did alledge it, Rom. 9. 17. 18. where he saith: God hardened, and God stirred vp Pharaoh, [Page 40] for this purpose, that he might shew his power in him, and that his name might be declared through all the earth. To conclude, whereas he obiecteth, 1. Tim. 2. It is the will of God that all men should be saued. And Ose. 13. Perditio tua ex te, salus ex me Israël, that thou art damned it proceedeth from thy selfe, that thou art saued it is to be ascribed to me, ô Israël: And therefore inferreth that the cause of predestination is in our selues, & not in God: I answer first to Saint Paul, It is his will that all should be saued, that is his reuealed, but not his secret will, and to Hose, our destruction is of our selues, and yet it is of God that men are predestinated to destruction, for as much as there are two causes of damnation, one princi­pall, which is his will, and that is outward, and not in men: the other subordinate which commeth betweene the de­cree and the execution of the decree, which is damna­tion, and that is sinne, matter worthy enough of dam­nation; and that is inherent in man. And thus you see the saying of the Apostle verified of this Iesuite, Volentes esse Doctores legis non intelligunt quid loquuntur, ne (que) 1. Tim. 7. de quibus affirmant. They would bee Doctors of the law, and yet vnderstand not what they speake, neither whereof they affirme.

CHAP. 4.

Of inuocation of Saints.

THe Church of Rome hath bene, for many yeares past, charged with the crime of idolatry, for yeelding that worship to dead mens soules which is due onely to God. Being not able to stand any longer vpon the iustification of themselues, the matter appearing so fowle, they flye frō their first holds, and deuise new defences to auoide that grieuous imputation; and yet still to retaine their ancient superstition. Therefore concerning inuocation of Saints, Bellarm de sactorum bea [...]. lib. 1. cap. 17. they deliuer this doctrine: Non licet à sanctis aliquid petere, vt nobis tanquam auctores aliquid concedāt, sed vt corū precibus [Page 41] à Deo nobis beneficia concedantur: It is not lawfull to pray vnto Saints as authors and giuers of any good thing which they should bestow vpon vs, but onely as helpers and mediators vnto God in our behalfe, that by their praiers for vs, we may more easily ob­taine at the hands of God such things as we shall aske. Being charged that their practise is contrary to this doctrine, that in the practise of their religion throughout their Churches they pray still in as grosse maner, as before they did, how­soeuer in their Schoole-diuinity they dare not maintaine it, to cleare themselues they say: Si quis dicat sancte Petre mi­serere Bellar. Ibi­dem. mei, quantum ad verba sic licet dicere, sed sensus intelli­gendus est: Miserere mei orando pro me, da mihi aditum coeli, id est precibus impetra: It is lawfull to pray in these termes: S. Peter haue mercy vpon me, open to me the gate of heauen: but that praier is not to be vnderstood as it is conceiued in those ex­presse words, but in another sense, which is this: Pray for me that I may obtaine mercy, by thy praiers obtaine for me that the gate of heauen may be opened vnto me, To which I reply, that the common people among them are no Schoole-men, and therefore this euasion doth not make their prayer to bee lesse idolatrous then it was before. This is but to hold the people still in darknesse, and to rob God of his honour by the fallacy of equiuocation. But let vs examine the grounds of this defence: They alledge the words of the Apostle: I magnifie my office to try if by any meanes I might Bell ibidem. Rom. 11. 14. prouoke them of my flesh to follow them, and might saue some of them. And in another place: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all meanes saue some. To these words I an­swer: 1. Cor. 9. 22. they are sufficient to proue that while Saint Peter li­ued, God stirred him vp as an instrument of his glory to bring men to the kingdome of heauen, and to saue their soules, but not after he was departed out of this life. So 1. Tim. 4. 16. Timothy taking heed to learning, and continuing therin, might both saue himselfe, and them which heard him, when he liued, but not after his death. For who knoweth not, that verbum Dei est officio seruatrix humani generis? the word of God hath a [Page 42] sauing power, and that the ministery of the Gospell is the or­dinary meane to saue mens soules? But what is this to Saints departed, whose ministery ceaseth, or to proue the lawful­nesse of prayer to the dead which do not heare vs? S. Paul spake of sauing men in his life time, not after his death, by his preaching to them, not by their praying to him that he should pray for them. This is no true kinde of argumenta­tion, but a fallacy called Ignoratio Elenchi.

The defence of the Romish Church being this: that Saints are to be inuocated after they be dead, not as au­thors, but as mediators; let this be the question betweene vs: whether any such inuocation is commended vnto vs in the holy Scriptures, or no? Eckius, one of their greatest Euchirid. com. locorum cap. 15. Schoole-diuines that euer was in the Vniuersitie of Ingol­stad, maketh this free confession, that innocation of Saints is not expressly commanded in holy Writ: Explicitè sanctorum in­uocatio non est praecepta in sacris literis: Not in the old testament (saith he) because the people of themselues were prone to idola­try, and the Saints departed were then in Limbus, and not in heauen. In the new testament the Apostles wrote no such thing, left such doctrine should be a meanes to bring the Gentiles backe againe to idolatry as also because the Apostles their selues would not be thought so ambitious as to seeke their owne glory after their death. I desire them therefore with Christian sobriety to speake to these foure points.

First, the wisedome of the holy Ghost being such, that in the whole body of the Bible, such inuocation was not so much as once named for feare of idolatry, how can it be de­nied but this inuocation hath at the least some affinity with idolatry? or why should the Church of Rome either with­stand, or go beyond the wisedome of God, to maintaine & publish that in their humane policy, which God in his di­uine wisdome thought fit to be suppressed and concealed? or why should not the perill of idolatry bee as carefully shunned now as then it was?

Secondly, forasmuch as the confession of Bellarmine is: [Page 43] Dico illa omnia scripta esse ab Apostolis quae sunt omnibus neces­saria, De verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 10. & quae ipsipalam omnibus vulgo praedicarūt, that all things which are necessary for the Church to know, or which the Apostles in their Sermons by word of mouth did publish & teach are writ­ten by the Apostles, but this inuocation is not mentioned in their writings; and therefore was neither taught by them nor held necessary to saluation. Why doth the Church of Rome so vehemently maintaine it? S. Paul saith: No mā must Rom. 12. 3. presume to vnderstand aboue that which is meet to be vnderstood, but that euery man must, sapere adsobrietatem, vnderstand with sobriety. And what it is plus sapere quàm oportet, to vnderstand aboue that which is meet, and not according to sobriety, he shew­eth in another place: supra id quod scriptum est sapere, when 1. Cor. 4. 6. any man shall presume beyond that which is written.

Thirdly, if inuocation of Saints were necessary for the easier obtaining of mercy at the hands of God, and the rea­dier way to saue mens soules; and yet the Apostles for­beare to publish this doctrine, because they would not be thought ambitious, they were not faithfull Stewards of the word, nor so carefull of the Church of Christ as behoued men of that holy vocation for humane respects negle­cting their office. Furthermore, they did contrary to the rule of Saint Paul, in concealing the truth of religion, which was to do euil, that good might follow, which imputation Rom. 3. 8. cannot without great impiety bee layed vpon such sancti­fied vessels. Nay which is more, how can it stand with that which Saint Paul testifieth of himselfe, where he saith: I haue kept nothing backe, but haue shewed you all the councell of Act. 20. 27. & 35. God. And againe, I haue shewed you all things.

Fourthly, in the same chapter Eckius hauing deliuered that such inuocation is no where expressed in the holy Scriptures; yet taketh vpon him to produce many expresse places to proue the same; I would therefore bee satisfied with what conscience he could aledge those places to resist a knowne truth?

