[Page] [Page] Certamen Religiosum: OR, A CONFERENCE BETWEEN The late King of ENGLAND, and the late Lord Marquesse of Worcester, concerning RELIGION.

TOGETHER WITH A VINDICATION OF THE PROTESTANT CAUSE, From the Pretences of the Marquesse his Last Papers; which the necessity of the KING's Affaires denyed him Oportunity to Answer.

LONDON, Printed for W. Lee, at the Turks Head in Fleet-street, and R. Royston at the Angel in Ivie-lane. 1651.



I Doe not desire by way of Preface to trouble Thee with many words, but something I must crave leave to say, that thou mayest the better understand the reason and nature of this ensuing worke. It may be thou art not unacquainted with a Booke, which now hath beene extant some It was pub­lished Anno 1649. years. The title of it is Certamen Reli­giosum, and it containeth in it a Conference, which was held partly by word of mouth, but chiefly by Writing, betwixt the late King and the Marquesse of Worcester, a stiffe defender of the Romish Religion. To the Mar­quesses first Plea (I speake of that, which passed betwixt them in writing) the King returned Answer; but the Marquesse replying, the Kings occasions (it seemes) would not permit him to rejoyne, especially the Reply being so large, and so thick lin'd with quotations, that the per­usall and examination of it would require no little time. I know there are See the Advertisement to the Rea­der perfixed to the late Kings workes set forth together in one volume. some, who account this Conference no better then suppositi­tious; which reflecting upon the Publish­er of it, Doctor Baily, he hath lately in a Preface to a It is intituled (as I remember) Herba Parietis, or The Wall-flower. Booke, which hee hath set forth of his own, vindicated himself, and asserted the Conference. For my part, I know no cause to question the truth of the Relation, neither, as to my purpose, is it much materiall, whether [Page] there were any such Conference; or if there were, whether it were so mannaged, as is related. This I see, that in the Booke before mentioned (to wit, Certamen Religiosum) the Romish cause is set out in great pompe, both Scriptures and Fathers being produced as asserting most of those opi­nions, which they of the Church of Rome maintaine, and we impugne, and the Reader is left naked, and unfurnished with any Armes and Weapons, wherewith either to defend himselfe, or to offend his adversary save onely as he shall be able to provide for himselfe, and bring with him. The first time that I heard the Booke mentioned, (which was about the last Spring it was spoken of as a Booke of no little dan­ger, and so (I understand since) diverse judge of it. Yea, I have heard that some have said, that the Marquesse in this Reply hath done more for the Church of Rome, then any have done before him. When I got the Booke, and looked a while into it, though I saw no reason to conceive so highly of it, as (it seemes) some have done, yet I found in it I con­fesse) much more then I expected, so much as that I thought it operae pretium no mis-pent time to answer it. This I have indeavoured; how I have performed it, is left to Thee (Reader) to judge. The great difficulty in the undertaking did arise from the multitude of Authors that are alleged (whether the Marquess himselfe did peruse these authors, or tooke them upon trust from others, I will not inquire, much lesse determine) especially considering how lax and loose the quotations are, the words of the Authors being scarce once in a hundred times cited, and sometimes onely the Authour named, many times only the Book, but no Chapter or Section mentioned. In this respect it could not be expected, that every allegation should receive a punctuall answer, besides that (as in the Rejoynder it selfe upon occasion I acknow­ledge) sometimes for want of the Authour I had not liberty [Page] to examine what is alleged; but this (I presume) will not be found so frequent, nor yet at all prejudiciall to the maine, so much still being said as may suffice to take off the force of that which is objected. There is an answer already come forth to the Marquesses last Paper, with which I have to deale. The Hamon L'Estrange Esquire. authour of it is a gentleman of much reading, well versed in Greek and Latin writers, both Ecclesiasticall and others, as appears by this work, which is all that I have seene of his, though I hear of something else that he hath publish­ed not without great commendation. I had undertaken this task before I had any intimation that another was about it: and I think this of mine was at the Presse before the foresaid Answer came from it. I could not confine my selfe to such narrow bounds as that Gentleman hath done in answer to the Marquesse, (for he hath others also besides him to deal with) the reason of his concisenes is best knowne unto himselfe. I have launched further into the deepe, and have exspatiated more in the discussion of those points, which are handled by the Marquesse; yet so, as that the Reader (I hope) will have no cause to complaine of proxility, or to thinke me tedious. I have divided the worke into two parts; in the former part I have indeavoured to shew the ungroundednes of the Romish doctrine in those points, which the Marquesse propoundeth, and the repugnancy of it both to Scriptures and Fathers, not­withstanding any thing he hath alleged in defence of it. In the latter part I have laboured to wipe off those aspersions, which the Marquesse doth cast upon diverse of our most emi­nent Divines, and chiefe instruments in the worke of Refor­mation, as Luther, Calvin, Zuing lius, Melancthon and Be­za, partly in respect of their Doctrine, and partly in respect of their conversation. This the learned answerer before men­tioned hath not attempted; but I did not think it meete to wave it, calumnies and reproches being more apt to prevaile [Page] with some then any other argument whatsoever. Some points of controversie also, which the Marquesse taketh occasion to bring in, having not mentioned them before, are insisted on in this second Part. Some perhaps may say, Quorsum per­ditio haec? What needed all this? these controversies have­ing bin sufficiently handled by our writers, both at home and abroad, long agoe. I answer, 'Tis true, they have bin so: yet if the Marquesse thought it not enough that Bellarmine and many others of the Romish party have written largely in that behalfe, but judged it meet to produce his own Plea; I think there is as much reason why we should consider what he saith, and that some answer should be given him, that so none may boast, as some are apt to doe in such a case, that because hee is unanswered, therfore he is unanswerable. And besides, though (Nil dictum, quod non dictum priùs) the matter be not new, yet there may be ( [...]) a handling of the same things in another manner: yea, and diverse treating of the same subject, something may be found in one, which is not in another. But (may some say) there are many other great and grosse errours of late sprung up among us, and these doe ra­ther call for our care and diligence to suppresse them. For answer unto this, I grant that the prevailing errours of the times are mainly to be opposed; yet (as our Saviour said in another case) this ought to be done, and the other not to be left undone. Yea, Popery is the grand evill that doth in­fest the Church; and by how much it is the more inveterate, & the more diffused, by so much the danger of it is the grea­ter, and it requires the more opposition. There is also a speci­all warning to come out of Babylon, Revel. 18. 4. and cer­tainly it will availe us little to come out, except we also keepe out of it. And if we would keep our selves out of Babylon, we must keepe the Babylonish Doctrine from finding entertain­ment with us. This will aske no little care, no humane poli­cy [Page] in the world (I think) being greater then that which is used either for the supporting of that doctrine where it is, or the introducing of it where it is not embraced. Shall we thinke that the Romanists are idle in these busy times? Though few doe shew themselves, as the Marquesse did, ( [...]) with open face; yet we may well suspect that many are working so, as that by how much they are the lesse conspicuous, by so much they are the more dangerous. And as David in a cer­taine case said to the woman of Tekoah, Is not the hand of Joab with thee in all this? So in respect of that heape of he­terodox opinions that is among us, may it not be said, Is not the hand of a Iesuite in all this? Diverse Pamphlets in these times have admonished us to beware, and among the rest one intituled Mutatus Polemo (what ever the Authors designe were) doth speake not a little to this purpose. Before these trouble some times began, some have either expressed (as Mr. Archer) or intimated (as Mr. Mede) that (in their Arch. of Christs personall raign on Earth, Page 50. and 55. Mede on Revel. 11. 7. opinion) Popery shall yet againe for a while universally pre­vaile in those Countries and Nations, out of which it hath bin expelled. If this be so (as for any thing I see, I may hope the contrary) may it not be feared, that, as those many Anti­christs (as they are called 1 Joh. 2. 18.) that is, those many heretikes, that were in the primitive times, did make way for the rise of that great Antichrist; so these in our times may make way for the restauration of him? And whereas we have heard long since of Romes Master-peece, I see not how any Romish designe can better deserve this title, then so to debase the Ministery, and to decry learning, as the practice of many is in these times. Hoc Ithacus velit, hoc magno mer­centur Atreidae, The Chieftaines of the Church of Rome can desire nothing more, then that among their adversaries the Ministery should be cast down, and learning overthrown. For then why should they doubt but that they may soon reduce [Page] all unto them, none being now of any competent ability to oppose them? It is observed by those that are acquainted with Ecclesiasticall Hi­story, Qui in historiarum Ecclesiasticarum lectione versati sunt, Christiani populi ignorantiam, & Romanae sedis authori­tatem simul auctam facilè animadver­tere potuerunt.—Vicissimque ut bo­narum literarum instauratione facessere caepit ignorantia, ita & Pontificis auto­ritas paulatim im ninui & labascere visa est. Gentillet, Exam. Concil. Trident. lib. 1. Sect. 7 & 8. vide plura. that when Learning was the lowest, then Popery got to be highest; as the one decayed, so the other was advanced: and on the otherside, that the restauration of good literature did make way for the Re­formation of Religion. Surely, if Popery overspread againe, barbarisme and illite­ratenesse is a most likely means to effect it. Neither are the Papists (I suppose) lesse politick, and wise in their generation then Julian the Apostate was, who could see no fairer way, whereby to re establish Gentilisme, then by indeavouring to devest Christians of Learning, a thing so vile and odious, that Ammianus Marcellinus himselfe, though a Pagan, and a great admirer of Illud autem inclemens obruendum pe­renni silentio, quòd arcebat docere Ma­gistros Rhetoricos & Grammaticos ritûs Christiani cultores. Am. Marcell. de Julia. lib. 22. Julian, was ashamed of it, and shewed great dislike of Julian for it, calling it a cruell part, and a thing to be buried in perpetuall silence. But I have held Thee (Reader) longer then I did intend; I will preface no further, but praying un­to the Lord to preserve his Church from errors without, and to purge it from errors within, I rest

Thy Friend and lover in the truth. C C.
  • [Page]1 OF the marks of the true Church, which they of the Church of Rome assigne, as Universality, Anti­quity, Visibility, Succession of Pastors, unity in Doctrine, and the Coversion of Nations, Page 107, to 114
  • 2 Of having recourse unto the Scriptures in matters that concern Religion, 114, 115, 116
  • 3 Of relying either on Fathers singly and severally con­sidered, or on a generall Councel, 116, 117, 118, 119
  • 4 That the Apostles, as Pen-men of the Holy Ghost, could not erre, 120
  • 5 Of the easiness and plainness of the Scriptures, 120, 121
  • 6 Of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, 122, to 140
  • 7 Whether the Church hath any infallible rule besides the Scripture for the understanding of Scripture, 140, to 147
  • 8 Againe of the Scriptures being easie to be under­stood, 147, 148
  • 9 Whether the Church can erre, or not, 148, to 152
  • 10 Againe of the Visibility of the Church, 152, 153
  • 11 Of the Universality of the Church, 153, to 158
  • 12 Of the unity of the Church in matters of faith, 158, 159
  • 13 Of Kings and Queens being Heads or Governours [Page] and Governesses of the Church within their Domi­nions, 159, 160
  • 14 Of the Ministers power to forgive sins, 159 (as 'tis misprinted) to 162
  • 15 Of confessing sins to a ghostly Father, 162, to 172
  • 16 Of works of Superogation, 172, to 176
  • 17 Of Free-will, 176, to 195
  • 18 Of the possibility of keeping the Commande­ments, 196, to 201
  • 19 Of Justification by faith alone, 201, to 211
  • 20 Of Merits, 211 to 216
  • 21 Whether justifying faith may be lost, 216 to 221
  • 22 Of Reprobation, 221 to 239
  • 23 Of assurance of Salvation, 239 to 251
  • 24 Whether every Believer hath a peculiar Angel to be his guardian, 251 to 254
  • 25 Of the Angels praying for us, and knowing our thoughts, 254, 255, 256
  • 26 Of praying to the Angels, 256 to 261
  • 27 Whether the Saints deceased know our affairs here below, 261, to 266
  • 28 Of the Saints deceased praying for us, 266, to 269
  • 29 Of praying to the Saints deceased, 269, to 276
  • 30 Of Confirmation, whether it be a Sacrament properly so called, 276, to 281
  • 31 Of communicating in one kinde, 281, to 287
  • 32 Of the sacrifice of the Masse, as they call it: or whe­ther Christ be truly and properly offered up and sacri­ficed in the Eucharist, or Lords Supper, 287, to 296
  • 33 Whether Orders (or rather Ordination) be a Sacra­ment of like nature with Baptisme and the Lord Sup­per, 296, to 301
  • [Page] 34 Of Vows of chastity, and of the Marriage of Ecclesi­astical persons, 301, to 318
  • 35 Of Christs descending into Hell, 319, to 340
  • 36 Of Purgatory, 340, to 355
  • 37 Of extreme Unction, 355, to 363
  • 38 Of the saying of Austine, Evangelio non crederem, nisi me Ecclesiae Authoritas commoveret, I should not believe (or should not have believed, crederem for credidissem) the Gospel, except the authority of the Church did move (or had moved, comoveret for com­movisset) me to it. 364, 365, &c.
The Contents of the Second Part of the Rejoynder.
  • 1 OF the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England, Page 1, 2
  • 2 Of Luthers Doctrine, 3, to 20
  • 3 Zuinglius vindicated from that which by the way is charged upon him, 19
  • 4 Of Calvines Doctrine, 20, to 35
  • 5 Of Zuinglius his Doctrine, 35, to 40
  • 6 Of Melancthons Doctrine, 40, 41, 42.
  • 7 Of Andreas Musculus his Doctrine, 42. and in the addition.
  • 8 Of the divisons that are among Protestants, 42
  • 9 Of that Unity which is among them of the Church of Rome, 42, to 46
  • 10 Of Crimes charged upon Protestants, and the testi­monies alledged for proof of them, 46
  • 11 Of Luthers conference with the Devil, 46, 47, 48
  • 12 Whether Zuinglius were an Authour of war, and a disturber of peace, &c. 48, 49
  • 13 Beza cleared of a foul aspersion cast upon him, 49, 50
  • 14 Of Luthers writing against King Henry 8. 50, 51
  • [Page] 15 Of the people of the reformed Churches, whether they be so vitious and corrupt, as they are censured, 51, 52
  • 16 A vindication of Calvin in respect of vild aspersions cast upon him, 53, 54
  • 17 Mantuans testimony concerning Rome, and the corrupt estate of it, 54, 55
  • 18 Whether the Doctrine of the Church of Rome be the the same still that it was at first, 55
  • 19 Of Prayers for the Dead, 55, 56, 57
  • 20 Of Lent-Fast, 57, 58
  • 21 Of mingling Water with Wine in the Lords Supper, 58, 59, 60
  • 22 Of diverse ceremonies, which the Church of Rome useth in Baptisme, 60, 61
  • 23 Of the necessity of Infants Baptisme, and whether they may be saved without it, 61, 62, 63
  • 24 Of the several Ecclesiastical Orders which they have in the Church of Rome, 63, 64, 65
  • 25 Of the Pope and his supremacy, 65, 66, 67
  • 26 Of service in an unknown tongue, 67, 68, 69
  • 27 Of Festivals, 69, 70
  • 28 Of Reliques, 70, 71
  • 29 Of Pictures and Images, 71, to 77
  • 30 Of the signe of the Crosse, 77
  • 31 Of Luther, Husse, and Wickliffe holding some er­rours, and so others that oppose the Church of Rome, 78
  • 32 That some before Berengarius, as namely Bertram, did professedly impugne that reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament, which they of the Church of Rome maintain, 79, 80

CERTAMEN RELI GIOSUM: OR, A CONFERENCE BETWEEN The late King of England, and the late Lord Marquesse of Worcester, con­cerning Religion, at His Majesties being at Ragland-Castle, 1646.