But to come to Bellarmine, when Mathias was to be ele­cted [Page 44] in the place of Iudas, the Apostles prayed after this manner: Thou Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, Act. 2. 24. shew whether of these two thou hast chosen. In which words it is expressed that hee which onely is infinitely wise, hath reserued the knowledge of mens hearts to him­selfe. But this is a ground or principle agreed vpon be­tweene vs both, that we may pray vnto none, but onely to him which knoweth the heart: He answereth: that not onely God, but also the Saints departed are [...], searchers and vnderstanders of the secrets of mens hearts. I reply: That belongeth onely to the Creator, which made the heart. For, saith Salomon, Heare thou in heauen 1. Reg. 8. 39. in thy dwelling place, and be mercifull, and do, and giue euery man according to all his waies, as thou knowest his heart, for thou onely knowest the hearts of all the children of men: He distinguisheth in this manner: Non tribuunt Catho­lici De sactorū beat lib. 1. cap. 16. sanctis mortuis diuinitatem, id est, vim cognoscendi men­tium cogitationes. Cognoscunt quidem preces nostras, non vt sunt in mentibus nostris, sed vt sunt in Deo quem vident, & qui eas ipsis ostendit. The Catholickes ascribe not to Saints de­parted any Deity, as if they had power in themselues to bee discerners of mens thoughts. And yet they conceiue our prayers, though not by any insight into vs, or inspection into the inward and hidden man, but by vision in the Maiestie of God, whom they do see, and who reuealeth our prayers vnto them. A­gainst this answer I dispute in this manner out of his owne booke in another place: If Saints conceiue our prayers in such sort, as is aforesaid, then it is by a generall illu­mination De sanct. beat. lib. 1. cap. 20. or vision, by which at their first entrance into the state of happinesse, in the Maiesty of God, they see all at once, or else successiuely by a speciall reuela­tion from God, at such times and seasons onely as pray­ers in particular are made vnto them, he standeth in doubt what he should answer, whether it be by such a generall il­lumination, or such especiall reuelation? by which of them it is, or whether it be by any of them, or not, he cannot tell. [Page 45] For he saith: Ex his duabus prior videtur simpliciter probabilior tamen posterior sententia est magis idonea ad conuincendos here­ticos: It is more probable it should be by vision, and yet it is a more safe defence against the heretickes, to hold that it is by reuelation: In which words you see what weake grounds he buildeth vpon, which are onely, probabilitas, & studium contradicēdi, the first probility, or humane coniecture: the second, a vaine desire of contradiction, to withstand his aduersaries in disputation; whe­ther it be by truth or falshood, right or wrong, by certain­ty or vncertainty, by hap or good cunning, he careth not. I reply therefore: If Saints heare vs not, it is very idle to pray vnto them, if it were possible that they could heare vs: but if we cannot resolue our selues that they do heare vs, our praiers can neither be effectuall, nor yet made with a good conscience. That they cannot be effectuall, it is the doctrine of Saint Iames: Euery thing which Iam. 1. 6. we aske must be asked in faith, and not with doubting, &c. That such prayers are made with an ill conscience, and are sinne, it is the doctrine of Saint Paul: He that doubteth Rom. 14. 23. is condemned, because hee doth it not of faith: and whatso­euer is not of faith, is sinne. Let euery man bee fully perswa­ded in his minde. But we cannot be assured that they heare vs, seeing there is no ground nor proofe thereof in the holy Scriptures: neither can the classicall Authors and and maintainers of that doctrine, yeeld any plaine or firme reason to satisfie either vs, or their owne selues, how it may be so, that we should beleeue it, and subscribe vnto it.

He alledgeth many arguments in defence of inuoca­tion of Saints, as mediators to pray for vs, which argu­ments haue bene alledged long before his time by Eckius, and other Catholicke Doctors. And they haue bene long since ansered by Peter Martyr, Caluin, Kemnitius, & other Protestant writers, before his booke came forth. Now it was to be expected for the Catholike credit of Bellarmine, so great a Doctor, that he should not haue produced these old [Page 46] arguments againe whose answers were published in print so long since: for that is no cunning, but he should haue bene furnished with new stuffe, or at the least, haue replyed vpon the answers, (hic labor, hoc opus est) which he hath not done. The answers therefore being so sufficient, that hee doth not reply vpon them, as his proofes are but the same which were before, so it shall be sufficient to answer them as they were answered before, and so to satisfie old argu­ments with old answers.

Saints (saith Bellarmine) do pray for the good estate of the whole Church in generall, and for such men in particular as do pray vnto them, and we ought to pray vnto them, that they would particularly pray for vs. And that I may speake to these three propositions, although I deny not the first, that Saints do pray for vs in generall: yet I will examine the validity of his arguments which he alledgeth for proofe thereof, to shew how weake the grounds are which they build vpon, and so I will in order descend to the rest, only to set downe his arguments, and Kemnitius his answers to those argu­ments published in print long before, for the satisfacti­on of others by whom they were before obiected, as fol­loweth?

That Saints departed do pray generally for the whole Church.


Hieremy 15. The Lord said to me, though Moses De sanct. be at. lib. 1. cap. 18. and Samuel should stand before me, yet my affection could not be towards this people. Therefore Moses and Samuel being dead, both then could, and vsually at other times did, pray for the people, alioqui inepta esset Dei loquutio; otherwise God had spo­ken these words impertinently, as if a man had said: If my Oxe pray for thee, he shall not preuaile, meaning that Oxen cannot pray.


We deny not but Saints departed do pray Exam. de­cret. Trid. pars 3. for the whole Church, but it cannot be proued by this [Page 47] text. First, a conditionall proposition proueth nothing vnlesse the condition were performed, but Moses and Samuel did not thē stand before God; therfore they made no intercession for the people. Secondly, by the con­fession of the Church of Rome they were then in Lim­bus, as all other Saints departed, vntill the death of our Sauiour Christ; therefore they could make no interces­sion. Thirdly, the idolatry of the people was so odious in the sight of God, that if Moses and Samuel had bene aliue to make intercession for the people, as in their life time they did, yet God would not heare them. Fourthly, this supposition was made of Moses and Samuel being aliue, and not after their death. To which I adde my owne answer, this argument is a fallacy called the igno­rance of the Elenche.


2. Maccab. 15. Iudas in a vision saw Onias the Priest, and Ieremy the Prophet, pray for the people, but that booke of Maccabes is held for Canonicall. Concil. 3. Car­thag. cap. 47.


First, that is but a dreame, and not a story, & is related to animate the Souldiers to fight valiantly. Secondly, notwithstanding the relation of this dreame, neither Iudas Maccabeus, nor yet his army, did inuocate Onias, or Ieremy, but onely God. Thirdly, that booke is vnderstood to be Canonicall for examples of life, but not for' points of doctrine; and therefore maketh not for this purpose.


Apoc. 5. 8. The 24. Elders fell downe before the throne, hauing their phials full of odours, which were the praiers of Saints.


These praiers as they were their owne, and not of other men which were made vnto them; so they were onely a thankesgiuing to God for their owne re­demption, & for the redemption of the whole Church, but no intercession.


2. Pet. 1. 15. I will endeuour therefore alwaies, that [Page 48] ye may be able to haue remembrance of these things after my de­parture.


Saint Peter did this endeuour, by his epistle while he liued, not by his praiers after he was dead.


Luk. 16. The glutton in hell praied for his kindred, much more do the iust in heauen pray for the whole Church.


First, we must not forsake the Scriptures to re­ceiue instruction from them which are damned in hell, which being forsaken of God, seeke for comfort any where rather then at the hands of God. Secondly, this is but a parable, and not a story. Thirdly, if it were a story, yet this prayer is not heard. Fourthly, he saw A­bram whom he prayed vnto, and receiued answer from him: what is this to Saints departed, whom we see not, neither heare them make any answer? Fifthly, the glut­ton remembred in what state he left his kindsfolks when he departed; but they might haue repented after his de­parture, for any thing that hee knew. This proueth not that the dead know the state of them which are a­liue, neither yet that they pray for the Church in ge­nerall.

That Saints departed do pray for particular men which pray to them.


The Saints do not onely pray forvs, but also take De sanct. beat. lib. 1. cap. 18. charge ouer men, and whole Countries and Prouinces, as the Angels do. Concerning the Angels we haue proofe Toby. 12. Zach. 1. Apoc. 8. Dan. 10. Psal. 19. Matth. 18. And much more the Saints departed, which are as the Angels, Luk. 20. and haue a prerogatiue aboue Angels, because they are members of the bo­dy of Christ, and are neerer vnto vs, and better able to haue a fee­ling of mens infirmities, being men themselues.