SIr, I hope if they catch us in the act, it will not be deemed in me an act of so high con­spiracy, in regard that I enter the lists, lea­ning upon a Doctor of your own Church.

To whom the King replyed as merrily, My Lord, I know not whether I should have a better opinion of your Lordship for the Doctors sake, or a worse opinion of the Doctor for your Lord­ships sake; for though you leane much upon his arme, yet he may lean more upon your judgment.

[Page 2]

Sir, it conduceth a little to the purpose we have in hand, to be a little serious in the thing you speak of: your Majesty knows the grounds of my acquaintance with the Doctor, and my obligation to him, which difference in opi­nion shall never mitigate in point of affection; but I protest unto you, I could never gain the least ground of him yet, in perswading him from his principles.


It may be your Lordship hopes to meet with a weaker Disputant of me.


Not so, and if it please your Majesty, but I think thus: That if it should please God to make me so happy an instru­ment of his Churches good, as to be a means to incline your royall heart to imbrace the truth, I beleeve that he, and thousands such as he, would be soon brought to follow your Majesty in the right way, who are so constant followers of your steps whilst you are in a wrong path: the Oaths which they have taken, the relation which their Hierarchy have to the Crown, which must be no longer so, but whilst the go­vernment of the Church and soules, stand as a reserve to the regiment of lives and fortunes, the preferment which they expect from your Majesty, and the enjoyment of those preferments which they have already, which they must no longer enjoy, then whilst they are, or seem to be of your opi­nion, causeth them to smother their own knowledge, whilst their mouths are stopt with interest; whereas if the strong Tide of your Majesties opinion were but once turn'd, all the ships in the river would soon turn head. Hereupon the Marquesse fell abruptly from his subject, and asked the King, Sir, I pray tell me what is it that you want? The King smiled a little at his sudden breaking off, and making such preposterous haste to aske that question, answered,


My Lord, I want an Army, can you help me to one?

[Page 3]

Yes, that I can; and to such a one, as should your Majesty commit your self to their fidelity, you should be a Conquerour, fight as often as you please.


My Lord, such an Army would do the busi­nesse: I pray let me have it.


What if your Majesty would not confide in it, when it should be presented unto you?


My Lord, I would fain see it, and as fain confide in that, of which I had reason to be confident.


Take Gedeons three hundred men, and let the rest be gone.


Your Lordship speaks mystically, will it please you to be plain a little?


Come, I see I must come nearer to you: Sir, it is thus: God expected a work to be done by your hands, but you have not answered his expectation, nor his mercy towards you: when your enemies had more Cities and Garrisons, then you had private families to take your part; when they had more Cannons then you had Muskets; when the people crou­ded to heap treasures against you, whilst your Majesties friends were fain here and there to make a gathering for you; when they had Navies at Sea, whilst your Majesty had not so much as a Boat upon the River; whilst the oddes in number against you was like a full crop against a gleaning; then God wrought his miracle, in making your gleaning bigger then their vintage; he put the power into your hand, and made you able to declare your self a true man to God, and gratefull to your friends: but like the man whom the Pro­phet makes mention of, who bestowed great cost and paines upon his vincyard, and at last it brought forth nothing but wilde grapes; so when God had done all these things for You, and expected that You should have given his Church some respit to their oppressions, I heard say, You made vows [Page 4] that if God blest You but Naseby Fight. that day with Victory, You would not leave a Catholike in Your Army; for which I feare the Lord is so angry with You, that (I am afraid) he will not give you another day wherein you may so much as trie your fortune: Your Majesty had forgot the monies which came unto you from unknown hands, and were brought unto you by unknown faces, when you promised you would never for­sake your unknown friends; you have forgotten the mira­culous blessings of the Almighty upon those beginnings, and how have you discountenanc'd, distrusted, dis-regarded, I, and disgraced the Catholiques all along, and at last vow­ed an extirpation of them: Doth not your Majesty see clearly, how that in the two great Battailes, the North and Naseby, God shewed signes of his displeasure, when in the first your Enemies were even at your mercy, confusion fell upon you, and you lost the day, like a man that should so wound his Enemies, that he could scarce stand, and after­wards his owne sword should fly out of the hilt, and leave the strong and skilfull to the mercy of his falling Enemies; and in the second (and I feare me the last Battaile that e're you'le fight) whilst your men were crying victory, as I hear they had reason so to do, your sword broke in the aire, which made you a fugitive to your flying Enemies: Sir, I pray pardon my boldnesse, for it is Gods cause that makes me so bold, and no inclination of my owne to be so, and give me leave to tell you, that God is angry with you, and will never be pleased, untill you have taken new resolutions concerning your Religion: which I pray God direct you, or else you'le fall from nought to worse, from thence to nothing.


My Lord, I cannot so much blame as pitty your zeal; the soundnesse of Religion is not to be tried by dint of sword, nor must we judge of her truthes by the prosperity of events, for then of all men Christians [Page 5] would be most miserable; we are not to be thought no followers of Christ, by observations drawne from what is crosse or otherwise, but by taking up our crosse and following Christ. Neither do I remember my Lord, that I made any such vow before the Battaile of Naseby concerning Catholiques, but some satisfaction I did give my Protestant Subjects, who on the other side were perswaded that God blest us the worse for having so many Papists in our Army.


The difference is not great, I pray God forgive you, who have most reason to aske it.


I think not so my Lord.


Who shall be judge?


I pray my Lord, let us sit down, and let rea­son take her seat.


Reason is no judge.


But she may take her place.


Not above our Faith.


But in our arguments.


I beseech your Majesty to give me a reason why you are so much offended with our Church?


Truly my Lord, I am much offended with your Church, if you meane the Church of Rome, if it were for no other reason, but this, for that she hath foisted into her legend, so many ridiculous stories, as are able to make (as much as in them lies) Christianitie it selfe a fable, whereas if they had not done this wrong unto the tradition of the primitive Church, we then had left unto us such rare and unquestionable verities, as would have adorned, and not dawb'd the Gospel, where­as now we know not, what is true, or false.


Sir, if it be allowed to question, what the Catho­lick Church holds out for truth, because that which they [Page 6] hold forth unto us seemes ridiculous, and to picke and chuse verities according to our owne fancie, and reject as no­velties and forgeries what we please, as impossibilites and fabulous; the Scriptures themselves may as well suffer by this kind of tolleration: for what more ridiculous then the Dialogue betweene Balaam and his Ass, or that Sampsons strength should be in his hair, or that he should slay a thou­sand men with the Jaw-bone of an Ass, the Disputation betweene Saint Michael and the Devill about the body of Moses; Philip's being taken up in the air, and found at Azotus, with a thousand the like strange, and to our appre­hension (if we looke upon them with carnall eyes) vaine and ridiculous: but being they are recorded in Scripture, which Scripture we hold for truth, we admire, but never question them: so the fault may not be in the tradition of the Church, but in the libertie which men assume to themselves to questi­on the tradition. And I beseech Your Majestie, to consider the streaks that are drawn over the Divine writ, as so many delenda's, by such bold hands as those: the Testaments were not like the two Tables, delivered into the hands of any Moses, by the immediate hand of God, neither by the Mini­stration of Angels, but men inspired with the holy Ghost writ, whose writings by the Church were approved to be by inspiration, which inspirations were called Scripture, which Scriptures, most of them, as they are now received into our hands, were not received into the Canon of the Church, all, within three hundred years after Christ; why may not some bold spirits call all those Scriptures (which were afterwards acknowledged to be Scripture, and were not before) forge­ries. Nay have not some such (as blind as bold) done it al­ready? Saint Hierom was the first that ever pickt a hole in the Scriptures, and cut out so many books out of the word of God, with the penknife of Apocrypha; Ruffinus chal­lengeth [Page 7] him for so doing, and tells him of the gap, that he hath opened for wild beasts to enter into this field of the Church, and tread downe all ill corne. Jerom gives his reasons, because they were not found in the Originall Copie, (as if the same spirit which gave to those, whom it did in­spire, the diversities of tongues, should it selfe be tied to one language) but withall he acknowledgeth thus much of those books, which he had thus markt in the forehead, Canonici sunt ad informandos mores, sed non ad confirmandam fidem: how poor a Distinction this is, and how pernitious a president this was, I leave it to Your Majestie to judge: for after him Luther takes the like boldness, and at once takes away the three Gospels, of Mark, Luke, and John; Others take away the epistle to the Hebrews, others the epistle of Saint Jude, others the second and third epistles of Saint Peter, others the epistle of Saint James, others the whole book of the Revelation. Wherefore to permit what the Church proposes to be questionable by particular men, is to bring down the Church, the Scriptures, and the Heavens upon our heads. There was a Church, before there was a Scripture, which Scripture (as to us) had not beene the Word of God, if the Church had not made it so, by teaching us to believe it. The preaching of the Gospell was before the writing of the Gospell, the Divine Truth that dispersed it selfe over the face of the whole earth, before it's Divinitie was comprised within the Canon of the Scripture, was like that Primaeva Lux, which the world received before the light was gathered into the body of the Sun: this body so glorious and comfortable is but the same light, which was before, we cannot make it another, though it be otherwise: And therefore though the Church and the Scripture, like the light that is concomitant and precedent to the Sun, be distinct in tearms, yet they are but one and the same; no [Page 8] man can see the Sun, but by it's own light; shut your eyes from this light, and you cannot behold the body of the Sun: Shut your eyes against one, and you are blind in both: he ne­ver had God to be his Father, who had not the Church to be his Mother. If you admit Sillogismes à priori, you will meet with many paralogismes à posteriori cry downe the Chur­ches, Authoritie, and pull out the Scriptures efficacie, give but the Church the lie now and then, and you shall have enough will tell you the Scripture is false here and there; they who have set so little by the tradition of the Church, have set by halfe the Scriptures, and will at last throw all away: wherefore in a word, as to deny any part of the Scripture, were to open a vein, so to question any thing which the Church proposes, is to teare the seamelesse Coat of Christ, and to pierce his body.


My Lord, I see you are better provided with Arguments then I am with memorie, to run through the series of your Discourse; satisfie me but in one thing, and I shall soone yeild to all that you have said, and that is concerning this Catholick Church you talke of, I know the creed tells us, that we must believe it, and Christ tells us, that we must hear it, but neither tell us, that that is the Church of Rome.


Gratious Sir, the creed tells us, that it is the Ca­tholick Church, and Saint Paul tells us in his epistle to the Romans, that their faith was spread abroad through the whole world.


That was the Faith, which the Romanes then believed, which is nothing to the Roman Faith which is now believed.


The Roman Faith then and now are the same.


I deny that my Lord.


When did they alter their Faith?

[Page 9]

That requires a librarie: Neither is it requisite, that I tell you the time when, if the envious man sowes his tares, whilst the husband-man was asleep, and after­wards he awakes and sees the tares, are they not tares, because the husband-man knowes not when they were sown?


And if it please Your Majestie; in a thing that is so apparent, your similitude holds good, but the diffe­rences between us and the Protestants are not so without di­spute, as that it is yet granted by the major part of Christi­ans, that they are errours which we believe contrary to your Tenents; and therefore the similitude holds not, but I shall humbly intreat Your Majestie, to consider the proofs, which the learned Cardinal Peroone hath made concerning this particular, in his answer to your Royall Father his Apolo­gie to all Christian Princes, where he proves, how that all the Tenents which are in controversie now between you and us, were practised in the Church of Christ, within the first three hundred years; wherefore I think, it would be no in­jury to reason to require belief, that that which hath been so long continued in the Church, and so universally received, and no time can be set down, when those Tenents or Cere­monies did arise, must needs be Catholick for time and place, and Apostolicall for institution, though we have no warrant from the Scriptures, to believe them to be such. For the Apostle Saint Paul commanded Timothy to keep fast the things which he had delivered unto him, as well by word as by writ. Wherefore if we will believe no tradi­tion, we may come at last to believe no writings.


That was your owne fault, wherefore I blame your Church, for the way to make the Scriptures not believed, were to adde unto them new inventions, and say they were Scriptures.

[Page 10]

If the Church of Christ had so mean esteeme then, as amongst some she hath now, certainly the former books received into her Canon, would have been much prejudiced by the admittance of the latter; wherefore if the Church be questionable, then all is brought in question.


My Lord, you have not satisfied me, where this Church is: and as concerning the Cardinals book, I have seen it, and have read a part of it, but doe not re­member, neither doe I believe, that he hath prov'd that which you say.


It may be the proofes were in that part of the book, which Your Majesty did not read: and as for my pro­ving the Roman Church to be this Church, by which we should be all guided, I thus shall doe my endeavour: That Church whose Doctrine is most Catholick and universall, must be the Catholick Church: but the Roman Church is such. Ergo.


My Lord, I deny your Minor, the Romane Church is not most universall; the Grecian Church is far more spreading; and if it were not, it were no Argument, for the Church of the Mahumetanes, is larger then both.


First, This is no Argument, either for an English Man, or a Protestant, but for a Grecian, or Mahumetane: not for an English Man, because he received his Conver­sion from Rome, and therefore he in Reason should not look beyond Rome, or the Doctrine that Rome practised then, when they converted England: nor for a Protestant, because he is as far distant from the Grecian Church in matter of opinion, as from the Romane; and therefore he need not look for that which he hath no desire to find: be­sides, the Greek Church hath long agoe submitted to the Church of Rome, and there is no reason, that others should make Arguments for her, who are not of her, when she [Page 11] stands in no competition her selfe; besides, there is not in any place wherever the Greek Church is, or hath beene planted, where there are not Roman Catholicks; but there are diverse Countreys in Christendome, where there is not one Professour of the Greek Church; neither is there a place in all the Turks Dominions, where there are not Romane Catholicks, nor in any part of the world, where there are not multitudes of Romanes; neither is there a Protestant Countrey in Christendome, where there are not Romane Catholicks numberlesse, but not a Protestant a­mongst the Natives, neither of Spaine or Italy. Shew me but one Protestant Countrey in the world, who ever de­serted the Romane Faith, but they did it by Rebellion, except England, and there the King and the Bishops were the principall reformers: (I pray God, they doe not both suffer for it.) Shew me but one reformed Church, that is of the opinion of another: aske an English Protestant, where was your Religion before Luther? and he will tell you of Hus and Jerom of Prague: search for their Tenents, and you shall find them as far different from the English Pro­testant, as they are from one another; run to the Walden­ses for your Religions antiquity, and you shall find as much difference in their Articles, and ours, as can be between Churches that are most opposite. Come home to your owne Countrey, and derive your descent from Wickliffe, and search for his Tenents in the booke of Martyrs, and you shall find them quite contrary to ours, neither amongst any of your moderne Protestants shall you find any other agree­ment, but in this one thing, that they all protest against the Pope. Shew me but any Protestant Countrey in the world, where Reformation, as you call it, ever set her foot, where she was not as well attended with sacriledge, as usher'd by Rebellion, and I shall lay my hand upon my mouth for ever.