The booke of Toby is not Canonicall to proue Exam. de­cret. Trid. pars 3. any point of faith, but onely for examples of good life. That Angell in Zachary is our Sauiour Christ, which [Page 49] maketh intercession for his Church, and his praier is his owne, which is there mentioned, and not the praier of the Church. The Angel in the Apocalips, which offe­reth the praiers of the Saints, is expressed Heb. 9. to be our Sauiour Christ, the mediator of the new Testament: which maketh his appearance in our behalfe, Heb. 13. through him we offer our sacrifices of praiers to God. Againe, to the Angels God reuealeth so much concer­ning the affaires of men on earth, as appertaineth to the ministery of those Angels, and they haue the charge of men committed vnto them. But it cannot be proued that the like charge is committed to Saints departed; neither can the argument follow which is drawne from Angels to men. That Saints departed are like the Angels in hea­uen, is ment there onely concerning single life, that they marry not, as it appeareth by the text. And this is not onely the exposition of Kemnitius; but also of the English Seminaries themselues, in their notes vp­on the same place, printed at Rhemes. And whereas Bel­larmine alledgeth for proofe, that Saints departed haue the regiment of whole Prouinces, because it is written, Apoc. 2. He that ouer commeth, shall haue power ouer nations: It is to be vnderstood of the discipline and do­ctrine of the Church in this life; whereby nations shall be conuerted, but not of any gouernment of theirs after they be deceased.


The Fathers make for vs.


The Fathers were falsified by the Papists. See Kemnitius at large, how he satisfieth the obiections out of the Fathers.


It is also proued by many apparitions of Saints, which appearing to men in dreames, haue testified that particularly they did pray for vs.


This can be no proofe without testimony out of the word of God. For Moses saith: Deut. 13. 5. Thou shalt not hearken to the words of the Prophet, or [Page 50] vnto the dreamer of dreames; for the Lord your God proueth you, to know whether yee loue the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your soule, &c. Heb. 1. In times past God spake many waies to our Fathers by the Prophets, but in these last dayes he hath spoken to vs by his Sonne. And post illam postremam patefactionem non est expectanda reuelatio alterius noui dogmatis: After God hath deliuered his will vnto vs this last time by his Sonne, we must not looke for any latter reuelation by which any new doctrine should be reuealed vnto vs.

That Saints are to be inuocated.


Iob. 5. 1. Call now if any will answer thee, and to which of the Saints wilt thou turne? De sanct. beat. lib. 1. cap. 19.


The meaning is not that Iob in his calamity should flye to the Saints for succour, but that instance could not be giuen in any Saint whom euer God puni­shed, without iust cause.


Iob. 33. 23. If there be an Angell with him, one of a thousand, to declare vnto man his righteousnesse, then will hee haue mercy vpon him, and say: Deliuer him that he go not downe into the pit, for I haue receiued a reconciliation.


If there be present a minister of Gods word, (for ministers are called Angels) and out of the word of God he shall shew vnto man what is right and iust, and so the ministery of the word shall be applyed for comfort to the terrified and distressed conscience, God will worke by this ministery repentance vnto sal­uation.


Exod. 32. 13. Moses praieth for the people in these words: Lord remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israël, thy ser­uants, &c. In which is to be noted: that when Moses thought not himselfe sufficient to pacifie the wrath of God, he was glad to flye to the helpe of the Patriarkes, which Patriarkes, because then being in Limbus, did not ordinarily vnderstand or con­ceiue [Page 51] the praiers of the liuing: therefore it was not the custome in the old Testament, to say: O holy Abram pray for me; but onely in those daies men praied vnto God: but in their praiers, they alledged the merits of Saints departed, that by the merits of those Saints their praiers might more easily be heard. So Da­uid. Psalm. 131. Lord remember Dauid with all his troubles. And many other places are parallell vnto these.


In the praiers which are recited in the old Te­stament, oftentimes the good workes of the Patriarkes and Saints are mentioned, to shew, that they which so praied, relyed vpon the promises and couenants, which God made with the Patriarkes and Saints depar­ted, while they liued. That they flye not vnto them for helpe it is plaine by their doctrine which they professe. Esay. 63. 16. Abraham is ignorant of vs, Israel know­eth vs not; yet thou, ô Lord, art our Father. Neither doe they mention the workes of the Patriarkes in this sense, as if they should say: Heare vs, ô Lord, for their sakes, because they haue deserued it at thy hands; but heare vs Lord for thy promise which thou diddest make, for thy oathes sake, which thou diddest sweare vnto them, when they beleeued thee, obeyed thee, and did those workes.


In the Scriptures, as 1. King. chap. 7. Rom. 15. &c. They do pray to the lining Saints, that they would pray for them. Much more then is it lawfull to inuocate the dead Saints, whose soules do reigne with Iesus Christ. If it be not lawfull, then, ei­ther because they will not, or because they cannot heare vs, or be­cause they vnderstand vs not, or else because it is derogatory to God, or to our Sauiour Christ. But it cannot be said that they will not, because being in heauen their charity is greater then whē they were on earth: neither that they cannot, because, if they could being strangers and pilgrims vpon earth, much more can they in heauen, which is their natiue country; neither that they vnder­stand not, forasmuch as the Angels, Luk. 15. vnderstand when a sinner is conuerted, but the Saints are like to the Angels, as be­fore [Page 52] it was proued; neither that it is a dishonour vnto God, or to our Sauiour Christ, for then had it bene a dishonour to them to inuocate the Saints liuing.


An argument cannot be drawne from those things which are done vpon earth, to proue what is done in heauen, without some testimony of the Scrip­tures. For the eye hath not seene, nor the care hath not heard, neither can the heart of man conceiue the things which are in heauen, further then by the Scriptures they are reuealed. Secondly, if any man should desire them which are liuing to pray for him in that manner as the Papists pray to dead Saints; that by their intercession & merits they may bee heard, the praiers vnto the liuing, were also derogatory to the Priest-hood of Iesus Christ. To the other parts contained in that diuision, is answe­red before.


IT pleased God I published a short Treatise of perswasi­on to the ignorant Recusants, to reconcile themselues to our Church. I might happily haue perswaded them, at the least, to be halfe Conuerts, as Saint Paul did King Agrippa Act. 26. 28. Mat. 13. Mat. 10. 13. to bee halfe a Christian, had they not beene as a plot of ground vnapt to receiue good seed; and like those houses, with whom for their vnworthinesse the peace of the A­postles could not abide. The points which especially I vrged, were proued out of Bellarmine, their owne Doctor, and in the places by me produced, I falfified nothing; but dealt sincerely, let the learned disproue me, if they can. If they examine my arguments according to the lawes of Schooles, they shall finde nothing false that may iustly bee denied; nothing equiuocall, that needeth distinction: so [Page 53] that they must either answere me with silence, or else, if they deale ingeniously, say with the inchanters: Digitus Exod. 8 19. Sozom. lib. 6. cap. 7. & 10. Dei est, It is the finger of God, and make as open a confessi­on of euiction, as Iulian the Apostata did, when hee cryed out: Ʋicisti Galilaee, Thou hast gotten the victory thou Galile­an: yet haue I beene contradicted, but how iustly, let the learned reader iudge. An author without a name, printed a booke at Paris, Anno 1607. with this Title: The first part of Protestant proofes for Catholicke Religion and Recusancy, ta­ken onely from the writings of such Protestant Doctors as haue bene published since the reigne of his Maiesty. Which booke is nothing else but an vndigested Chaos, or Miscellanea of halfe sentences rudely consarcinated together, a confused heape of places, some meerely diuised by himselfe, and not to be found in these Protestant Doctors; some wrested and falsly applied; some truly alledged; but imperti­nent to the argument hee taketh in hand: all of them being praemisses without conclusions, to make an idle shew of proofe where nothing is proued; and of a confuta­tion where nothing is confuted. These proofes he saith, he collected out of the bookes of the reuerend Father in God, the Lord Bishop of Winchester, Doctor Suckliffe, Doctor Field, Doctor Downam, Doctor Morton,, Mr. Egerton, and my selfe, among many others, in defence of his Recusancy, and Romish religion. But hee hath not vndertaken to an­swer any of our books; neither can any iudicious man hold such recital of our words, to be a confutation of our works. Of these learned Writers, and reuerend men, I say with the parents of the blinde man: Aetatem habent, they are suffi­cient Ioh. 9. 21. to answer for themselues; and therefore I vndertake no­thing in their behalfe, onely for Apology of mine owne selfe, I may truly say: Because it is as impossible for him to make a iust reply against me, as it was for the Centurion to deny the power of God in our Sauiour Christ, when be­ing Mat. 27. 54. conuicted by euident demonstration, he said: Verè filius Deiest, In truth he was the sonne of God: Therefore he hath [Page 54] with Elimas peruerted the straight waies of the Lord, and Acts 13. 10. withstood the truth by indirect and sinister meanes, as Iam­nes and Iambres resisted Moses; For I pressed them by way Exod. 7. 11. 13. of sound reason, and strong argument, he hath dealt by Elenches and Sophismes, as the Apostle speaketh: [...], deceiuing them by paralogismes. Iam 1. 22.