[Page 12]

My Lord, my Lord, you are gone beyond the scope of your Argument, which required you to prove the Romane Church more Catholick then the Greek, which you have not done; you put me off with my be­ing English, and not a Grecian, whereas when we speak of the universality of a Church, I think that any man who is belonging to the universe, is objectum rationis. And if that be the manner of your Election, then I am sure most voices must carry it: for your alleaged sub­mission of the Greek Church unto the Roman, I believe it cannot be prov'd, but it may be the Patriarch of Con­stantinople, may submit unto the Pope of Rome, and yet the Greek Church may not submit unto the Romane.


Sir, it is no dishonour for the Sun to make its progress from East to West, it is still the same Sun, and the difference is onely in the shadowes, which are made to differ according to the varieties of shapes, that the severall sub­stances are of; East and West are two divisions, but the same day: neither can they be said or imagined to be greater, or more extending one or other, and the one may have the be­nefit of the Suns light, though the other may have its glo­ry; and I believe, no man of sober judgment can say, that any Church in the world is more generally spread over the face of the whole world, or that her glory shines in any place more conspicuously, then at this day in Rome.


My Lord, if externall glory be the Sun-shine of the Gospel, then the Church is there indeed; but if internall sanctity, and inward holynesse be the Essences of a Church, then we may be as much to seek for such a Church within the Wals of Rome, as any where else.


Who shall be Judge of that? I pray observe the Injustice and Errours that will arise, if every man may be [Page 13] admitted to be his owne judge; you of the Church of Eng­land left your Mother the Church of Rome, and Mother to all the Churches round about; You forsook her, and set up a new Church of your own, Independent to her: there comes a new generation, and doth the like to you; and a third ge­neration, that is likely to do the like to that; and the Church falls and falls, untill it falls to all the pieces of Independen­cie. It is a hard case for a part to fall away from the whole, and to be their owne judges. Why should not Kent fall away from England, and be their owne judges, as well as Eng­land fall away from Christendome, and be their own judges? why should not a Parish in Kent fall away from the whole County, and be their owne judges? why should not one Fa­mily fall away from the whole Parish, and be their owne judges? why should not one man fall away in his opinion from that Family, and be his owne judge? If you grant one, you must grant all; and I feare me in doing one, you have done all. So that every man despiseth the Church, whilst he is a Church in himselfe; rayles against Popery, and is the greatest Pope himselfe, despiseth the Fathers, and will en­throne his own judgment above the wisdome of the anci­ent; refuseth Expositours, that he may have his own sence; and if he can start up but some new opinions, he thinks him­selfe as worthy a member of Christianity, as if he were an Apostle to some new found land. Now Sir, though some do take the Church to be the Scriptures, yet the Scriptures cannot be the Church, because the Scriptures send us to the Church, audi Ecclesiam, dic Ecclesiae: others take the E­lect to be the Church, yet this cannot be, for we know not who are elect, and who are not, that which must be the Church, must be a visible, an eminent societie of men, to whose Authority in cases of appeale and matter of judge­ment, we are to acquiesce and subscribe. And I appeale to [Page 14] Your Royall heart, whether there be a Church in the world, whom in these respects we ought to reverence and esteeme more then the Church of Rome; and that the Church of Rome is externally glorious, it doth not follow, that there­fore she is not internally holy; for the Kings daughters clothing was of wrought gold, as well as she was all glorious within; and though she had never so many Divine graces within her, yet she had honourable women without her, as her attendants: and for the question, whether this inward glory is to be so much sought for within the gates of Rome, is the question, and not yet decided.


My Lord, I'le deale as ingenuously with you as I can. When the Romane Monarch stretch'd forth his arms from East to West, he might make the Bishops of Romes oecumenacy as large as was his Empire, and all the Churches in the world were bound to follow her Lawes and decretalls, because God hath made such Emperours nursing Fathers of his Church, as it was prophesied by the Divine Esay; alwayes provided, that the child be not pourtractured greater then the Nurse, (as hath been observed by the pride of your Bishops of Rome,) but when the severall Kingdoms of Christen­dome shook off the Romane Yoke; I see no reason why the Bishop of Rome should expect obedience from the Clergie of other Countries, any more then the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury should expect obedience from the Clergie of other Kingdoms. And for your deriving your Authority from Saint Peter; I know no reason, why we may not as well derive our Authority from Simon Zelotes, or Joseph of Arimathea, or from Philip, of whose planting the Gospell we have as good warrant, as you have for Saint Peter his planting the Gospel in Rome. But, my Lord, I must tell you, that there are [Page 15] other Objections to be made against your Church, which more condemns her, if these were answered.


May it please Your Majestie, to give me leave to speak a word or two, to what I have said, and then I shall humbly beg Your further Objections. As to that of the Chri­stian Kingdomes shaking off the Roman Yoke, and falling to pieces, which was so prophesied it should, yet the Church should not doe so, because it is said it shall remaine in unitie: and for Your Majesties objection concerning Simon Ze­lotes, Joseph of Arimathea, &c. It is answered, that there were two conversions, the first of the Brittains, the second of the Saxons; we onely require this justice from you, as you are English, not Welch-men, for the Church of Eng­land, involves all the Brittains within her Communion: for the Brittains have not now any distinct Church from the Church of England. Now if Your Majestie please, I expect your further Objections.


My Lord, I have not done with you yet: though particular Churches may fall away in their se­verall respects of obedience to one supreme Authority, yet it follows not, that the Church should be thereby divided, for as long as they agree in the unity of the same spirit, and the bond of peace, the Church is still at unitie, as so many sheaves of corne are not unbound, be­cause they are severed. Many sheaves may belong to one field, to one man, and may be carryed to one barne, and be servient to the same table. Unity may consist in this, as well as in being hudled up together in a rick with one cock-sheave above the rest. I have an hundred pieces in my pocket, I find them something heavie, I divide the summe, halfe in one pocket, and halfe in another: and subdivide them afterwards in two severall lesser pockets; The moneys, is divided, but the summe is not [Page 16] broke, the hundred pounds is as whole as when it was together, because it belongs to the same man, and is in the same possession; so though we divide our selves from Rome, if neither of us divide our selves from Christ, we agree in him, who is the Center of all unitie, though we differ in matter of depending upon one another. But my Lord of Worcester, we are got into such a large field of discourse, that the greatest Schollers of them all can sooner shew us the way in, then out of it; therefore, before we goe too far, let us retire, lest we lose our selves; and therefore, I pray my Lord, satisfie me in these par­ticulars: Why doe you leave out the second Com­mandement, and cut another in two? why doe you with-hold the Cup from the Laytie? why have you seven Sacraments, when Christ instituted but two? why doe you abuse the World with such a fable as Purga­tory, and make ignorant fooles believe, you can fish soules from thence with silver hookes? why doe you pray to Saints, and worship Images? Those are the of­fences which are given by your Church of Rome unto the Church of Christ; of these things I would be satis­fied.


Sir, although the Church be undefiled, yet she may not be spotlesse, to severall apprehensions: For the Church is compared to the Moon, that is full of spots; but they are but spots of our fancying; though the Church be never so comly, yet she is described unto us to have black eye­browes, which may to some be as great an occasion of dis­like, as they are to others foyles, which set her off more lovely. We must not make our fancies, judgements of con­demnation to her, with whom Christ so much was ravished. For Your Majesties Objections, and first, as to that of leaving out the second Commandment, and cutting another [Page 17] in two; I beseech Your Majestie, who called them Com­mandments? who told you they were ten? who told you which were first, and second? &c. The Scripture onely called them words: those words, but these: and these words were never divided in the Scriptures into ten Com­mandments, but two Tables; the Church did all this, and might as well have named them twenty as ten Command­ments; that which Your Majestie calls the second Com­mandment, is but the explanation of the first, and is not razed out of the Bible, but for brevitie sake in the manualls it is left out, as the rest of the Commandment is left out concerning the Sabbath, and others: wherefore the same Church which gave them their Name, their Number, and their Distinction, may in their breviats, leave out what she deems to be but exposition; and deliver what she thinks for substance, without any such heavie charge as being blot­table out of the booke of life, for diminishing the word of God.

For withholding the Cup from the Laytie, where did Christ either give, or command to be given, either the Bread or the Wine to any such? Drink ye all of this: but they were all Apostles to whom he said so, there were neither Lay-men or women there: If the Church allowed them afterwards to receive it, either in one, or both kinds, they ought to be satisfied therewith accordingly, but not question the Churches Actions. She that could alter the Sab­bath into the Lords day, and change the dipping of the Bap­tised over head and eares in water, to a little sprinkling up­on the face, (by reason of some emergencies, and inconveni­encies, occasioned by the difference of Seasons, and Coun­tries) may, upon the like occasion, accordingly dispose of the manner of her Administration of her Sacraments. Neither was this done without great reason, the world had not wine [Page 18] in all her Countries, but it had bread. Wherefore it was thought for uniformity sake (that they might not be unlike to one another, but all receive alike) that they should onely receive the Bread, which was to be had in every place, and not the Cup, in regard that Wine was not every where to be had. I wonder that any body should be so much offended at any such thing, for Bread and Wine doe signifie Christ cru­cified; I appeal to common reason, if a dead body doth not represent a passion as much as if we saw the bloud lie by it. If you grant the Churches Power in other matters, and rest satisfied therein, why do you boggle at this, especially when any Priest, (where Wine is to be had) if you desire it, he will give it you? But if upon every mans call the Church should fall to reforming upon every seeming fault, which may be but supposed to be found, the people would never stop untill they had made such a through Reformation in all parts, as they have done in the greatest part of Germany, where there is not a man to Preach, or hear the Gospell, to eat the Bread, or drink the Wine: you never pickt so many holes in our Coates, as this licentiousnesse hath done in yours.

For our seven Sacraments, she that called the Articles of our Faith 12, the Beatitudes 8, the Graces 3, the Vir­tues 4, called these 7, and might have called them 17 if she had thought it meet. A Sacrament is nothing else but what is done with a holy mind, and why Sacrament, either in Name, or Number, should be confin'd to Christs onely In­stitution, I see no cause for it; If I can prove that God did institute such a thing in Paradise, (as he did Marriage) shall not I call that a Sacrament as well as what was institu­ted by Christ, when he was upon the Earth? If Christ in­stitutes the Order of giving, and receiving the holy Ghost, shall not I call this the Sacrament of Orders? If Christ in­joynes [Page 19] us all repentance, shall we not say repentance is a Sa­crament? If Christ blesseth little children, and saith, Suf­fer them to come unto me, and forbid them not; shall we not say that such confirmation is a Sacrament? Truly I doe not understand their meaning; They have taken away five, which five, either by God, or Christ, or the holy Ghost, (who are all one) were instituted; and yet they say they are not Sacraments, because they were not instituted by Christ: And the two that are left, viz. Baptisme, and the Lords Sup­per; for the first, you hold it necessary to Salvation; and for the second, you do not admit the reall presence: so that of the two remaining, you have taken away the necessity of the one, and the reality of the other, so farwell all.

Now for Purgatory, I do believe, we have as good ground for it out of this place of Scripture, viz. He shall be purged, yet so as if it were by fire: as you can prove a Hell out of this place of Scripture, He shall be cast into utter dark­nesse, and into the lake that burneth with fire and brim­stone, where shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Neither can you make more exceptions to our inference out of this place of Scripture, to prove Purgatory, then the A­theist (if wits may be permitted to roame in such things, as these once setled, and believed generally) will find ground enough to quarrell at your burning lake; and the vaine Philosopher, Contradictions enough, in the description of the effects of those hellish Torments, viz. weeping and gnashing of teeth: the one having its procedure from heat, the other from cold, which are meer Contradictions, and therefore fabulous; take heed we doe not take away Hell, in removing of Purgatory. You see not, how your laughing at Purgatory hath caused such laughing at Hell, and Devils; untill at last, you shall see them bid the Heavens come down, and pluck the Almighty out of his Throne: If a Text of [Page 20] Scripture with the Churches Exposition be not sufficient for a man to rest, both his Science and Conscience upon: I know not where it will find a resting place, it may shoot at Randome, but never take so right an ayme; and for the silver hooke you talk'd of, I do not justifie the abuse of any, I know there is a great difference betweene the Court of Rome, and the Church of Rome; and if these Errours were in the Church it selfe, yet the tares must not be hastily pluckt out of the field of the Church, lest the wheat be pluckt up with it.

Now for our praying to Saints, there is no body that prayes to any Saints, otherwise then as we on earth desire the benefit of one anothers prayers. We do not believe that they can help us (of themselves) or that they have power to forgive sin, but we believe that they are nearer to God his favour, and more deare unto him: and therefore we be­lieve, that he will heare them with, or for us, sooner then he will hear us when we pray upon our own account: as we desire the prayers of some good and holy man, (whom we be­lieve to be so) hoping it will be a benefit unto us. All that can be said against it, is, that they do not hear us. I will not trouble Your Majestie with the Schoolmens Speculum Creatoris, but I shall desire to be plaine: When there is joy in heaven over every sinner that repenteth; do you think that the Saints which are there, are ignorant of the occasion of that joy? or do they rejoyce at they know not what? If the Saints in heaven do crie, How long Lord, how long, holy and just, dost thou not avenge our bloud upon them, which dwell upon the earth: if they know that their bloud is not yet avenged, do they not know when a sinner is converted? and if they know the time of conversion, do they not know, the time of prayer? If Abraham knew that there were such men as Moses and the Prophets, who was dead so many [Page 21] hundreds of years before their time, can we say, that they are ignorant? think ye, that those ministring Angels who are called Intelligencers, give them no intelligence? or that they gather nothing of intelligence by looking him in the face, who is the fulnesse of knowledge, and to all these the practice and opinion of so Catholick a Church; God can onely forgive sins, Christ can onely mediate, but Saints, whether in heaven, or on the earth, may intercede for one another.

Lastly, for our worshipping of Images: confounded be all they that worshipped them, for me, God is onely worthy to be worshipped; but if I kneel before the Picture of my Saviour, I worship him kneeling before his Picture; the worship is in the heart, and not in the knee, and where the true God is in the intention, there can be no Idolatrie.

O Sir, Christian Religion is not a Protestation, but a Go­spel: it would better consist with unity, then opposition: we hold it a peece of popery to knock our owne breasts with the fists of constitution, whilst we hold it most Evangelicall, to knock at our neighbours with a Cunstables staffe: a pious care in a Mother Church, labours to educate her own daugh­ter, and having fed her at her owne breasts, all the grati­tude she returns her mother, is to call her whore, Anti­christ, Babylon, and all the spitefull and vile names that can be imagined; they forget that saying of the Apostle St. James: If any man among you seeme to be religi­ous, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, that mans Religion is in vaine; Pure Religion, and undefiled before God, and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherlesse and widows, in their affliction, and to keep himselfe unspotted from the world. What should I say more, the Scriptures are made a nose of wax, for eve­ry bold hand to wring it which way he pleaseth, they are [Page 22] rejected by private men, by whole books, The Articles of our Creed are said not to be of the Apostles framing, the Commandments not belonging to Christians, impossible to be kept, the Sacraments denied; Charity not onely grown cold, but quite starved, and they will be sav'd by meanes quite contrary to what the Gospel (which they seeme to pro­fesse) sets down, viz. by Faith without good works, onely be­lieve and thats enough, whereas the holy Apostle St. James tells us, that faith profiteth nothing without good works— Here the Marquesse was going on, and His Majestie interrupted him.


My Lord, you let a flood-gate of Arguments out, against my naked breast, yet it doth not beare me any thing backwards; you have spoken a great many things, that no way concerns Us, but such as we find fault with as much as you; and other things, to which I could easily give answer, If I could take but some of that time and leasure that you have taken to compose your Arguments. It is not onely the Picture of our Sa­viour, but the Pictures of Saints which you both wor­ship and adore, and maintaine it to be lawfull; and not onely so, but the Picture of God the Father, like an old man, and many other things which I forbeare, because I feare, you have done your selfe more hurt then me good, in depriving your selfe of the rest, to which you are accustomed; for whilst our Arguments do multiplie our time lessens: to that of Saint James, where it is said, that faith profiteth nothing without good works; I hope the Doctor here can tell you, that Saint Paul saith, that we are justified by Faith, and not by the works of the Law.


Sir, I believe the Doctor will neither tell Your Majestie, nor me, that Faith can justifie without works.

[Page 23]

That question the Doctor can soone decide, what say you to it Doctor? you must speak now.


If it may please Your Majestie, it would be as great a disobedience to hold my peace, now I am commanded to speak, as it would have been a presumption in me to speak before I was commanded; I am so far from thinking that either Faith, with­out good works, or that good works without Faith, can justifie: that I cannot believe that there is such a thing as either. No more then I can imagine, that there may be a tree bearing fruit, with­out a root: or that the Sun can be up, before it be day: or that a fire can have no heat; for although it be possible, that a man may do some good without Faith, yet he cannot do good works without it; for though we may naturally incline to some good­nesse, as flowers and plants naturally grow to perfection; Yet this good cannot be said to be wrought by us, but by the hand of Faith; and Faith her selfe (where she is truly so) can no more stand still, then can the Sun in the Firmament, or refuse to let her light so shine before men, that they may see her good works, then the same Sun can appeare in the same Firmament, and dart no beams. And whilst Faith and good works strive for the proprietie of Justification; I do believe, they both exclude a third, which hath more right to our Justification then either. For that which we call Justification by Faith, is not properly Justification; but onely an apprehension of it: as that which we call Justification, by good works, is not properly Justification, but onely a Declaration of it, to be so: exempli gratia: I receive a pardon, my hand that receiv's it, doth not justifie; 'tis put in execution, and read in open Court, all this did not procure it me. Doubtlesse there is a reward for the righteous, doubtlesse there is a God that judgeth the Earth, wherefore upon this ground of be­liefe, I work out my Salvation as well as I can: and do all the good that lies in my power. I do good works. Doubtlesse this man hath some reason for what he doth: it is because he hath store of Faith, which believes, there is a God, and that that God will accept of his endeavours, wherefore to him alone who hath given us Faith, and hath wrought all our good works in us can we properly attribute the tearme of Justification: Iustifica­tio apprehensiva, we may conceive and beare in our hearts: Iusti­ficatio [Page 24] declarativa, we may shew with our hands: but Iustifica­tio Effectiva, proper and effectuall Justification none can lay claim unto, but Christ alone, that as our sins were imputed unto Christ, so his righteousnesse might be ours by imputation.


Doctor, I thank you, in this point I believe you have reconciled us both.


May it please Your Majestie, if the venome were taken out, there is no wound in the Churches body, but might soon be healed.


Hereat the Marquesse somewhat earnestly cry­ed, Hold Sir, You have said well in one respect, but there are two wayes of Iustification in us: and two without us: Christ is a cause of Iustification by his grace and merits without us; and so we are justified by Baptisme, and we are justified by the gifts of God in us, viz. Faith, Hope, and Charity. Whereupon the King spake as quickly.


But my Lord, both Justifications come from Christ, according to your owne saying: That without us, by his grace and merit: that within us, by his gifts and favour; therefore Christ is all in all, in the matter of Justification; and therefore though there were a thousand wayes, and meanes to our Justification, yet there is but one effectuall cause, and that is Christ.


How is it then, that we are called by the Apostle, Cooperarii Christo, Fellow-workers together with Christ?


The Doctor hath told you how already: If you lie wallowing in sin, and Christ helps you out, your reaching of him your hand is a working together with Christ; Yet for all that, it cannot be said, that you helped yourselfe out of the ditch: for then there had been no need of Christ. Your apprehending the suc­cour that came unto you, no way attributes the God have mercie to your selfe: no more then the declaring [Page 25] your selfe to be alive by action; is the cause of setting you upon your leggs, so that we may divide this three­fold Justification, as Peter divided his three Taberna­cles, here is one for Moses, and one for Elias: I pray let us have one for Christ, and let that be the chiefe.


And Reason good.


I wish that all Controversies betwixt you and Us, were as well decided: I am fully satisfied in this point.


May it please Your Majestie: A great many Contro­versies between us and the Papists might be soon decided, if the Churches revenues (which were every where taken away, more or lesse, where differences in Religion in severall parts of the world, did arise in the Church) were not an obstacle of the re­union; like the stone, which the Crab cast into the Oyster, which hindred it from ever shutting it selfe againe; like the division, which happened between the Greek and Latine Church. Photinus intrudes himselfe into the Patriarch-ship of Constantinople over the head of Ignatius, the lawfull Patriarch thereof; whom the Pope preserved in his Communion, and then the difference of the Procession of the holy Ghost, between those two Churches, was fomented by the said Photinus, lest the wound should heale too soon, and the patient should not be held long enough in cure, for the benefit of the Chyrurgion. Sacriledge hath brought more divisions then the nature of their causes have required: and the Universities play with edged tools, whilst hungry stomacks run away with their meat; wherefore since Your Majestie was pleased to discharge the watch, that I had set before the dore of my lips: I shall make bold to put Your Majestie in mind of holding my Lord to the demand which Your Majestie once made unto his Lordship, concerning the true Church; for if once that Question were throughly determined, all Controversies not onely between Your Majestie and his Lordship, but also all the Controversies that ever were started, would soon be decided at a short race end; and without this, we take away the meanes of reconciliation. For I must confesse ingenuously (yet under the highest correction) that there is not a thing that I ever under­stood [Page 26] lesse, then that assertion, of the Scriptures being judge of Controversies, though in some sence I must, and will acknow­ledge it: but not as it is a book consisting of papers, words, and letters; for as we commonly say in matters of civill differences, the Law shall be the judge between us, we do not meane, that every man shall run unto the Law books, or that any Lawyer himselfe shall search his Law-cases, and thereupon possesse him­selfe of any thing that is in question between him and another, without a legall tryall and determination by lawfull Judges, con­stituted to that same purpose: In like manner, saving knowledge and Divine Truths are the portion, that all Gods children lay fast claime unto: yet they must not be their own carvers, though it is their own meat that is before them, whilst they have a mother at the table; They must not slight all Orders, Constitutions, Appeales, and Rules of Faith; saving knowledge, and Divine Truths, are not to be wrested from the Scripture by private hands, for then the Scripture were of private interpretation: which is against the Apostles Rule. Neither are those undefiled, incorruptible and immaculate inheritances, which are reserved for us in heaven, to be conveighed unto us by any Privy-seales. For there is nothing more absurd, to my understanding, then to say, that the thing contested (which is the true meaning of the Scriptures) shall be Judge of the Contestation: no way inferiour to that absurditie, which would follow, which would be this, if we should leave the deciding of the sence of the words of the Law, to the preoccupa­ted understanding of one of the Advocates; neither is this all the absurditie that doth arise upon this supposition: for if you grant this to one, you must grant it to any one, and to every one: if there were but two, how will you reconcile them both? If you grant that this judicature must be in many, there are many manyes, which of the manyes will you have? decide but that, and you satisfie all. For if you make the Scripture the Judge of Controversie, you make the reader Judge of the Scripture: as a man consists of a soule and body, so the Scripture consists of the letter and the sence; if I make the dead letter my Judge, I am the greatest, and simplest idolater in the world: it will tell me no more, then it told the Indian Emperour Powhaton, who asking the Jesuite, how he knew all that to be true which he had told [Page 27] him, and the Jesuite answering him, that Gods word did tell him so. The Emperour asked him, where it was? he shewed him his Bible. The Emperour, after that he had held it in his hands a pretty while, answered, It tells me nothing. But you will say, you can read, and so you will find the meaning out of the significant Character; and when you have done, as you ap­prehend it, so it must be; and so the Scripture is nothing else but your meaning: wherefore necessitie requires an externall Judge, for determination of differences, besides the Scriptures. And we can have no better recourses to any, then to such as the Scripture it selfe calls upon us to heare, which is the Church, which Church would be found out.


Doctor, Saint John in his first Epistle tells us, that the holy Scripture is that, to whose truth the Spirit beareth witnesse. And John the Evangelist tells us, that the Scripture is that which gives a greater Testimonie of Christ, then John the Baptist. Saint Luke tells us, that if we believe not the Scripture, we would not believe though one were risen from the dead: and Christ him­selfe, who raised men from death to life, tells us; they cannot believe his words, if they believe not in Moses writings: Saint Peter tells us, that the holy Scripture is surer then a voice from heaven: Saint Paul tells us; that it is lively in operation, and whereby the Spirits de­monstrates his power; and that, it is able to make a man wise to salvation; able to save our soules; and that it is sufficient too) to make us believe in Christ, to life ever­lasting, John 20. As in every seed, there is a Spirit, which meeting with earth, heat, and moisture, grows to perfection: so the seed of the word, wherin Gods holy Spirit being sowen in the heart, inlivened by the heart of faith, and watered with the teares of repentance) soon fructifies without any further Circumstance.


It doth so, but Your Majestie presupposes all this while, husband-men, and husbandry, barnes and threshing floors, [Page 28] winnowing and uniting these several grains into one loafe, before it can become childrens bread. All that Your Majestie hath said concerning the Scriptures sufficiencie, is true, provided, that those Scriptures be duly handled; for as the Law is sufficient to deter­mine right, and keep all in peace and quietnesse, yet the execution of that sufficiencie, cannot he performed without Courts and Judges: so when we have granted the Scriptures to be all that the most reverend estimation can attribute unto them, yet Reli­gion cannot be exercised, nor differences in Religion reconciled, without a Judge; For as Saint Ierom tells us, who was no great friend to Popes or Bishops: Si non una, exors quaedam, & imminens detur potestas, tot efficerentur in Ecclesia schismata quot Sacerdotes. Wherefore I would faine find out that which the Scripture bids me heare, Audi Ecclesiam: I would faine referre my selfe to that to which the Scripture commands me to appeale, and tells me, that if I do not, I shall be a Heathen and a Publican, Dic Ecclesiae: which Church Saint Paul in his first Epistle calls the pillar and foundation of Truth, of which the Prophet Ezekiel saith: I will place my Sanctification in the midst of her for ever: and the Pro­phet Esay, that the Lord would never forsake her, in whose light the people should walke, and Kings in the brightnesse of her Orient; Against which our Saviour saith: The gates of Hell shall not prevaile: with whom our Saviour saith, He would be alwayes unto the end of the world. And from whom the Spirit of Truth should never depart. For although the Psalmist tells us, that the word of the Lord is clear, inlightning the eyes, yet the same Prophet said to God: Enlighten mine eyes, that I may see the marvels of thy Law: And Saint Iohn tells us, that the booke of God hath seven Seals, and it was not every one that was thought worthy to open it, onely the lambe. The Disciples had been ignorant, if Iesus had not opened the Scriptures unto them. The Eunuch could not understand them without an Interpreter; and Saint Peter tells us, that the Scripture is not of private In­terpretation: and that in his brother Pauls Epistles there are many things hard to be understood, which ignorant and light­headed-men wrest to their owne perdition. Wherefore though as Saint Chrysostom saith: Omnia clara sunt & plana ex scriptur is divinis: quaecunque necessaria sunt, manifesta sunt: yet no man [Page 29] ever hath yet defined what are necessary, and what not. What points are fundamentall, and what are not fundamentall. Ne­cessary to Salvation is one thing, and necessary for knowledge, as an improvement of our faith, is another thing: for the first, if a man keeps the Commandments, and believes all the Articles of the Creed, he may be saved, though he never read a word of Scripture; but much more assuredly if he meditates upon Gods word with the Psalmist day and night. But if he meanes to walk by the rule of Gods word, and to search the Scriptures, he must lay hold upon the meanes that God hath ordained, whereby he may attaine unto the true understanding of them; for as Saint Paul saith: God hath placed in the Church Apostles, Prophets, E­vangelists, Pastors and Doctors, to the end we should be no more little children, blown about with every wind of Doctrine; there­fore it is not for babes in understanding to take upon them to understand those things, wherein so great a Prophet as the Pro­phet David confessed the darknesse of his owne ignorance. And though it be true, the Scripture is a river through which a lambe may wade, and an Elephant may swim, yet it is to be supposed and understood, that the lambe must wade but onely through, where the river is foordable; It doth not suppose the river to be all alike in depth, for such a river was never heard of; but there may be places in the river, where the lambe may swim as well as the Elephant, otherwise it is impossible that an Elephant should swim in the same depth, where a lambe may wade, though in the same river he may; neither is it the meaning of that place, that the child of God may wade through the Scripture without directions, help, or Judges, but that the meannest capacitie, qualified with a harmelesse innocence, and desirous to wade through that river of living waters to eternall life, may find so much of Comfort, and heavenly knowledge there, easily to be obtained, that he may easily wade through to his eternall Salvation; and that there are also places in the same river, wherein the highest speculations may plunge themselves, in the deep mysteries of God. Where­fore with pardon crav'd for my presumption, in holding Your Majestie in so tedious a discourse, as also, for my boldnesse in ob­truding my opinion, which is except (as incomparable Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall pollicy hath well observed) the Churches Au­thority [Page 30] be required herein, as necessary hereunto we shall be so far from agreeing upon the true meaning of the Scripture, that the outward letter sealed with the inward witnesse of the Spirit (being all hereticks have quoted Scripture and pretended Spirit) will not be a warrant sufficient enough, for any private man to judge so much as the Scripture to be Scripture: or the Gospell it selfe, to be the Gospell of Christ: This Church being found out, and her Authority allowed of, all controversies would be soone decided, and although we allow the Scripture to be the lock upon the door, which is Christ, yet we must allow the Church to be the Key, that must open it; as Saint Ambrose in his 38. Sermons calls the agreement of the Apostles in the Arti­cles of our beliefe, Clavis Scripturae, one of whose Articles is, I believe the holy Catholick Church. As the Lion wants neither strength, nor courage, nor power, nor weapons, to seize upon his prey, yet he wants a nose to find it out: wherefore by na­turall instinct, he takes to his assistance, the little Jack-call, a quick sented beast, who runs before the Lion, and having found out the prey, in his language gives the Lion notice of it, who so­berly (untill such time as he fixes his eyes upon the bootie) makes his advance, but once comming within view of it, with a more speed then the swiftest running can make, he jumps upon it, and seizes it. Now to apply this to our purpose.