First, he hath these words. The greatest number of Protes­tant writers, Doctor Succliffe, Doctor Doue, &c. do teach there is no matter of faith, no materiall or substantiall point or difference in religion betweene Protestants & Puritants, but they are of one Church, faith, and religion. But we doubt whether they will stand to their positions they writ, in Queene Elizabeth daies, seeing they defend they may often change (at the least at the change of euery Prince. Doue perswasion Pag. 31. Wherein let the reader iudge whether he hath dealt with me inge­nuously or no? For I spake only of the manner of compi­ling our Seruice booke, he chargeth me as if I had spoken of faith, materiall and substantiall points of religion. I spake of fact, what we did concerning our Seruice booke, and they concerning their Breauiry, which haue changed See the preface of Pope Pius 5. in Breuia­rum Rom. ex decreto Synodus Trid. resti­tutum. as often as we, he speaketh of right, as if I had said, we not onely then might, vpon such good considerations, as then iustly moued vs, but also may euer hereafter, when there is no such iust cause to induce vs thereunto, change and alter our faith and grounds of religion. My words were anta­gonisticall, and by way of obiection from them, with an­swere to their obiection, he doth make relation of them, as if they were dogmaticall, and as a grounded conclusion maintained among vs. Therefore I charge him with two fallacies. The first is, Fallacia accentus. For when wordes spoken interogatiuely are repeated indicatiuely, or words spoken ironically, as if they were spoken plainely, or by way of obiection, as if they were dogmaticall, and all such like are referred to that fallacy. Secondly, he citeth part of my words, which are the obiection: and leaueth out the other part, which are the answere, which is comprehended [Page 55] vnder the Elenche, called Fallacia diuisionis, of which one species is: Quando citatur imperfecta sententia, non integra, when part of the words are recited which the Sophister thinketh may serue his turne, the other part is omitted, lest the whole sen­tence should make against him.

Secondly, he writeth thus: The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithfull men, in which the pure word of God is preached, the Sacramēts duly administred, according to Christs ordinance, in all things that are of necessity required to the same, Couel, Field, Doue, be of the same minde, Perswas. page. 23. I confesse, I am of the same minde, not onely in thesi, but al­so in hypothesi: that our Church is such a congregation, that Gods word is truly preached, and the Sacraments duly ad­ministred among vs, according to Christ his institution. But this is not with Sampson, to fetch meat out of the eater. Iudg. 14. 14. Our words make for our selues, but yeeld no aduantage to our aduersaries, among whom neither Gods word is truly preached, nor the Sacramēts duly administred. There­fore they are idlely produced by him, to delude the reader in making a shew of proofe for their religion, and of confu­tation for ours, when there is no MEDIVS TERMINVS, wherby any thing should be proued or confuted. And if he apply it by hypothesis to the Church of Rome, that it is such a visible cōgregation, &c. and that therfore Recusants may safely continue in it, and refuse to communicate with vs, we were neuer of that minde, neither can that be any Pro­testant proofe. But it is a Petitio principij, begging of the que­stion, which he taketh as granted when it is denyed.

Thirdly, thus: M. Williats words. To errors of doctrine which are not fundamentall, euen the true Church of Christ is subiect. So Field ordinarily in his bookes of the Church: so Sutcliffe, Doue Perswa. pag. 31. 32. But what doth he cōclude out of these words? That therefore Recusants may wilfully main­taine the errours of the Church of Rome, rather then be re­conciled to our Church, which is purged from such errors? These words are no Protestant proofe of Catholike reli­gion: [Page 56] Hoc est ludere, non argumentari, this is to play the wan­ton, not the Logitian.

Fourthly, he chargeth me in this manner: Concerning do­ctrine. Doctor Doue writeth in these termes: In fundamentall points of doctrine, the greatest Papists in the world agree with vs. Perswas. page. 11. These are my words; I deny them not. Moreouer, I did instance in these fundamentall points, wherein they consent with vs, and thereupon I inferred, that they did rashly condemne vs for heretickes, what then followeth? will he therefore inferre, that either holding the fundamentall points therefore their superstitions and errours may safely be maintained? or that therefore they may be iustly excused for not communicating with vs, as if their consenting with vs in fundamentall points, should be a cause why they should the rather abhorre our Church & religion? It is a sufficient preiudice to the cause of their re­ligion, that they dispute in such loose manner. Againe, he saith: So Doctor Doue in his whole Treatise neuer chargeth the Church of Rome, either with schisme or heresie, but laboureth to excuse themselues, offering that we shall communicate with them, without any change of opinion; and yet hee setteth downs this for an infallible position: THIS PROPOSITION IS VNDOVBTEDLY TRVE: NO HERETIKE, OR SCHIS­MATIKE IS TO BE COMMVNICATED WITHAL. Perswas. pag. 5. In that I haue not charged them with schisme or heresie, I haue shewed that we are more charita­ble to them, then they are to vs, which do charge vs with both. In that hee saith: I onely laboured to excuse our selues, as if I had proued nothing to cleare vs from that in­iust aspertion, I referre him to the place it selfe, where I haue made due proofe that we are free from both heresie and schisme, by such sound reasons as this Author cannot answer. But whereas he saith it is offered on my part, that they shall at their pleasure communicate with vs without change of opinion, he burdeneth me with an vntruth by himselfe diuised, and not to bee quoted out of any of my [Page 57] bookes. In so writing, he may fill vp a volume, but he shall neuer strengthen his owne cause, of weaken ours. Moreouer (saith he) he giueth vs security that by no possibi­lity (according to the former reason of generall Councels) the Romane Church can be iudged hereticall. His words bee these, pag. 14. No Church can be condemned and iudged hereticall by any priuate censure, but it must be publicke, by a generall Coun­cell, as he there expoundeth himselfe, and is granted before. But what doth he cōclude out of this? That because the Church of Rome is not condemned by a generall Councell to bee hereticall; it must needs be therefore orthodoxall? This is such a consequent as neither Protestants, nor any other of sound iudgement will grant.