Christ crucified is the main substance of the Gospell, according to the Apostles saying, I desire to know nothing, but Iesus, and him crucified; This crucified Christ is the nourishment of our soules, according to our Saviours own words: Ubi Cadaver, ibi aquilae; Thereby drawing his Disciples from the curious speculation of his body glorified, to the profitable meditation of his body cru­cified: It is the prey of the Elect: the dead Carkasse feedeth the Eagles, Christ crucified nourisheth his Saints: according to Saint Iohns saying, except we eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his bloud, we have no life in us; him we must mastigate, and chew by faith: traject, and convey him into our hearts as nutri­ment, by meditation: and digest him by Coalition, whereby we grow one with Christ, and Christ becomes one with us, accor­ding to that saying of Tertullian, Auditu devorandus est, intellectu ruminandus, fide digerendus.

[Page 31] Now for the true understanding of the Scriptures, which is no other thing, then the finding out of Iesus, and him crucified, who is the very life of the Scriptures; which body of Divinity, is nou­rished with no other food, and all its veines fil'd with no other bloud: though this heavenly food (the Scripture) have neither force nor power to seize upon its prey, but is endued with a lively spirit, able to overcome the greatest ignorance, yet there is a quick sented assistant called Ecclesia, or Church, which is derived from a verbe, which signifies to call, which must be the Jack-call, to which this powerfull seeker after this prey must joyne it selfe, or else it will never be able to find it out; and when we are called, we must go soberly to work, untill by this means we have attained unto the true understanding and sight thereof, and then, let the Lion, like the Eagle, Maher-shalal hashbaz (as the Pro­phet Esay cap. 8. v. 3. tells us,) make hast to the prey, make speed to the spoile. Saint Paul confirmes the use of this Etymologie wri­ting to the Corinthians, viz. To the Saints called: and the Ephe­sians cap. 4. he tells us, if ye would be in one body, and in one spirit, and of one mind, you must be as you are called in our hope of your vocation: and in his Epistle of the Colossians cap. 3. he tells us, that if we will have the peace of Christ to rule in our hearts, that is it by which we are called in one selfe body, where we must allow a constitution or Society of men called to that purpose, and whose calling it is to procure unto us this peace and unitie in the Church, or we shall never find it. Thus when dissention arose between Paul and Barnabas concerning Circumcision, their disputations could effect nothing but heat, untill the Apostles and Elders met together, and determined the matter: there must be a society of men that can say, Bene visum fuit nobis & Spiritui sancto, or else matters of that nature will never be determined: which societie is there called the Church, which Church we are to find.


I pray, my Lord, what doe you meane by the holy Catholick Church, doe you meane the Church of Rome?


I doe so.


My thinks it should be inconsistent with it, to be both universall, and particular.

[Page 32]

No more then it is inconsistent, for the Generall of Your Army to be Generall of all Your Officers and Soul­diers, and yet a particular man. By the word Roman, we intend not the particular Church of Rome, but all the Churches which adhere and are joyned in Communion with the Roman Church, as by the Jewish Church, was not onely meant the Church of Judah onely, but of all the other Tribes which had Communion with her; the word Catho­lick is taken in three severall sences, formally, casually, and participatively: In the first sence, the Societie of all the true particular Churches, united in one selfe-same Commu­nion, is called Catholick; Casually, the Roman Church is called Catholick, for as much as she infuseth universalitie into all the whole body of the Catholick Church; wherefore being a Center and beginning of Ecclesiasticall Communi­on, infusing unitie, which is the form of universalitie, into the Catholick Church, she may be called Catholick: Par­ticipatively, because particular Churches agree, and par­ticipate in Doctrine and Communion with the Catho­lick.


You have satisfied me why the Church of Rome (in your sence) may be called Catholick, but you have not yet satisfied me, why other Churches may not be called (casually) as much Catholick as she: being the Greek Church hath infused as much universalitie into the whole body of the Catholick Church as she did, and was both center and circumference, as much as ever she was.


Sir, as to this point, I shall refer your Majestie to the learned reply, that the profound Card. Peroon, so re­spectfully and learnedly made to Your royall Father his A­pologie, wherein this point is largely and (to my apprehen­sion) fully answered. But will Your Majestie either give or [Page 33] take, either let me shew you this Church, or else doe Your Majestie shew it me.


My Lord, if you can shew it me, I shall not shut mine eyes against it; But at this time, truly my Lord, I can hardly hold them open. My Lord, I pray will you set downe your mind in writing, and I will promise you it shall want no animadver­sion, and that I will give you my clear opinion concer­ning it.


O Sir! Literae scriptae manent; I doe not like, that what I speak hère to your Majestie, I can promise my selfe, so much from your goodnesse, that no bad Constructi­on shall be made of what I speak. But if my writing should come into other folks hands, I may justly fear their com­ments: wherefore I desire to be excused.


My Lord, I hold it more convenient so to doe: I will promise you, that I will let no eyes but mine owne view your Paper: and I will returne it to you a­gaine by the Doctor.


Upon that Condition I am contented: I have one request more unto your Majestie: that You would make one Prayer to God, to direct You in the right way: and that You would lay aside all prejudice, and selfe­interest, and that You will not so much fear the Subject, as the Superiour, who is over all, and then You cannot doe amisse.


My Lord, all this shall be done, by the Grace of God.

Whereupon the Marquesse called upon me to help him, so that he might kneel: and being upon his knees, he desired to kisse His Majesties hand, which he did, saying:

Sir, I have not a thought in my heart, that tends not to the service of my God, and you: and if I could have resisted [Page 34] this motion of his Spirit, I had desisted long ago, but I could not: wherefore on both my knees, I pray to his Divine Majestie, that he will not be wanting to his owne Ordinance, but will direct Your understanding to those things, which shall make You a happy King upon Earth, and a Saint in Heaven; And thereupon he fell a weeping, bidding me to light His Majestie to His Chamber. As the King was going, he said unto the Marquesse: My Lord, it is great pittie, that you should be in the wrong: Whereat the Marquesse soone replyed: It is greater pittie, that You should not be in the right. The King said:God direct us both: The Marquesse said: Amen, Amen, I pray God. Thus they both parted: and (as I was lighting His Ma­jestie to His Chamber,) His Majestie told me, that he did not think to have found the old man so ready at it, and that he believed, he was a long time putting on his ar­mour: yet it was hardly proofe. To which I made an­swer, that I believe, his Lordship had more reason to wonder, how His Majestie (so unprepared) could with­stand the on-set. The King (being brought to His door,) commanded me, that before I brought him his Lordspips Paper, I should peruse it, and give him my opinion of it. Which I promised to obey, and so returned to the Mar­quesse, whom I found in the dark upon his knees, whom I did not disturbe; but when he rose, he said unto me: Do­ctor, I will tell you what I was doing, I was giving God thanks, that he had preserved the use of my memory for so good a work, and imploring a blessing upon my endeavours. To which I made answer: My Lord, no question but you think it a good work, or else you would not implore Gods blessing upon it. Whereupon my Lord said: Ah! Doctor, I would to God you thought so too: And waiting upon him into his Chamber, he further said unto me: Doctor Bayly, [Page 35] you know I am obliged not to speak unto you in this nature, yet I hope I may say thus much unto you, without any breach of promise, you may be an Instrument of the greatest good that ever befell this Nation. I say no more: Good night to you.

The third day after, he gave me this Paper to deliver unto His Majestie, which I did.

The Marquesse his Paper to the King.

IT must be granted by all, that there must be (alwayes) in the world, one holy, Catholick, and Apostolique Church: one, that it may be uniforme: holy, that it may be certaine: Catholick, that it may be knowne: and Apo­stolick, that it may succeed: this Church must be either the Romane, or the Protestant, or else some other that is oppo­site to both. It cannot be any Church which is opposite to both: because the Church of England did not (when she separated from the Romane) joyn her selfe to any: not to the Grecian: for that holds as many Doctrines contrary to the Church of England, as doth the Roman; nor to any else, because she agrees with none, no reformed Church un­der the Sun, that is, or ever was, hath the same articles of beliefe, as hath the Church of England. And from any o­ther Church, besides the Romane, she never had a being: and with any other Church besides the Romane, she never had Communion; She cannot be that one, because she is but one: nor Catholick, because she agrees not with any: nor Apostolick, because she hath acknowledged such a fine and recovery, that has quite cut off the entaile which would have (otherwise) descended unto her from the Apostles; neither can she be holy, because she is none of all the other three. Now if these Attributes cannot belong unto the Protestant [Page 36] Religion, and do (clearly) belong unto the Roman, then is the Church of Rome, the Catholick Church. And that it doth, I shall prove it by the marks, which God Almighty hath given us, whereby we should know her.

And the first is Universality: All Nations shall flow unto her, Esa. 2. 2. And the Psalmist: The heathen shall be thine inheritance, and the uttermost part of the Earth for thy possession, Psal. 2. 2. And our Saviour Matth. 20. 14. This Gospell of the Kingdome shall be preached in all the world, as a witnesse to all Nations, &c. Now I confesse, that this glory is belonging to all Professors of the Christian Religion: yet amongst all those, who do professe the name of Christ, I believe, Your Majestie will consent with me herein, that the Romane Church hath this forme of universality, not onely above all different and distinct Professors of Religion, but also beyond all Religions of the world, Turkes or Heathens: and that there is no place in the world, where there are not Romance Catholicks; which is manifestly wanting to all other Religions, whatsoever: Now I hope Your Majestie cannot say so of any Protestant Religion: neither that Your Majestie will call all those who protest against the Church of Rome, otherwise then Protestants: but not Protestant Catholicks, or Catholicks of the Protestant Religion, being they are not religated within the same Communion, and fellowships: for then Religion would consist in protestation rather then unity; in Nations falling off from one another, rather then all Na­tions flowing to one another: neither is it a Consideration altogether invalid, that the Church of Rome hath kept possession of the name; all along other reformed Churches, leaving her in possession of the name, and taking unto them­selves new names according to their severall founders: except the Church of England, (who is now her selfe be­come [Page 37] like a Chapter that is full of nothing else) whose foun­der was such a one, whose name it may be they were unwil­ling to owne.

For antiquity, if we should inquire after the old paths, which is the good way, and walke therein; as the Prophet Jeremiah adviseth us: if we should take our Saviours rule, Ab initio autem, non fuit sic: if we should observe his saying, how the good seed was first sowed, and then the tares: If we should consider the pit from whence we were dug, and the rock from whence we were hewen, we shall find antiquity more applicatory to the Church of Rome, then any Protestant Church. But you will say, your Reli­gion is as ancient as ours; having its procedure from Christ, and his Apostles: so say the Lutheran Protestants, with their Doctrine of Consubstantiation: and many other sorts of Protestants, having other Tenents, altogether contrary to what you hold: how shall we reconcile you? so say all hereticks that ever were, how shall we confute them? a part to set up themselmes against the whole, and by the power of the sword, to make themselves Judges in their owne causes, is dealing, that were it your case, I am sure you would think it very hard, I wish you may never find it so.

For Visibility: Our Saviour compares his Church to a Citie placed on a hill, according unto the Prophet Davids Pro­phesie, a Tabernacle in the Sun: It is likewise compared unto a candle in a candle-stick: not under a bushell: and saith our Saviour, If they shall say unto you, behold, he is in the desart, go ye not forth; Behold, he is in se­cret places, believe it not; forewarning us against obscure and invisible Congregations: Now I beseech Your Maje­stie, whether should I betake my selfe, to a Church that was alwayes visible, and gloriously eminent; or to a Protestant [Page 38] Church that was never eminent, and for the most part in­visible; shrowding their defection, under an Apostolicall Expression, of a woman in the Revelation, who fled into the wildernesse for a thousand years? as if an allegory, could wipe out so many clear texts of Scripture, as are set down by our Saviour, and the Prophets, concerning the Churches invisibility? And I could not find any Church in the world to whom that Prophesie of Esay might more fitly appertain, then to the Church of Rome: I have set watch-men upon the walls, which shall never hold their peace day nor night, which I am sure no Protestant Church can apply to her selfe.

It is not enough to say, I maintaine the same Faith and Religion which the Apostles taught, and therefore, I am of the true Church, ancient, and visible enough; because (as I have said before) every heretick will say as much: but if you cannot by these marks of the Church, (set down in Scripture) clear your selves to be the true Church, you vainly appeale to the Scriptures siding with you in any par­ticular point: for what can be more absurd, then to appeale from Scripture, (setting things down clearly) unto Scrip­ture setting down things more obscurely? There is no par­ticular point of Doctrine in the holy Scripture so manifestly set downe, as that concerning the Church, and the Markes thereof: nothing set down more copious and perspicuous then the visibility, perpetuitie, and amplitude of the Church.

So that Saint Augustin did not stick to say, that the Scriptures were more clear about the Church, then they were about Christ. Let him answer for it. He said so in his book, de unitate Ecclesiae, and this (he said) was the rea­son: because, God (in his wisdome) would have the Church to be described without any ambiguity, that all Controver­sies [Page 39] about the Church may be clearly decided: whereby que­stions about particular Doctrines, may find determinations in her judgement: and that Visibility might shew the way unto the most rude and ignorant: and I know not any Church, to whom it may more justly be attributed, then to the Church of Rome: whose Faith (as in the beginning was spread through the whole world) so (all along) and at this day, it is generally known among all nations. Next to this, I prove the Catholick Church to be the Romane; be­cause, a lawfull succession of Pastors is required in every true Church, according to the Prophet Esay his Prophecie concerning her, viz. My Spirit which is upon thee, and the words which I have put into thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed, from hence­forth, for ever; This succession I can find onely in the Church of Rome: This succession they onely can prove; nons else offering to go about it. This succession Saint Au­gustin sayes, kept him in that Church, viz. a succession of Priests, from the very seat of Peter the Apostle, to the pre­sent Bishop of his time. And Optatus Milevitanus reckons all the Romane Bishops from Saint Peter to Syricius, who then was Pope: and by this, he shewed and made it his Ar­gument, that the true Church was not with the Donatists: bidding them, to shew the originall of their Chayre; this no Protestant did, or ever can doe: The Romane Church gave the English Bishops Commission to preach the Do­ctrine of Christ, as they have delivered it unto them; but they never gave them any Commission to preach against her Religion: which Bishops being turned out, for obser­ving the depositum (wherewith they were instructed) and new Bishops chosen in their room (by her, who not content­ing her selfe with being a nursing mother thereof, must [Page 40] needs be head of the child: and moderatrix in the same Church, wherein by the Apostles precept she is forbidden to speak) the succession was broke off: the branch cut off from the body, becoming no part of the tree, fit for nothing but to be chopt into smaller pieces, and so fitted for the fire; this proofe of succession the Bishops of England, thought so ne­cessary, for proving their Church to be the true Church, that they affirmed themselves to be consecrated by Catholick Bishops, their Predecessors, which (never proved) argues the interruption, and affirming it, shews how that (in their owne opinion the succession could not hold in the inferiour Ministers (as indeed it cannot) for as there is a continued supply of Embassadours in all places, yet the succession is in the royall race: so though all vacancies are replenished by Ministers of the Gospel, yet the succession of the Authority was in the Bishops, as descended (to them) from the Apo­stles, according to our Saviours rule: I will be with you alwayes unto the end of the world; Which Affirmation of theirs, argues that their calling is sufficient without it: and in that they would faine derive it from the Church of Rome, it argues, that that is the true Church: and yet they would forsake her, supposing her to have errors, when that Reformation it selfe was but a supposition; for seeing they hold that their Church may erre, they can be certain of nothing: and whilst (for errors sake) they forsake the Church of Rome, the Church of England (in forsaking her) may be in the greatest error of all: where there is nei­ther Succession, nor assurance, I must leave her to her selfe, and your Majestie to judge.

Next: I prove the Romane Church, to be the true Church, by her unity in Doctrine: for so the Apostle Paul requires all the Churches children to be of one mind. viz. I beseech you, that all speak one thing; Be ye knit to­gether [Page 41] in one mind, and one Judgement, 1 Cor. 1. En­deavouring to keep the unitie of the Spirit in the bond of peace, Ephes. 4. 3. The multitude of them that be­lieved, were of one heart, and of one soul, Act. 4. 32. Continue in one Spirit and one mind, of one accord and one judgement, Phil. 1. 27. Phil. 2. 2. So our Saviour prayeth that they may be one; So Joseph forewarned his brethren, that they should not fall out by the way, know­ing that whilst they were with him, he could order them: when they came to their father, he could order them: but having no head, they should be apt to be dissentious. This Unity I find no where but in the Church of Rome: agree­ing in all things, which the Church of Rome hath deter­mined for Doctrine, whereas the Protestant Doctrine, like the heresie of Simon Magus, divided it selfe into severall Sects, and to that of the Donatists which were cut into small threds, in so much, that among the many Religions which are lately sprung up, and the sub, sub, sub-divisions under them: each one (pretending to be the true Protestant) ex­cluding the other: and all of them together, no more likely to be bound up in the bond of peace, then a bundle of thornes, can expect binding with a rope of sand; In vaine is their excuse, if non-disagreement in fundameatalls: for they dis-agree amongst themselves about the Sacrament: for the Lutherans hold Consubstantiation: but the Church of England no such matter.

Some, that Christ descended into hell: others not. The Church of England maintain their King to be the head of the Church: The Helvetians will acknowledge no such matter: the Presbyterians will acknowledge no such mat­ter; the Independent will acknowledge no such matter: Concerning the Government of the Church by Bishops, some Protestants maintaine it to be Jure Divino: others, [Page 42] to be Jure Ecclesiastico, others no such matter. Some think that the English translations of the Bible in some places takes away, in other places addes, and other some places changes the meaning of the holy Ghost, and some think it no such matter, or else the Bishops would not have recom­mended Lincol. min. to K. James, pag. 11. 13. it unto the people. Lastly, they are so far from a­greeing about the true meaning of the word of God, that they cannot agree upon what is the word of God: For Lu­therans, Chem. Ex. Contr. Trid. part. 1. pag. 55. Also; Eucher. p. 63. deny the second Epistle of Saint Peter, the second and third Epistle of Saint John: the Epistle to the Hebr. the Epistle of Saint James, and Saint Jude, and the Reve­lation; The Calvinists and the Church of England, no such matter, they allow them. And I believe that these are fundamentalls; If they cannot agree upon their Principalls, how shall they agree upon the deductions thence? If these be not fundamentall points, how come Protestants, to fight against Protestants, for the Protestants Religi­on?

The disagreement is not so amongst the Romane Catho­licks: for all points of the Romane Religion, that have been defined by the Church, in a generall Councell, are a­greed upon exactly, by all nations, tongues and people, uibicunque terrarum: but in those points which are not determined by the Church, the Church leaves every man to abound in his owne sense; and therefore all the heat that is either between the Thomists and the Scolists: the Do­minicans, and the Jesuits: either concerning the Concep­tion of our blessed Lady, or the concurrence of Grace, and free-will, &c. being points, wherein the Church hath not interposed her decrees, is no more prejudicall or objectio­nall against the Church of Romes Unitie, then the disputa­tions in the Schools of our Universities are prejudiciall to the 39. Articles of the Church of England. But in each [Page 43] severall Protestant Dominion there are certain severall Articles of beliefe, belonging to severall Protestant Domi­nions, in which severall agreements, not any one, agrees with any of all the rest; neither is there any possibility they should: being there is no means acknowledged, nor power ordained, whereby they should be gathered together in one councell, whereby they might be of one heart, and of one soule: neither is there this Unitie in any one particular Dominion: as is in the Dominion of the Roman Church; for they are all in pieces amongst themselves, even in their owne severall Dominions, practising disobedience to their Superiours, they teach it to their Inferiours.

The greatest Unitie the Protestants have, is not in be­lieving, but in not believing: in knowing, rather what they are against, then what they are for; not so much in knowing what they would have, as in knowing what they would not have. But let these negative Religions take heed they meet not with a negative Salvation.

Neither can the Conversion of Nations be attributed to any other Church then to the Roman, which is another mark of the true Church, according to the Prophesies of Esay cap. 49. 23. Kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and Queens thy nursing mothers. And Esay 60. 16. Thou shalt suck the milk of the Gentiles, and the breasts of Kings shall minister unto thee: And Esay 60. 10. And thy Gates shall be continually open, that men may bring to thee the riches of the Gentiles, and that their Kings may be brought. And the Iles shall doe thee ser­vice. And the Prophet David, I will give thee the hea­then for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession, &c. Now no Protestant Church ever converted any one Nation, Kingdome or Peo­ple. Many Protestant people have fallen away from the [Page 44] Church of Rome, but this cannot be called conversion, but rather perversion: for the Romane Church may justly say of such, these have not converted Nations from paga­nisme to Christianity, which is the mark of the true Church: These are they, which went forth from us, 1 Joh. 2. 19. Certaine that went forth from us, Act. 15. 14. These are certaine men who rise out of our selves, speaking perverse things, Act. 20. 30. These were they who sepa­rated themselves, Iude 19. which are marks of false and hereticall Churches. But the Romane Church I find stretching forth her armes, from East to West, receiving and imbracing all within her Communion; For the first three hundred years, the Church grew down-ward, like a strong building, whose foundations are first laid in the earth, whose stones are knit together in Unity by the morter that was tempered with the blood of her ten Persecutions. Afterwards this building, hasting upwards, Constantine the great Emperour, submitting his neek unto the yoke of Christ, subdued all Christian Churches to Pope Syl­vester, then Pope of Rome, from which time to these our dayes the Pope and his Clergy hath possessed the outward and visible Church as is confessed by Napier, a learned Protestant in his treatise upon the Revelation pag. 145. and all along hath added Kingdomes upon King­doms to her Communion: untill she had incorporated into her selfe, not onely Europe, but Asia, Africa and Ame­rica: as Simon Lythus, a Protestant writer, affirmeth, viz. The Jesuits have filled Asia, Africa and America with their Idols (as he calls them) for the late Conversi­ons of the East and West-Indies by the Romans, if you read Joan. Petrus Maffeus Hist. Indicarum, Jos. Acosta de natur. novi orbis: You shall find that no Church in the world hath ever spread so farre and wide, as the [Page 45] Church of Rome. Wherefore I hope in this respect (also) I may safely conclude that the Church of Rome most justly deserves to be called the Catholick Church.

Neither is it a vainer thing, to say, that the Pope of Rome cannot be head of the Church, because Christ him­selfe is head thereof; then it is for a man to say, that the King of England cannot be King of England, because God is King of all the earth, Psal. 46. 8. As if the King could not be Gods Vice-gerent, and the peoples visible God: so the Pope Christs Vicar or Deputy, and the Churches vi­sible head. And let Kings beware how they give way to such Arguments as these, lest at the last such inferences be made upon themselves.

As strange an inference is that, how that the Church was not built upon Peter, because it was built upon his Con­fession; as if it might not be built casually upon the one, and formally upon the other: as if both these could not stand together. As if the Confession of Peters Faith might not be the cause why Christ built his Church upon his Per­son; as if Christ did not as well (personally) tell him, Tu es Petrus: as (significantly) super hanc Petram (id est, super istam Confessionem) aedificabo Ecclesiam.

No lesse invalid is that Objection of Protestants a­gainst the oeconomacy of the Bishop of Rome, viz. that say­ing of Greg. sometimes Bishop of that sea, viz. He that in­tituled himself universall Bishop, exalted himself like Lucifer, above his brethren, and was a fore-runner of Antichrist: As if there were no more meanings in the word Universality than one: as if there were not a Metaphoricall as well as a Literall and Grammaticall sense: as if Saint Gregory might not censure this title of Universality in the Grammaticall, and exclusive meaning, (which being so taken, would have excluded all other Bishops from their [Page 46] Offices, Essences, and Proprieties which they held under Christ) thereby depriving them of the Key of orders, and yet still keep the Superiority, (viz. of one Bishop over ano­ther, and himself over all in a Metaphoricall and trans­ferent sense) thereby still keeping the Key of Jurisdiction in his own hands; and this not onely is, but must be the meaning of Saint Gregory; for he thus explicates the matter himself, lib. 4. ind. 13. cp. 32. viz. The care of the Church hath been committed to the Prince of all the Apostles, Saint Peter: and yet had Saint Peter called himselfe the Universall Apostle; in the first sence (seeing that Christ Jesus made other Apostles as well as him) he had been no Apostle himself, but Antichrist; and yet this hindred not, but that the care and principality was com­mitted unto Peter: Whereby you may plainly see, how he ascribes a head-ship over the Church, whilst he denies the Universality of Episcopacy. Wherefore, having shewed Your Majesty my Church, I humble beg, that You will be pleased either to give me a few lines in answer hereunto, or else to shew me Yours.

The KINGS Paper in Answer to the Marquesse.

MY Lord: I have perused your Paper, whereby I find, that it is no strange thing to see Errour try­umph in Antiquity, and flourish all those Ensignes of Universality, Succession, Unity, Conversion of Nati­ons, &c. in the face of Truth: and nothing was so fa­miliar either with the Iews, or Gentiles, as to besmear the face of Truth with spots of novelty: For this was Iere­miahs [Page 47] case, Ier. 44. 16. viz. As for the word which thou hast spoken unto us in the Name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee, but we will certainly doe whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our owne mouths: to burn incense unto the Queen of heaven, and to powre out drink-offerings unto her as we have done, we, and our fathers, our Kings and our Princes in the Cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem as we have done: there is Antiquity, we and our Fathers: there is Succession, In the Cities of Judah and Jerusalem: There is Universalitie: so Demetrius, urged Antiquity and Universality for his godde [...]: viz. That her Temple should not be de­spised, [...] Magnificence destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshipped. So Symachus that wise Senator, though a bitter enemie to the Christians: Servanda est inquit tot seculis fides, & sequendi sunt nobis parentes qui feliciter sequuti sunt suos: we must defend that Religion which hath worne out so many ages, and follow our Fathers steps, who have so happily followed theirs. So Prudentius would have put back Christianity it selfe, viz. Nunc dogma nobis Christianum nascitur post evolutos mille de­mum Consules: Now the Christian Doctrine begins to spring up after the revolution of a thousand Consul-ships: But Ezekiel reads us another lecture. Ne obdurate cer­vices vestras ut patres vestri, cedite manum Iehovae, in­gredimini sanctuarium ejus, quod sanctificavit in seculum, & colite Iehovam Deum vestrum: Be not stiff-necked as your fore fathers were, resist not the mighty God, enter into his Sactuary which he hath consecrated for ever, and worship ye the Lord your God.

Radbodus, King of Phrygia, (being about to be bap­tized) asked the Bishop, what was become of all his ancestors, who were dead without being baptized? The [Page 48] Bishop answered: that they were all in hell; where­upon the King suddenly withdrew himselfe from the font, (saying) Ibi profecto me illis Comitem adjungam: Thither will I go unto them: no lesse wise are they, who had rather erre with fathers and Councels, then rectifie their understanding by the word of God, and square their faith according to its rules.

Our Saviour Christ saith, we must not so much hear­ken to what has been said by them of old time, Mat. 21. 12. as to that which he shall tell you, where Auditis dictum esse antiquis is exploded: and Ego dico vobis is come in its place, which of them all can attribute that credit to be given unto him, as is to be given to Saint Paul. Yet he would not have us to be followers of him more, then he is a follower of Christ, 1 Cor. 11. 1. Wherefore if you cry never so loud, Sancta mater Ecclesia, sancta mater Ecclesia, the holy mother Church, holy mother Church as of old, they had nothing to say for themselves, but Templum Domini, Templum Domini, the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord, we will cry as loud a­gaine with the Prophet: Quomodo facta est meretrix Urbs fidelis? how is the faith full City become a harlot? if you vaunt never so much of your Roman Catholick Church: we can tell you out of Saint John, that she is become the Synagogue of Sathan: neither is it impos­sible, but that the house of prayers may be made a Den of theeves: you call us hereticks; we answer you with Saint Paul, Act. 24. 14. After the way which you call he­resie, so worship we the God of our fathers, believing all things which were written in the Law and the Prophets.

I will grant you, that all those marks which you have set downe, are marks of the true Church; and I will grant you more, that they were belonging to the Church [Page 49] of Rome: but then you must grant me thus much, that they are as well belonging to any other Chucch, who hold and maintaine that Doctrine which the Church of Rome then maintained, when she wrought those conver­sions: and not at all to her, if she have changed her first love, and fallen from her old principles; for it will do her no good to keep possession of the keyes, when the lock is changed: now to try whether she hath done so or no, there can be no better way, then by searching the Scriptures; for though I grant you that the Catho­lick Church is the White in that Butt of earth at which we all must aime; yet the Scripture is the heart centre, or peg in the midst of that white that holds it up, from whence we must measure, especially when we are all in the white. We are all of us in gremio Ecclesiae; so that controversies cannot be decided by the Catholick Church, but by the Scriptures, which is the thing by which the nearenesse unto truth must be decided; for that which must determine truth must not be fallible: but whether you mean the consent of Fathers, or the decrees of generall Counsels, they both have erred; I discover no Fathers nakednesse; but deplore their in­firmities, that we should not trust in armes of flesh: Tertullian was a montanist; Cyprian a rebaptist; Origen, an Anthropomorphist; Heirom, a Monoganist; Nazianzen, an Angelist; Eusebius, an Arrian; Saint Augustine had written so many errors, as occasioned the writing of a whole booke of retractations: they have often times contradicted one another, and sometimes themselves.

Now for generall Counsels: Did not that Conci­lium Ariminense, conclude for the Arrian heresie? Did not that Concilium Ephesinum, conclude for the Euti­chian heresie? Did not that Concilium Carthaginense, [Page 50] conclude it not lawfull for Priests to marry? Was not Athanasius condemned In concilio Tyrioi? Was not Eiconolatria established In concilio Nicaeno se­cundo?

What should I say more? when the Apostles them­selves, lesse obnoxious to error, either in life or doctrine, more to be preferred then any, or all the world besides; one of them betraies his Saviour, another denies him; all forsake him. They thought Christs Kingdome to have been of this world; and a promise onely unto the Jewes, and not unto the Gentiles; and this after the re­surrection.

They wondered that the holy Ghost should fall upon the Gentiles. Saint John twice worshipped the Angel, and was rebuked for it, Apoc. 22. 8. Saint Paul saw how Peter walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the Gospel, Gal. 2. 14. Not onely Peter, but other of the Apostles, were ignorant, how the word of God was to be preached unto the Gentiles.