Fifthly, he chargeth me thus: Touching Sacraments, he alledgeth pag. 27. 28. that according to our definition of a Sa­crament, there are as many as we teach; and this shall not breede any iarre betweene vs; that therefore we should refuse to commu­nicate together. And transubstantiation it selfe shall be no barre: but if we will receiue at their hands, they will not examine how we expound these words: Hoc est corpus meum, This is my body. pag. 29. And of discipline he writeth: In that Councell of Trent they set forth such wholsome Canons concerning discipline, as were fit for a reformed Church. I deny not these words, but I deny that they make any thing for the defence of Recu­sancy. Concerning the word Sacrament, as it is a name diui­sed by man, but not found in the Scriptures: so it is not a­ny matter of saluation to vary about the number of Sacra­ments; especially among them with whom it is not agreed what a Sacrament is: For, where words are not vnderstood, ad idem, secundem idem, &c. nothing hindereth, but contra­ry, or contradictory propositions may be both true, as to say: There are seuen, and there are not seuen Sacraments: For so concerning the number of Sacraments they and we differ in words when we may easily agree in substance. The word Sacrament is strictly taken with vs, and so ac­cording to M. Caluin his definition; it is an outward signe [Page 58] ordeined of God to be cōtinued in his Church, as a part of his diuine Seruice, offering to all men, but sealing onely to the faithfull his inward grace, for the strengthening of their saith, & the applying of Christ his death vnto them. And so there can be but two, according to the confession of Saint Augustine: A resurrectione Domini quaedam pauca De doct. Christi lib. 3 cap. 9. signapro multis, eademque factu facillima, intellectu augustissinta obseruatione castissima ipse Dominus & Apostolica tradidit dis­ciplina, baptismum & coenam Domini: Since the Lord his re­surrection, our Sauiour his selfe, and from him his Apostles, haue commended to vs for outward signes, or seales, a very few in steed of many, and those for performance most easie, for significa­tion most ample, for obseruation most pure and holy, and they are Baptisme, and the Lords Supper. But this word Sacra­ment is more largely taken in the Church of Rome for a signe in generall, although it do not apply vnto vs, and re­present before our eyes the death of Iesus Christ. And it is defined to be Signum rei sacra an outward signe of any holy thing. And according to that definition, there may be not Cathechis. Romannus pars 2. de. sa­cram. sect. 3. only 7. but also 70. Sacraments. Of transubstantion, hauing first proued that the bread and the wine in the Eucharist cannot be transubstantiated; and yet not denying them to be the body and bloud of our Sauiour, because he hath said they are so, I said: in that we both agree, onely the diffe­rence betweene vs, is, how the words: This is my body, are to be vnderstood? whether really or sacramentally, proper­ly or mystically? And that it should be no barre or scruple to their consciences in what sense we vnderstand it, so as we deliuer it to them according to the institution of our Saui­our Christ: and that if they will in all other things sub­mit themselues to the lawes of our Church, we will not presse them so farre in examining them how they expound the words, but rather yeeld so much to their weaknesse in this one poynt, vntill God shall reueale a further measure of the knowledge of his truth vnto them. So these words of mine import nothing in fauour of transubstantiation. [Page 59] Thirdly, the Councell of Trent hath set downe wholsome Canons cōcerning discipline, as in part the 3. Lataran Coū ­cell did long before; as namely, for preaching, and Concil. La. tar. 3. Can. 13. & Con. cil. 4. Later. Can. 29. learned ministers, &c. And the reformed Churches of England, Scotland, Germany, Netherland, Geneua, haue receiued many of those Canons, although they come from the Pope, as deeming them fit for a reformed Church. But these my words make nothing for the allowance of that Councell it selfe, or of the points of doctrine there conclu­ded; neither yet of their Recusancy, among whom for the most part, these Canons of discipline are not receiued.

Sixthly, Concerning the Popes supremacy, of Europe there can be no question. For, generally Protestants agree with Field, Doue, Ormerod, that the regiment of the West Churches (a­mong which this nation is one) belonged to the Pope of Rome. Page. 29. 30. I spake of the Popes supremacy, and my words are these: What authority soeuer the Pope had ouer the Latine Church, or West part of the world, it hath bene giuen him by humane constitutions onely, and generall consent of Princes and States, which they suffered him to enioy during their good liking, and no longer. And ha­uing thus shewed that the Popes authority ouer other Churches, was not by diuine institution, but onely by hu­mane permission; not certaine, but during the pleasure of Princes and States: my words fauour not his supremacy ouer vs in England, out of which by consent of Prince and Parliament, hee hath beene abandoned long since. And therefore, I say, the Bishop of Rome is little beholding to me for his title of supremacy: This is a very loose and negligent kinde of disputation.

Seuenthly, saith he, Doue Persw. pag. 15. referreth the que­stion what books be Canonicall Scriptures to the two Doctors, S. Augustine and S. Hierom. His words be these: Catholikes proue them to be Canonical out of S. Augustine: we, that they be Apo­cripha, out of S. Hierome; both which Doctors: are of no smal authority in the Church of Rome: therefore in this we differ no [Page 60] more from them, then S. Hierome did from S. Augustine. Therefore I hope for many causes Protestants will giue place to us in this question. I deny not, but the question being pro­pounded concerning the bookes of Toby, Iudith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisedome, the Maccabes, and the fragment of Esther, whether they were Canonicall, (as the Church of Rome doth hold) or Apocripha, as our Church main­taineth? I answered: that forasmuch as there is Canon fidei, & morum, One Canon or rule of good life, another of faith: and that may be Canon morum, quodnon est fidei, Arule and pat­terne of good life for vs to follow, which is not a sufficient ground of doctrine to build our faith vpon: they were both Cano­nicall, and Apocripha: Canonicall, according to Saint Au­gustins, for rules of good life: Apocripha, according to S. Hierome; because they were no true grounds of doctrine. And so the Church of Rome and our selues, rightly vnder­standing one another, as Saint Hierome and Saint Augustine vnderstood themselues, there needed not be any difference concerning this point betweene vs. But how can he inferre vpon this: that therefore we must giue place to him in this question? As Saint Hierome gaue no place to Saint Au­gustine, so will we giue no place to any; onely I wish they would better vnderstand both vs and themselues, and giue place to the truth. And, forasmuch as they allow both of Saint Hierome, and Saint Augustine, to be Orthodoxall Doctors, they cannot receiue S. Augustine his opinion, but they must also embrace S. Hieroms exposition, where it is explained what is the meaning of S. Augustine, where hee alloweth those bookes to be Canonicall.

Eighthly, saith he, Concerning the vulgar Latine translation allowed among Catholikes, D. Doue writeth thus, pag. 16. We grant it fit, that for vniformity, in quotation of places in Schooles, and Pulpits, one Latine text should be vsed, and we can bee con­tented for the antiquity thereof, to preferre the old vulgar trans­lation, before all other Latine bookes; and so much we yeeld to the Councell of Trent. The praemisses are mine, but what is [Page 61] his conclusion? Because we ascribe to the vulgar edition, more then to all other Latine translations; and therein a­gree with the Church of Rome: and because we yeeld to the Councell of Trent so farre as reason doth require, and no further; but disagree both from the Church of Rome, and that Councel in things which are erroneous: Concedendo vera, negando falsa, will he therefore take this for a Protestant proofe of his Catholicke religion? Non taliauxilio, nec de­fensoribus istis Roma caret: If the Church of Rome had no better champions, it would not stand.

Ninthly, Doctor Couel writeth: No translation whatsoeuer is authenticall Scripture. And Doctor Doue addeth: All trans­lations haue many faults. page. 16. In so writing, I write the truth. For onely God is free from errour; and therefore on­ly the originall text is authenticall Scripture. All men are subiect to errours, Omnis homo mendax, but all translations are the workes of men. But how idlely is this brought in as a Protestant proofe of Recusancy? well may it serue a­gainst Recusants, which ascribe more to the translation thē to the originall. If no translation be authenticall, then it fol­loweth as a firme consequent, that the vulgar Latine editi­on cannot be authentical, howsoeuer the Councel of Trent hath imposed it vpon vs as authenticall.

Tenthly, For this time and place (saith he) I will only make amplification of Doctor Doue, his grant & confession, which fol­loweth in these words: When the Masse was first put down, King Henry had his English litourgie, and that was then iudged abso­lute without all exception. But when King Edward came to the Crowne, that was cōdemned, and another was in the place; which Peter Martyr, and Bucet did approue as very consonant to Gods word. When Q. Elizabeth began her reign, the former was iud­ged to be full of imperfections, and a new was diuised, & allowed by consent of the Clergy. But about the middle of her reigne, we grew weary of that booke, & great meanes haue bene wrought to abandon it, & establish another, which although it was not obtai­ned; yet we do at the least, at euery change of Prince, change our [Page 62] booke of Common praier, we bee so want on we know not what we would haue. Pag. 31. Hitherto his words, and he freely confessed errours in all these states and changes. For defence whereof, besides that these words are written by way of obiection from them, rather then any confession made by our selues: I did not so much as intimate that there were errours in all these states and changes, as he vniustly chargeth me; but onely that in the Seruice bookes of King Henry, and King Edward, some things were iudged to sauor of the superstiti­ons of the Church of Rome. But as for the Seruice booke which was allowed by Queene Elizabeth, it stood not on­ly during her time without alteration, but also it is ratified by his Maiestie, and allowed of by the State; albeit by some particularmen it hath bene impugned, as nothing else can be by the wit of man so well deuised, but mans wit can dis­pute against it. And as for those errours which were refor­med in the books of K. Henry, and King Edward, they were the superstitions onely of the Church of Rome, the land being not then sufficiently reformed, nor purity of religion so perfectly established, as now it is, because the Bishops & Clergy men by whom those bookes were written, their selues were too much so wred with the Romish leauen. And our daily renouncing those superstitions, and receiuing greater light of the Gospell, could be no Protestant proofe that we should any way fauour their superstitions.