But who then shall rowl away the stone from the mouth of the monument? Who shall expound the Scriptures to us? one puls one way, and another ano­ther: by whom shall we be directed?

Scinditur incertum studia in contraria vulgus.

You that cry up the Fathers, the Fathers so much; shall hear how the Fathers doe tell us that the Scriptures are their owne interpreters.

Irenaeus, who was scholler to Policarpus, that was schollar to Saint Iohn, lib. 3. cap. 12. thus saith, Ostenti­ones quae sunt in Scriptur is non possunt ostendi nisi ex ipsis Scriptur is, the evidences which are in Scripture cannot be manifested but out of the same Scripture.

Clemens Alexandrinus, Nos ex ipsis de ipsis Scriptur is, [Page 51] perfectè demonstrantes ex fide persuademus demonstrative: Strom. li. 7. Out of the Scriptures themselves, from the same Scriptures perfectly demonstrating, doe we draw demonstrative perswasions from faith.

Crysost. Sacra Scriptura seipsam exponit, & auditorem errare non sinit. Basilius Magnus, Quae ambiguè & quae obscurè, videntur dici in quibusdam locis sacrae Scripturae, ab i is quae in aliis locis aperta & perspicua sunt explicantur, Hom: 13. in Gen. Those things which may seeme to be ambiguous and obscure in certaine places of the holy Scripture, must be explicated from those places which else-where are plain and manifest.

Augustinus, Ille qui cor habet quod precisum est iungat Questionum asceticarum se­cundum eptt regula trecen­tissima sexa­gessima. Scripturae, & legat superiora vel inferiora & inveniet sensum. Let him who hath a precise heart joyne it unto the Scriptures: and let him observe what goes before, and that which follows after, and he shall find out the sense.

Gregorius saith (Ser. 49. De verbis Domini.) Per Scripturam loquitur Deus omne quod vult: & voluntas dei sicut in testamento, sic in evangelio inquiratur. By Scripture God speaks his whole mind; and the will of God, as in the old Testament so in the new, is to be found out.

Optatus contra Parmenonem, lib. 5. Num quis aequior arbiter veritatis divinae quam Deus, aut ubi deus mani­festius loquitur quam in verbo suo: Is there a better judge of the divine verity then God himselfe? or where doth God more manifestly declare himselfe then in his owne word?

What breath shall we believe then, but that which is the breath of God; the holy Scriptures? for it seems all one to Saint Paul to say, dicit Scriptura, the Scrip­ture [Page 52] saith: Rom. 4. 3. and dicit Deus the Lord saith: Rom. 9. 17. The Scripture hath concluded all under sin, Gal. 3. 22. for that which Rom. 11. 32. he saith, God hath con­cluded all, &c. how shall we otherwise conclude then but with the Apostle 1 Cor. 2. 12. have received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are freely given unto us of God.

They who know not this spirit, do deride it: but this spirit is hidden Manna, Apo. 2. 17. which God gi­veth them to eat who shall overcome; it is the white stone wherein the new name is written, which no man knoweth but he that received it. Wherefore we see the Scripture is the rule by which all differences may be com­posed: it is the light wherein we must walke: the food of our souls: an antidote that expels any infection: the onely sword that kils the enemy: the onely plaster that can cure our wounds: and the onely documents that can be given towards the attainment of everlasting sal­vation.

The Marquesses reply to the Kings Paper.

May it please your most excellent Majesty.

YOur Majestie is pleased to wave all the marks of the true Church; and to make recourse unto the Scrip­tures.

I humbly take leave to aske your Majesty what heretique that ever was did not doe so? How shall the greatest here­tique in the world, be confuted or censured; if any man may be permitted to appeale to Scriptures: margind with [Page 53] his own notes, senc'd with his owne meaning, and enlivened with his owne private spirit? to what end were those marks so fully, both by the Prophets, the Apostles, and our Saviour himselfe set downe, if we make no use of them? To what use are land-marks set up, if Marriners will not believe them to be such?

Yet notwithstanding after that I have said, what I have to say in removall of certain obstacles that lie in the way, I shall lead your Majesty to my Church, through the full body of the Scriptures, or not at all, and then I shall leave it to your royall heart to judge (when you shall see that we have Scripture on our side) whether or no the interpretation thereof be likelier to be true, that hath been adjudged so by Councels, renowned Fathers, famous for sanctity and ho­linesse of life; continued for the space of a thousand or twelve hundred years, by your owne confession, universally acknowledged; or that such a one as Luther (his word shall be taken, either without Scripture, or against it, with sic volo, and sic jubeo; a man who confessed himselfe, that he received his doctrine from the Devil; or such a one as Calvin and their associates, notoriously infamous in their lives and conversations, plain Rebels to their Moses and Aaron, united to the same person) should counter ballance all the worthies determinations of Councels, and the con­tinued practice, which so many ages produced.

If your Majestie meanes by the Church all the professors of the Gospel; all that are Christians, are so the true Church; then we are so in your owne sense, and you in ours: then none who believe in the blessed Trinity, the Ar­ticles of the Creed; none, who deny the Scriptures to be the word of God, let them construe them as they please, can be hereticall, or of a wrong Religion; therefore we must con­tradistinguish them thus: and by the Protestant Church [Page 54] and Religion, we must understand those opinions which the Protestants hold contrary to the Church of Rome; and by the Romane, the opinions which they hold dissenting from the Protestant; and then we will see whether we have Scripture for our Religion or not; and whether you have Scripture for what you maintaine; and whose opinions are most approved of by the Primitive times, and Fathers; and what ground your late Divines have built their new opinions upon; and then I shall give you Majestie an an­swer to the objection which you make against our Church: viz. That she hath forsaken her first love, and fallen from the principles which she held, when she converted us to Christianity.

But first to the removall of those rubs in our way; and then I shall shew as much reverence to the Scripture as any Protestant in the world; and shall endeavour to shew your Majesty that the Scriptures are the Basis or foundation up­on which our Church is built.

Your Majesty was pleased to urge the errors of certaine Fathers, to the prejudice of their authority; which I con­ceive would have been so, had they been all Montanists, Rebaptists, all Anthropomorphists, and all of them ge­nerally guilty of the faults, wherewith they were severally charged in the particulars: seeing that when we produce a Father, we doe not intend to produce a man in whose mouth was never found guile: the infallibility being never at­tributed by us, otherwise then unto the Church, not unto par­ticular Church-men: as Your Majesty hath most excellent­ly observed, in the failings of the holy Apostles, who erred after they had received the holy Ghost, in so ample manner: but when they were all gathered together in Councell, and could send about their edicts, with these capitall letters in the front, Visum est spiritui sancto & nobis, Acts 15. 28. [Page 55] then I hope your Majesty cannot say, that it was possible for them to erre.

So, though the Fathers might erre in particulars, yet those particular errors would be swallowed up in a generall Councel, and be no more considerable in respect of the whole, then so many heat-drops of error, can stand in competition with a cloud of witnesses, to the divine truth; and be no more prejudicicall to their generall determinations, then so many exceptions, are prejudiciall to a generall rule. Nei­ther is a particular defection in any man any exception a­gainst his testimony, except it be in the thing wherein he is deficient; for otherwise we should be of the nature of the flies, who onely prey upon corruption, leaving all the rest of the body that is whole unregarded.

Secondly, Your Majesty taxes generall Councels for com­mitting errors. If Your Majesty would be pleased to search into the times wherein those Councels were called, Your Majesty shall find, that the Church was then under persecu­tion, and how that Arrian Emperours, rather made Assem­blies of Divines, then called any Generall Councels; and if we should suppose them to be generall and free Councels, yet they could not be erroneous in any particular mans judge­ment, untill a like generall Councell should have concluded the former to be erroneous; (except you will allow particu­lars to condemne generalls, and private men the whole Church) all generall Councels, from the first unto the last that ever were, or shall be, makes but one Church: and though in their intervals, there be no session of persons, yet there is perpetuall virtue in their decretals, to which every man ought to appeale for judgement, in point of con­troversie. Now as it is a maxim in our law, Nullum tempus occurrit regi: so it is a maxim in divinity, Nul­lum tempus occurrit deo: Ubi deus est, as he promised, I [Page 56] will be with you alwaies unto the end of the world; that is with his Church, in directing her chief Officers, in all their consultations, relating either to the truth of her doctrine, or the manner of her discipline: wherefore if it should be granted, that the Church had at any time deter­mined amisse; the Church cannot be said to have erred, be­cause you must not take the particular time for the Catho­lick Church; because the Church is as well Catholick for time as territory; except that you will make rectification an error.

For as in civil affairs, if that we should take advantage of the Parliaments nulling former acts; and thereupon conclude, that we will be no more regulated by its lawes, we should breed confusion in the Common-wealth; for as they alter their laws, upon experience of present inconveniences; so the Councels change their decrees according to that fur­ther knowledge which the holy writ assures us, shall en­crease in the latter daies; provided that this knowledge be improved by means approved of, and not by every en­thusiastick, that shall oppose himselfe against the whole Church.

If I recall my own words, it is no error, but an avoidance of error: so where the same power rectifies it selfe, though some things formerly have been decreed amisse, yet that cannot render the decrees of generall Councels not binding, or incident to error, quoad ad nos; though in themselves, and pro tempore, they may be so.

As to Your Majesties objecting the errors of the holy A­postles, and pen-men of the holy Ghost; and Your inference thereupon, viz. That truth is no where to be found but in holy Scripture; under Your Majesties correction, I take this to be the greatest argument against the private spirit (urged by your Majesty) its leading us into all truth, that [Page 57] could possibly be found out. For if such men (as they) in­dued with the holy Ghost, inabled with the power of working miracles; so sanctified in their callings, and enlightened in their understandings could erre: how can any man (lesse qualified) assume to himselfe a freedome from not erring, by the assistance of a private spirit?

Lastly, as to Your Majesties quotations of so many Fa­thers, for the Scriptures easinesse and plainnesse to be under­stood. If the Scriptures themselves doe tell us, that they are hard to be understood, so that the unlearned and unsta­ble wrest them to their owne destruction: 2 Peter 3. 16. and if the Scripture tells us, that the Eunuch could not understand them except some man should guide him: as Acts 8. 13. and if the Scripture tells us, that Christs owne Disciples could not understand them, untill Christ himselfe expounds them unto them, as Luke 24, 25. and if the Scriptures tell us, how the Angel wept much, because no man was able either in heaven or earth to open the Book sealed with seven seals, nor to look upon it: as Apoc. 5. 1. then certainly all these sayings of theirs are either to be set to the errata's that are behind their books, or else we must look out some other meaning of their words, then what Your Majesty hath inferr'd from thence; as thus, they were easie, id est, in aliquibus, but not in omnibus lo­cis; or thus, they were easie as to the attainment of parti­cular salvation, but not as to the generall cognisance of all the divine mystery therein contained, requisite for the Churches understanding, and by her alone, and her consul­tations and discusments (guided by an extraordinary and promised assistance) onely to be found out; of which as to every ordinary man, this knowledge is not necessary, so hereof he is not capable.

First, we hold the reall presence; you deny it: we say his [Page 58] body is there: you say there is nothing but bare bread: we have Scripture for it, Mat. 20. 26. Take, eat, this is my body, so Luke 22. 19. This is my body which is given for you.

You say that the bread which we must eat in the Sacra­ment, is but dead bread; Christ saith that that bread is living bread: you say how can this man give us his flesh to eat? we say that that was the objection of Jews, and In­fidels, (1 John 6. 25.) not of Christians and believers: you say it was spoken figuratively; we say it was spoken really, re vera, or as we translate it indeed, John 6. 55. But as the Jews did, so doe ye, First, murmur that Christ should be bread, John. 6. 41. Secondly, that that bread should be flesh, Iohn 6. 52. And thirdly, that that flesh should be meat indeed, John 6. 55. untill at last you cry out with the unbelievers, this is a hard saying, who can heare it? Iohn 6. 60. had this been but a figure, certainly Christ would have removed the doubt, when he saw them so offended at the reality, John. 6. 61. He would not have confirmed his saying, in terminis, with promise of a greater wonder, John 6. 62. you may as well deny his incarnation, his ascention, and ask, how could the man come down from heaven and goe up againe? (if incomprehensibility should be sufficient to occasion such scruples in your breasts) and that which is worse then naught, you have made our Saviours conclusion an argument against the premises; for where our Saviour tels them thus to argue according unto flesh and bloud, in these words, the flesh profiteth no­thing; and that if they will be enlivened in their under­standing, they must have faith to believe it in these words, it is the Spirit that quickneth, John 6. 63. They pervert our Saviours meaning into a contrary sense, of their owne imagination: viz. the flesh profiteth nothing, that is to [Page 59] say, Christs body is not in the Sacrament: but in the Spirit that quickneth, that is to say, we must onely believe that Christ dyed for us, but not that his body is there: as if there were any need of so many inculcations, pressures, of­fences, mis-believings, of and in a thing that were no more but a bare memoriall of a thing; being a thing nothing more usuall with the Israelites: as the twelve stones which were erected as a sign of the children of Israels passing over Jor­dan: That when your children shall ask their Fathers what is meant thereby, then ye shall answer them, &c. Josh. 4. there would not have been so much difficulty in the belief, if there had not been more in the mysterie; there would not have been so much offence taken at a memoran­dum, nor so much stumbling at a figure.

The Fathers are of this opinion, Saint Ignat. in Ep. ad Smir. Saint Justin. Apol: 2. ad Antonium: Saint Cypri­an Ser. 4. de lapsis. Saint Ambr. lib. 4. de Sacram. Saint Remigius, &c. affirme the flesh of Christ to be in the Sacrament, and the same flesh which the word of God took in the Virgins wombe.

Secondly, We hold that there is in the Church an infalli­ble rule for understanding of Scripture, besides the Scrip­ture it selfe, this you deny: this we have Scripture for, as Rom. 12. 16. we must prophesie according to the rule of faith: we are bid to walke according to this rule: Gal. 6. 16. we must encrease our faith, and preach the Gospel, according to this rule: 1 Cor. 10. 15. this rule of faith, the holy Scriptures call a form of doctrine: Romans 6. 17. a thing made ready to our hands: 2. Cor. 10. 16. that we may not measure our selves by our selves: 2 Cor. 10. 12. the depositions committed to the Churches trust, 1 Tim. 6. 20. for avoiding of prophane and vain bab­lings and oppositions of sciences, and by this rule of [Page 60] faith, is not meant the holy Scriptures; for that cannot do it, as the Apostle tells us, whilst there are unstable men who wrest this way and that way, to their owne destructi­on; but it is the tradition of the Church and her exposition, as it is delivered from hand to hand as most plainly ap­pears, 2. Tim. 2. 2. viz. The things which thou hast heard of us (not received in writing from me or others) among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithfull men, who shall be able to teach it to others also.

Of this opinion are the Fathers; Saint Irenaeus 4. chap. 45. Tertul: de praescr. and Vincent. lir. in suo commen­tario saith, It is very needfull in regard of so many er­rors proceeding from misinterpretations of Scripture, that the line of propheticall and Apostolicall expositi­on, should be directed according to the rule of Ecclesi­asticall and Catholike sense; and saith Tertullian prae. script. advers. haeres. chap. 11. We doe not admit our adversaries to dispute out of Scripture till they can shew who their Ancestors were, and from whom they recei­ved the Scriptures: for the ordinary course of Doctrine, requires that the first question should be, from whom, and by whom, and to whom, the form of Christian Religion was delivered; otherwise prescribing against him as a stranger: for otherwise if a heathen should come by the Bible, as the Eunuch came by the Prophesie of Esay, and have no Philip to interpret it unto him, he would find out a Religion rather according to his owne fancy, then di­vine verity.