Eleuenthly, he writeth thus: Why may we not say with the Councell of Florence, cited by M. Williat for Generall, and the Patriarkes of the Apostolike seas there present, and the Councel of Constance, not of vnequall authority, & the Councell of Trent (to passe others) with 6. Cardinals, 4. Legats, 3. Patriarkes, 32. Arch-bishops, 228. Bishops, and 5. Abbots there assembled, (as Doctor Doue telleth vs) that Protestancy in all places is false, and Catholicke religion true; where no Protestant Church can shew any one such like authority for their cause? The third part of such an assembly would haue bene a great countenance to Prote­stant religion, farre greater then euer it had, or is likely to pro­cure. [Page 63] To which I answer: First, concerning the Councell of Florence, in all those 25. Sessions which in it were: held, 15. of them being at Ferraria, where the Councell began, and the other at Florence, where the Councel was concluded, there is scarce any one point of religion touched, of which there is any controuersie betweene Protestants and Recu­sants; onely while it was at Ferraria, before the acts of the first Session, the question of Purgatory was superfi­cially disputed. Therefore that Councell was farre from cōdemning Protestancy, or approuing Catholike religion. Secondly, of the Councell of Constance, which he will haue to be of no lesse authority: Bellarmine his selfe deny­eth it to haue any authority at all, or credit of a generall De Concil. l. 1. cap. 7. Councell, alledging that it is in the Catalogue of those 15. Synods which the Catholicke Church hath not receiued. It seemeth therefoe that this Author was not well acquain­ted with the generall Councels. Thirdly, as I confessed such a number of Prelates to be present at the Councell of Trent, so I alledged reasons why it could not bee a lawfull councell; which he is so farre from answering, that he pas­seth them ouer with silence. As also he spareth to repeate the residue of my words, which make against him, accor­ding to his accustomed fallacy, wherein I derogated from the credit of this assembly, shewing that they were there onely at the end of the Councell, being then newly crea­ted by the Pope to countenace the Synod, and so to sub­scribe to all conclusions for forme sake. But at the begin­ning, when matters were argued, there were but forty Bishops, and foure Legates, too small an assembly to de­serue the name of a generall Councell. Albeit, it is not a bare multitude of suffrages, and presence of Bishops, that can giue coūtenance to a generall Councell. For the whole multitude of Priests and others cryed against our Sauiour Christ: Crucifie him. The Kings stood vp, and the Princes tooke councell together against the Lord, and his an­noynted. Mat. 26. 50 Psal. 2. 2.

[Page 64] So then, if he argue from the Councell of Florence, to condemne our religion, I deny his antecedent. If from the Councell of Constance, I deny his argument: If from the Councell of Trent, it is but a Fallacy, Petitio principij; be­cause hee taketh that for a proofe, which is the matter in dispute.

[Page] THE ANSVVER TO A TREATISE INTITV­LED: A SEARCH MADE IN­to matters of Religion: By FRANCIS WALSINGHAM, Deacon of the Protestants Church, before his change to the Catholicke. Dedicated to the Kings Maiestie.

Against Luther, Caluin, Zuinglius, Beza, Iewel, Williat, Doue, Rogers, and other Protestants.

IEREMY 47. 10. Cursed be he that doth the workes of the Lord negligently.

LONDON, Printed for SIMON WATERSON, dwelling in Paules Church-yard, at the signe of the Crowne. 1610.

THE ANSWER TO A TREATISE INTITVLED: A Search made into matters of Religion, by FRANCIS WALSINGHAM, Deacon of the Protestants Church, before his change to the Catholicke, dedicated to the Kings Maiesty: Against Luther, Caluin, Zuinglius, Beza, Iewel, Williat, Doue, Rogers, and o­ther Protestants.

IN my perswasion to the Recusants to reconcile themselues to our Church, I vsed these words: The ignorant Recusant pretendeth his con­science, saying: It is against my con­science to come to Church; and, what­soeuer I do against my conscience, is sin. I confesse, whatsoeuer is done without testimony or warrant of conscience, is sin to them that do it, be that which is done in it selfe neuer so law­full; because the Apostle saith: He that doubteth, is condem­ned if he eate, because he eateth not of faith; and whatsoeuer is Rom. 14. not of faith, is sinne. In which words, by faith, is vnder­stood conscience. But by the way, they must see that their consci­ence be rightly informed, else it will bee their damnation. Out of which words, M. Walsingham maketh this collection: That I seemed to him, substantially to iustifie out of these words of S. Paul, the Recusancy of Catholickes, if they can proue they haue a good ground, or motiue of conscience. It is true, one ab­surdity being granted, many others will follow. There­fore [Page 68] to this hypothetical proposition, I answer, by granting the Maior, and denying the Minor. For they cannot proue they haue any such good ground or motiue of conscience; therfore their Reculancy is not iustified out of these words. It is but Petitio principij, a begging of the question. Againe, he saith: If their conscience were erroneous, and grounded vpon false grounds, and principles: yet, so long as that perswasion en­dureth, it seemeth they may not be forced. The insufficiency of which argument I will lay open by the like. Hee that hath not examined himselfe, may not come to the Lords table, lest he eate and drinke vnworthily; and so 1. Cor. 11. 28. 29. eate and drinke his owne damnation, not discerning the Lords body. Shall this want of examination of a mans selfe, be therefore a warrant to any man to liue like an infidell? neuer to examine himselfe? and so neuer to come to the Lords table? and so to be exempted from the authority, and coactiue power of the Church? He must be forced to examine himselfe, and communicate: So the Recusant, whose conscience is erroneous, and founded vpon false principles, must be forced to renounce his errours, to build his religion, vpon sounder principles, to receiue in­struction, and informe his conscience better, and so to come to the Church.

He taketh vpon him to disproue my definition of con­science, which is, that it is an application of a generall knowledge, grounded vpon Gods word to particular acti­ons and intents. He saith: This definition is defectiue, being not so large as the thing that is defined; because the heathens which know not Gods word, yet haue a conscience grounded onely vpon the law of nature. I answer, that if conscience be by him Rom. 2. 14. vniuocally vnderstood, (as all things ought to be which are defined) my definition cannot be disproued. But when he instanceth in the consciences of heathen men, he flyeth to equiuocation, whereas an equiuocall thing cannot bee defined. In like manner, if I should define religion to be a rule of faith and life, grounded vpon Gods word, he might [Page 69] take the same exception against it, and say, that the religi­on of the Turkes is grounded vpon the Alcaron; the religi­on of the Iewes is grounded partly vpon the Talmod: the religion of the Catholickes partly vpon the Traditions of men. If I define a man to be animal rationale, a body indued with a reasonable soule, he may likewise say that definiti­on agreeth not with a painted man, or the picture of a man. As speaking of religion, I define not false religion; but the true Christian religion: and speaking of a man, I define not an equiuocall, or analogicall, but an vniuocall man: So I define not a darke and erroneous, but a sound, and true vn­derstanding conscience. As for the heathens, they haue yet left some reliques of the image of God, which are reason & vnderstanding. Therefore the Apostle saith: The Gentiles which haue not the law, do by nature the things contai­ned in the law, hauing not the law, they are a law to them­selues, which shew the effects of the law written in their hearts, their consciences also bearing witnesse, and their thoughts accusing one another, or excusing: that is, the Gentiles haue not the law absolutely, and in such perfect manner as the Iewes, to whom God deliuered euery pre­cept of the law expressely by writing; yet they haue, will they, nill they, written in their hearts some feeling of religion, and are able to put a difference betweene vertue and vice; which sufficeth onely to their damnation. They do by nature, ea quae legis sunt, the things contained in the law: that is, they command things which are honest, for­bid the things which are vniust, set downe punishments for theft, adultery, and such like offences. But by the way: Aliud est facere quod lex iubet, aliud facere quod lex facit, aut ea quae legis sunt facere. It is one thing to doe what the law commandeth, (for that they do not, that were to keepe the law) another thing to do the things contained in the law, or to do as the law doth: that is, onely to command the things which the law commandeth, and to forbid what the law forbiddeth; which onely the Gentiles do. Neither [Page 70] do they that fully, but onely in some part, concerning out­ward things; but are farre from the knowledge of true pi­ety to saue their soules. So then, the conscience of the Gentiles being sufficiently instructed without Gods word, by the light of nature, onely to their condemna­tion, what doth that concerne my purpose which define a conscience rightly informed, and sufficiently grounded to saluation?

He goeth about to disproue my definition of heresie, which I defined to be: an errour stiffely and obstinately maintained and defended; not by a consequent, but di­rectly impugning some article of faith. Which definition he saith is also defectiue, because it is not so large as the thing which is defined. His words are these: For if we looke into all the heresies recorded by Ireneus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, Saint Augustine, &c. we shall not find the lest part directly, and ex­pressely, against any article of the Apostles Creed, which M. D. Doue a little after doth say he meaneth, as of the Pelagians, which holdeth that a man may do good workes by the power of his owne free will without grace, the Aetians, that faith was sufficient without good workes to life euerlasting, and that Christ had reuealed more to them, then to the Apostles, the Aerians that denied prayer, and sacrifices for the dead, and set fasts of the Church. Neither can D. Doue proue that his owne example of the Arian heresie by him alleaged, did directly impugne any ar­ticle of the Creed, but by a consequent. For Arius denied the e­quality of the Sonne with the Father, and by a consequent his Godhead, and so by a consequent the second article of the Creed: Iesus Christ his onely Sonne our Lord.

First, I answer, he hath not dealt ingenuously with me. For I did not in my definition of heresie restraine Faith on­ly to the Creed of the Apostles, as the place it selfe will plainely shew; for I did mention not onely that Creed, but also the Creed of Nice, of Ephesus, of Constantinople, Perswas. pag. 13. which I sayd we hold, and also the text of the Bible, to free vs from heresie.

[Page 71] Secondly, the Pelagian holding that a man could do good workes by the power of his owne free will without grace: directly impugneth faith, euen the text of the Bible, where it is written: We are not sufficient of our selues to thinke 2. Cor. 3. 5 any thing as of our selues, but our sufficiency is of God. O Lord I Ier. 10. 23. know that the way of man is not in himselfe; neither is it in man to walke and direct his steppes. All the imaginations of the Gen. 5. 1. Cor. 2. 14. Col. 2. 13. 1. Cor. 12. 3. Iam. 2. 14. thoughts of mans heart are onely euill continually. The naturall man perceaueth not the things that are of God. We are dead in sinnes. No man can say that Iesus is the Lord, but by the Spirit of God. The Aëtian saying: Faith without good workes is sufficient to eternall life, directly, denieth the doctrine of the Bible: What auaileth it my brethren, though a man say he hath faith when he hath no workes? can the faith saue him? If faith haue no workes it is dead. Whereas the Aetian holdeth that Christ hath reuealed more to him then to the Apostles, it is expressely, and directly against the Scriptures, where S. Paul saith: I haue kept nothing backe, but haue shewed you Act. 20. 27. all the counsell of God. That the Arians denied the Godhead of Christ, not by a consequent onely, but directly, witnes S. Augustine, and Epiphanius. For S. Augustine saith that Ad quod vult. cap. 49. Contra ha [...] reses l. 2, 1. 2. they held: Filium esse creaturam, That the Sonne of God was a creature. And Epiphanius: Non veritus est ipse ac discipuli eius creaturam vocare eum qui omnia creauit, verbum ex patre sine tempore, & sine principio genitum, Both he and his disciples feared not to call him a creature which created all things, euen the word which was begotten of his Father, without time, and without beginning. As for Aerius he could not be an here­ticke for denying prayer and sacrifice for the dead, and set fasts of the Church; For as much as prayer and sacrifice for the dead are contrary to sound doctrine, and fasts are a matter of indifferency, and not of faith. That he was con­demned for an hereticke, it was not so much for these opi­nions, as for that first being a Schismaticke, because he could not obtaine a Bishopricke he became an Arian, as it appeareth by S. Augustine, his words are these: Doluisse [Page 72] fertur quod Episcopus non potuit ordinari, & in Arianorum hae­resim lapsus propria quo (que) dogmata addidisse dicens: orare pro Aug. de hae­res. cap. 35. mortuis, vel oblationem offerre, non oportere, &c. He was dis­contented because he could not obteine a Bishopricke; and there­upon he fell into the heresie of the Arians, to which he added some opinions of his owne, saying: it was not lawfull to pray, or offer sacrifice for the dead, &c. These positions of his, S. Au­gustine doth not call heresies, but onely opinions. Likewise Epiphanius. Therefore adhuc saluares est, my definition of Epiph. con­tra haeres. l. 3. tom. 1. haeresi 75. heresie remaineth sound, and not to be by him gainesayd. But by the way, that I may giue good satisfaction to the reader concerning this poynt. We find in the catalogue of heresies many reckoned vp, which are so farre from di­rectly impugning faith, that indeed they do not at all im­pugne the faith, as that of Aerius, which denied prayer and sacrifice for the dead, and the set fasts of the Church. To which I answer out of S. Augustine. First, these Fathers which make such long catalogues of heresies, do not write as if they in their owne iudgements did hold all these to be heresies; but onely they deliuer what opinions in seuerall ages haue bene condemned as hereticall, leauing it to the priuate iudgement of the reader, whether they were iustly condemned as hereticall, or not: but their selues deliuer not what is their owne iudgement. For saith he: Quid fa­ciat haereticum, regulari quâdam definitione comprehendi, sicut Prafat. ad Quod vult. ego existimo, aut omninò non potest, aut difficillimè potest: To deliuer by a lawfull definition what thing maketh an hereticke, in my opinion it is impossible, or at lest, of great difficulty. Againe, Epist. ad Quod vult. that in the catalogue of heresies the Fathers do not agree concerning the number of them, but some recken vp more, some fewer, he saith: Quod vti (que) non euenisset, nisi aliud vni eorū videretur esse haeresis, & aliud alteri, The cause was for that such an opinion as seemed heresie in the iudgement of one Father, in the iudgement of another was not hereticall. And concer­ning Epiphanius the Bishop of Cypris, & Philestrius Bishop of Brix; which both writ of heresies: the one making a [Page 73] longer Catalogue then the other, he saith: Procul dubio in eâ quaestione vbi disceptatur quid sit haeresis, non idem videbatur ambobus, & reuer à hoc omnino definire difficile est: & ideo cauendum, quum omnes in numerum redigere conamur, ne pretermittamus aliquas quum hareses sint, aut enumere­mus aliquas quum haereses non sint: That which seemed an heresie to one of them, did not seeme so to the other; and to define truly what is heresie, is very hard: and they which will write the Catalogue of heresies, must be very circumspect, lest they leaue out of the Catalogue, some o­pinions which are indeed hereticall, & put in others which are no heresies. Secondly, the Fathers in those Catalogues did not vnderstand this word Heresie, so strictly as in our age it is vnderstood; but generally for euery sect in religi­on, differing from the receiued opinion of the Church, as Epist. ad Quod vult. it appeareth by S. Augustine in the words going before, where hee maketh an heresie and a sect all one, shewing: Quantum inter se differunt de numero sectarum. How much Epiphanius and Philastrius discent concerning the number of sects? where he calleth them sects, which before he cal­led heresies. And it is no maruaile though with those Fa­theres, all heresies do not directly impugne the Faith, when by thē onely sects are vnderstood. But to make euery opi­nion an heresie which not only, directly, but also by a con­sequent impugneth faith, as M. Walsingham will haue it, is to make no difference betweene errour and heresie; but De corrup. artib. to call euery errour in religion an heresie, as Ludouicus Ʋiues speaketh: Haeresis nomen rebus leuissimis impingitur, The name of heresie is layd vpon euery light matter. And De haeres. l. 1. cap. 7. of him it may one time or other be verified which Alphon­sus de Castro speaketh: Idcirco fit, vt hiqui tam leuiter de hae­resi pronuntiant, non expendentes de quâre loquantur, saepè suà ipsorum sagittâ feriantur, incidant (que) in eam foueam quam alijs parabant. It happeneth that they which so rashly call eue­ry thing heresie, not considering whereof they speake, bee oftentimes beaten with their owne weapon, and fall into [Page 74] the pit which they digged for others.

I shewed, pag. 10. how Pusillanimity maketh men some­times do contrary to their owne conscience, as Cardinall Pole, who dying said: The Protestants are the honester men, I would be a Protestant, were it not for the Church of Rome. This I brought for example to illustrate, not for ar­gument to proue. For exempla non probant, examples proue not. He turneth it another way, saying: I broughtit for a reason to proue that Protestants are no heretickes.

In defence of our Church, that it could not be accounted hereticall, I called into question the authority of the Coun­cell of Trent by which it was condemned, alledging di­uers exceptions against that Councell, that it could not be a lawfull generall Councell, the paucity of the Bishops which were there present, their partiality, the definition of a generall Councell cited by Bellarmine, which could no Tomo. 1. contro. 4. cap. 4. way be verified of that assembly. Hauing produced these arguments to disinable that Councell, he doth not so much as repeate any of them; much lesse doth he answer them: onely he saith, that it seemed to him a slight argument, and to giue more aduantage to my aduersary, then defence to my selfe and my cause. I reply, that it is no maruaile though a man of slight iudgement, which passeth ouer all other things of moment so slightly, doe esteeme those arguments to be so slight, which his selfe cannot answer.

To perswade Catholikes to come to our Church, I shew­ed how the learned among them, do come euery day nea­rer to our religion, and more and more fauour our opini­ons. He saith it is a dreame. I wish this dreamer to a­wake out of sleepe, and with greater vigilancy to consi­der of the particulars as they are produced by mee, I said:

First, the learned Catholickes agree with vs concerning the bookes of Scripture which be Canonicall, which Apo­cripha, I writ in this maner: The bookes of Toby, Iudith, Ba­ruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdome, Maccabes, the fragment of [Page 75] Esther, they hold to be Canonicall, according to S. Augustine: We, to be Apocripha, according to S. Hierome; and in this point we differ no more from them, then Hierome did from Au­gustine, which did both agree, and were easily reconciled. S. Hie­rome interpreting S. Augustines meaning: that they were Ca­nonicall enough to proue rules of life, not grounds of doctrine and faith. Thus haue we deliuered long since. But Bellarmine De verbo Dei. l. 1. c. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. handling this question at large, replieth not against vs: nay, hee doth not so much as mention this distinction of Canons of faith, and Canons of good life. Therefore we take it as a thing granted by the lawes of disputation, that he holdeth as we hold, resteth sa­tisfied with our answer, & the case to be cleare betweene vs both. M. Walsingham blusheth not to deliuer a notorious vntruth, saying: that Bellarmine handleth this distinction at large, and refuteth the same in his first booke, De verbo Dei, cap. 10. In which booke and chapter, no such thing can be found.

Secondly, they agree with vs cōcerning the Bible, which is the best and truest edition. For wheras we holding the o­riginall text only to be authenticall, the Councell of Trent Decret. 3. Sessionis. obtrudeth to vs the vulgar Latine translation. Bellarmine preferreth the original before the Latine, as we do. M. Wal­singham is not ashamed to charge me that I haue abused both the Councell of Trent and Bellarmine. That I haue not abused the Councell, witnesse the Councell it selfe: that I haue not abused Bellarmine, witnesse Bellarmine De verbo Dei, lib. 2. cap. 11.

Thirdly, they agree with vs concerning the sufficiency of the Scriptures, that in them are deliuered all things necessa­ry to saluation, contrary to the ancient doctrine of the Church of Rome. So Bellarmine, De verbo Dei, lib. 4. cap. 10. He is not ashamed to say: In reading the place hee hath discouered a notable fraude. Whether I haue dealt fraudulently or sincerely, let the reader iudge. But wherein lyeth the fraude? He saith that Bellarmine spea­keth these words onely by way of answer to an obiection. [Page 76] I conclude therefore it is no fraude. If I had taken that for positiue doctrine which was spoken by way of obiection, it had bene fraude in me; but seeing it is an answer to an ob­iection, it is no fraude, but sincere dealing.

Fourthly, they hold with vs that Purgatory is a tradition, and not to be found in the holy Scriptures, witnesse Bellar­mine de verbo Dei. l. 4. c. 4. He thinketh to auoid vs by saying that Bellarmine speaketh onely antagonistically, by way of obiection out of Luther, and not dogmatically out of his owne iudgement; which is but Petitio principij, a begging of the question. For it was questioned by me, whether Bel­larmine spake out of his owne iudgement, or not? and the affirmatiue was by me proued & concluded. He bringeth no proofe for the negatiue part, but onely maketh that for his allegation, which is the question it selfe.

Fifthly, they discent not from vs about the authority of the Scriptures, that it is aboue the authority of the Church; witnesse Bellarmine de verbo Dei. lib. 3. cap. 10. He repeateth the words, but maketh no answer to them.

He chargeth me with Papistry, because I confessed that our Church was condemned as hereticall by the Councell of Trent; which is but Petitio principij: for I denyed our Church to be euer the more hereticall for the censure of that Councell, whose authoriry I disinabled by sufficient reasons, to which he maketh no answer: and therefore in that place I haue not played the Papist.

Whereas I exhorted the Recusants, diligently to reade, as well our writers, as their owne; our answers as well as their obiections; and then to examine their owne iudge­ments before they passe their sentence against vs to con­demne vs of heresie: He maketh two answers: first, that they haue already done so, to which I reply: they haue done it partially. Secondly, that vnlearned men and wo­men are not able to do so; and therefore they must relye vpon the iudgement of the Catholicke Church. To which I reply, that if they be not able, the fault is in the the Ca­tholicke [Page 77] Church of Rome, which holdeth the people still in ignorance, whereas S. Iohn teacheth, that they ought to be of such knowledge, as to try and examine the Spirits: and the Citizens of Berea are commended by the holy 1. Ioh. 4. 1. Act. 17. 11. 2. Cor. 4. 3. Ghost, because they were able to examine Saint Pauls do­ctrine. And I say with the Apostle: That if the Gospell bee hidden, it is hidden to them which are lost.

I alledged that few things are in our booke of Common praiers, which are not taken out of the Bible, or out of that which was good in the Masse booke: so that if they allow of the Bible & their Masse booke, they cānot disallow of our Seruice book. He answereth in these words: If all the Seruice booke were taken out of the Bible it selfe, (as most of all heretical Seruice hath bene in euery age pretended to be) yet might the col­lection and combination be such as might make it vnlawfull and pestiferous: as when the Arrians did sing: Gloria patri cum filio, & per filium, and the Catholickes, & filio. The difference in sound of words, was small; but in substance and malice execrable. To which I reply, that forasmuch as he maketh such a sup­position, but sheweth no such collection or combination in our Seruice booke; neither any thing in it like to that of the Arrians, he speaketh idlely, and to no purpose; neither is any thing thereby derogated from the credit of our Ser­uice booke.

To the Recusants which obiect that there are dissentions among vs: I answered, that so there were among them: I named Eckius, Pighius, Thomas, Scotus: nay, there were dis­sentions among the Apostles themselues: so that dissention is no argument to disinable vs from being the true Church, for in religion we agree. M. Walsingham chargeth me with three absurdities: the first of ignorance or folly; for that Eckius, Pighius, Thomas, Scotus dissented onely in matters disputable, and not determined by the Church for points of faith. In which words he maketh the Church of Rome to be so negligent in their determination of matters of re­ligion, as if they held the doctrine of iustification, where­in [Page 78] Eckius and Pighius disagreed, and of merit wherein the Thomists and Scotist disagreed not to appertaine vnto faith, and to be matters so indifferent, as if they afforded onely cause of disputation, but needed not to be discided.

The second absurditie he saith is impiety, for that the Apostles contentions were not about matters of different doctrine. I say no more are ours. The third he saith is ri­diculous audacity, to deny so absolutely disagreement in matters of religion among vs, whereof the whole world can be witnesse out of our owne books, and inuectiues one against another. To which I answer, that albeit some par­ticular factious spirits among vs write seditious pamphlets one against another, this imputation cannot iustly be layd vpon our Church, which by all manner of good meanes suppresseth dissention, but maintaineth peace and vnitie. Thus much I thought fit to deliuer, not for answer to his disgracefull speeches vttered against me, which I passe o­uer with silence, as not touching the cause of religion, but in defence onely of the truth which I tooke in hand, that our aduersariēs may vnderstand how we haue not suffered those things so loosely to passe our hands, which they so loosely haue published against vs, to the view of the world, And so leauing them to the mercy of the Lord, my prayer is: Vincat Christus, cadat haeresis, that falshood may still be detected, and truth may get the vpper hand.



This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.