In matters of faith, Christ bids us to observe and doe whatsoever they bid us who sit in Moses seat, Mat. 22. 2. therefore surely there is something more to be observed then onely Scripture; will you not as well believe what you hear [Page 61] Christ say, as what ye hear his Ministers write? you hear Christ when you hear them, as well as you read Christ when you read his word: He that heareth you heareth me: Luke 10. 16.

We say the Scriptures are not easie to be understood; you say they are: we have Scripture for it, as is before mani­fested at large: the Fathers say as much: Saint Irenaeus lib. 2. chap. 47. Origen: contr. Cels: and Saint Ambr. Epist. 44. ad Constant. calleth the Scripture a Sea and depth of propheticall riddles: and Saint Hier. in praefat: comment. in Ephes: and Saint Aug: Epist: 119. chap. 21. saith: The things of holy Scripture which I know not, are more then those that I know: and Saint Denis, Bishop of Corinth, cited by Eusebius, lib. 7. hist. Eccless. 20. saith of the Scriptures, that the matter thereof was far more profound then his wit could reach.

We say that this Church cannot erre: you say it can: we have Scripture for what we say; such Scripture that will tell you that fools cannot erre therein: Esaiah 35. 8. such Scripture as will tell you, if you neglect to hear it, you shall be a heathen and a publican: Mat. 18. 17. such Scripture as will tell you, that this Church shall be unto Christ a glorious Church, a Church that shall be without spot or wrinkle: Ephesians 5. 27. such a Church as shall be enlivened for ever with his Spirit: Isaiah 59. 21. The Fathers affirm the samme, Saint Aug: contra Crescon: lib. 1. cap. 3. Saint Cypr: Epist. 55. ad Cornel. num: 3. Saint Irenaeus lib. 3. chap. 4. Cum multis aliis.

We say the Church hath been alwaies visible; you deny it: we have the Scripture for it, Mat. 5. 14, 15. The light of the world; a City upon a hill cannot be hid: 2 Cor. 4. 3. Isaiah 22.

The Fathers unanimously affirme the same; Origen: [Page 62] Hom: 30. in Math: That the Church is full of light even from the East to the West: Saint Chrisost: Hom: 4. in 6. of Isaiah, That it is easier for the Sun to be ex­tinguished, then the Church to be darkned: Saint Aug: tract: in Joan: calls them blind, who doe not see so great a mountain: and Saint Cypr: de Unitate Ecclesiae.

We held the perpetuall universality of the Church, and that the Church of Rome is such a Church: you deny it: we have Scripture for it, Psal. 2. 8. Rom. 1. 8. the Fa­thers affirm as much, Saint Cypr: ep. 57. writing to Cor­nelius Pope of Rome, saith, whilst with you there is one mind and one voice, the whole Church is confessed to be the Roman Church. Saint Aug: de unitate Eccles. chap. 4. saith, who so communicates not with the whole corps of Christendome, certaine it is that they are not in the holy Catholike Church. Saint Hier. in Apol. ad Ruffin. saith, that it is all one to say the Roman faith, and the Catholick.

We hold the unity of the Church to be necessary in all points of faith: you deny it: the severall articles of your Protestant Churches deny it: we have Scripture for it, Eph. 4. 5. One Lord, one Faith, one Baptisme. Acts 4. 35. 1 Cor. 1. 10. The Fathers are of that opinion, Saint Aug: cont. ep. Par. l. 3. chap. 5. Saint Cyp. lib. de unitate ecclesiae nu. 3. Saint Hyl. lib. ad Constantium Au­gustum.

We hold that every Minister of the Church, especially the supreme Ministers or head thereof, should be in a capacity of fungifying his office in preaching the Gospel, administring the Sacraments, baptizing, marrying, and not otherwise, this we have Scripture for, Heb. No man taketh this ho­nour unto himselfe but he that is called of God, as Aa­ron was: this you deny: and not onely so, but you so deny it, [Page 63] as that your Church hath maintained and practised it a long time, for a woman to be head or supreme modera­trix in the Church; when you know that according to the word of God (in this respect) a woman is not onely forbid to be the head of the man, but to have a tongue in her head. 1 Tim. 2. 11, 12. 1 Cor. 14. 34. yet so hath this been de­nied by you, that many have been hang'd, drawn, and quar­tered, for not acknowledging it: the Fathers are of our opinion herein, Saint Damascen. ser. 1. Theod. hist. Ec­cles. lib. 4. chap. 28. Saint Ignat. Epist. ad Philodolph. Saint Chrysost. Hom. 5. de verbis Isaiae.

We say that Christ gave commission to his Disciples to forgive sins, you deny it; and say, that God only can for­give sins: we have Scripture for it, John 20. 23. Whose­soever sins ye remit, they are remitted; and whosesoever sinnes ye retain, they are retained: and John 20. 21. As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you: and how was that? viz. with so great power, as to forgive sinnes: Mat. 9. 3. 8. where note, that Saint Matthew doth not set down, how that the people glorified God the Father, who had given so great power unto God the Son; but that he had given so great power unto men, loco citato. The Fathers are of our opinion, S. Aug. tract. 49. in Joan. Saint Chrys. de Sacerdotio. l. 3. Saint Ambros. l. 3. de penitentia. St. Cyril. l. 12. c. 50. saith, it is not absurd to say, That they should remit sinnes, who have in them the Holy Ghost: and Saint Basil. l. 5. cont. Eunom. proved the Holy Ghost to be God, (and so confuted his heresie) because the Holy Ghost forgave sinnes by the Apostles: and S. Irenaeus, l. 5. c. 13. so S. Greg. Hom. 6. Evang.

We hold, that we ought to confesse our sinnes unto our Ghostly Father: this ye deny, saying, that ye ought not to confesse your sinnes but unto God alone, this we prove out of [Page 64] Scripture: Mat. 3. 5, 6. Then went out Jerusalem, and all Judah, and were baptized of him in Iordan, confessing their sinnes: this confession was no generall confession, but in particular; as appears, Acts 19. 18, 19. And many that believed, came and confessed, and shewed their deeds.

The Fathers affirm the same; S. Irenaeus, l. 1. c. 9. Tert. lib. de Poenitentia: where he reprehendeth some, who for humane shamefac'dnesse, neglected to goe to confession. Saint Ambr. sate to hear confession: Amb. ex Paulsino: S. Clem. Ep. de fratr. Dom. Origen l. 3. Chrys. l. 3. de sacerd. S. Ambr. orat. in muliere peccatrice, saith, confesse free­ly to the Priest the hidden sins of thy soul.

We hold, that men may doe works of supererogation, this you deny: This we prove by Scripture, Mat. 19. 12. viz. There be Eunuches which have made themselves Eu­nuches for the Kingdome of Heaven: he that is able to receive it, let him receive it. This is more then a Com­mandment, as Saint Aug: observes upon the place, ser. lib. de temp: for of precepts it is not said, keep them, who is able, but keep them absolutely.

The Fathers are of this opinion: Saint Amb: lib. de vi­duis. Orig: in c. 15. ad Rom. Euseb. 1. demonstrat. c. 8. Saint Chry: hom. 8. de act. paenit. Saint Greg. nicen. 15. Moral: c. 5.

We say, we have free-will, you deny it, we prove we have out of Scripture, viz. 1 Cor. 17. He that standeth sted­fast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doth well.

Deut. 30. 11. I have have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing, chuse life, that thou and thy seed may live: And Christ himself said, O Jerusalem, Jeru­salem, how oft would I have gathered thy children to­gether, [Page 65] as a Hen gathers her Chickens, and ye would not? where Christ would, and they would not: there might have been a willingnesse as well as a willing, or else Christ had wept in vain; and to think that he did so, were to make him an impostor.

The ancient Fathers are of our opinion: Euseb: Caesar: de praep. l. 1. c. 7. Saint Hilde: Trin: Saint Aug: l. 1. ad Simp: q. 4. Saint Ambr: in Luc: c. 12. Saint Chrys: hom: 19. in Gen: Irenaeus l. 4. c. 72. S. Cyril: l. 4. in Joan: in c. 7. &c.

We hold it possible to keep the Commandments; you say it is impossible: we have Scripture for it, Luke 1. 6. And they were both righteous before God: walking in all the Commandments and Ordinances of the Lord, blamelesse: and 1 John 5. 3. His Commandments are not grievous.

The Fathers are for us: Orig: Hom: 9. in Josue: Saint Cyril: lib. 4. cont: Julian: Saint Hyl: in Psal. 118. Saint Hier: lib. 3. cont: Pelag: Saint Basil:

We say, faith cannot justifie without works: yee say good works are not absolutely necessary to salvation: we have Scripture for what we say, 1 Cor. 13. 2. Though I have all faith, and have no charity, I am nothing: and James 2. 24. By works a man is justified and not by faith onely.

This opinion of yours Saint Aug: lib. de fide & oper: cap. 14. saith, was an old heresie, in the Apostles time; and in the preface of his Comment: upon the 32. Psal. he calls it the right way to hell and damnation: See Orig: in 5. to the Rom: S. Hillar. chap. 7. in Mat: S. Amb: 4. ad Heb: &c.

We hold, good works to be meritorious; you deny it: we have Scripture for it, Mat. 6. 27. He shall reward every [Page 66] man according to his works. Mat. 5. 12. Great is your reward in heaven. Reward at the end, presupposes merit in the worke: the distinction of secundum, and propter opera; is too nice to make such a division in the Church.

The Fathers were of our opinion. S. Amb: de Apolog: David. cap. 6. S. Hier: lib. 3. Cont: Pelag: S. Aug: de Spiritu & lit. cap. ult. and divers others.

We hold, that faith once had, may be lost, if we have not care to preserve it: You say it cannot; we have Scripture for it, viz. Luke 8. 13. They on the rock, are they, which when they hear, receive the word with joy: which, for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. So 1 Tim. 1. 18, 19. Which some having put away, have made shipwrack of their faith.

This is frequently affirmed amongst the Fathers, see S. Aug: de gratia, & lib. arbit. de correp. & gratia, & ad articulos.

We hold, that God did never inevitably damn any man before he was born: or as you say, from all eternity; you say, he did: we have Scripture for what we say, Wis: 1. 13. God made not death, neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living. 1 Tim. 2. 34. God our Savi­our, who will have all men to be saved. 2 Pet. 3. 9. The Lord is not willing that any should die, but that all should come to repentance: and if you will not believe, when he saies so, believe him when he swears it: As I live, saith the Lord, I doe not delight in the death of a sinner.

The Fathers are of our opinion, S. Aug. lib. 1. Civit. Dei. Tertul. Orat. cap. 8. Saint Cypr. lib. 4. Epist. 2. and Saint Amb. lib. 2. de Cani & Abel.

We hold, that no man ought, infallibly, to assure himselfe of his salvation: you say he ought, the Scripture saith we [Page 67] ought not, 1 Cor. 9. 27. S. Paul was not assured, but that whilst he preached unto others, he himselfe might become a cast-away.

Rom. 11. 20. Thou standest in the faith: be not high­minded, but fear, &c. least thou also maist be cut off. Phil. 2. 12. Worke out your salvation with fear and trembling.

The Fathers are of our opinion: Amb: Ser. 5. in Psal. 118. S. Basil. in Constil. Monast. chap. 2. S. Hier: lib. 2. Advers. Pelagian: S. Crysost. Hom. 87. in Joan. S. Aug: in Psal. 40. S. Bernard Ser. 3. de Advent. and Ser. 1. de Sept. saith, Who can say I am of the Elect?

We say that every man hath an Angel guardian; you say he hath not; we have Scripture for it, viz. Mat. 18. 10. Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones, for I say unto you, that in heaven, their Angels doe al­waies behold the face of my Father. Acts 12. 13. S. Peter knocking at the door, they say, it is his Angel; they believed this in the Apostles time: the Fathers believed it along. S. Greg. Dial. lib. 4. cap. 58. S. Athanas. de Communi Essentia. S. Chrys. Hom. 2. in ep. ad Colos. lib. 6. de Sacer. Greg. Turonens. lib. de gloria Martyr. S. Aug. ep. ad Probam cap. 19. and S. Jer. upon these words, Their Angels, Mat 17. 10. calls it a great dignity, which every one hath from his Nativity.

We say, the Angels pray for us, knowing our thoughts, and deeds; you deny it: we have Scripture for it, Zach. 1. 9, 10, 11, 12. Then the Angel of the Lord, answered, and said, O Lord of Hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem, and on the Cities of Judah, against whom thou hast had indignation, these three­score and ten years? Apoc. 8. 4. And the smoake of the [Page 68] incense of the prayers of the Saints, ascended from the hand of the Angel before the Lord.

This place was so understood by Irenaeus, lib. 4. cap. 34. and S. Hillary in Psal. 129. tells us, This intercession of Angels, Gods nature needeth not, but our infirmities doe: So S. Amb. lib. de viduis, Victor. utic. lib. 3. de perse­cutione Vandalorum.

We hold it lawfull to pray unto them; you not: we have Scripture for it, Gen. 48. 16. The Angel which redeemed me from all evill, blesse these lads, &c. Hosea 12. 4. He had power over the Angel, and prevailed: he wept and made supplications unto them.

Saint Augustine expounding these words of Job 19. 21. Have pitty upon me, O ye my friends, for the hand of the Lord is upon me, saith, that holy Job addressed himselfe to the Angels.

We hold, that the Saints deceased, know what passeth here on earth; you say they know not: we have Scripture for it, Luke 16. 29. where Abraham knew that there were Moses and the Prophets Books here on earth, which he himselfe had never seen when he was alive.

The Fathers say as much, Euseb. Ser. de Ann. S. Hier. in Epit. Paulae. S. Maxim. Ser. de S. Agnete.

We say, they pray for us; you not: we have Scripture for it, Apoc. 5. 8. The twenty four Elders fell downe before the Lambe, having every one of them Harpes, and golden Viols, full of odours, which are the prayers of the Saints. Baruch 3. 4. O Lord Almighty, thou God of Israel, hear now the prayers of the dead Israe­lites.

The Fathers were of this opinion, S. Aug. Ser. 15. de verbis Apost. S. Hilar. in Psal. 129. S. Damas. lib. 4. de fide cap. 16.

[Page 69] We hold that we may pray to them; you not: we have Scripture for it, Luke 16. 24. Father Abraham have mer­cy on me, and send Lazarus, &c. You bid us shew one proof, for the lawfulnesse hereof, when here are two Saints pray'd unto in one verse: and though Dives were in Hell, yet Abraham in Heaven would not have expostulated with him so much, without a non nobis Domine, if it had been in it selfe, a thing not lawfull: You will say it is a parable; yet a jury of ten Fathers, of the grand inquest, as Theophil. Tertul. Clem. Alex. S. Chrys. S. Jer. S. Amb. S. Aug. S. Greg. Euthem. and Ven. Beda, give their verdict, that it was a true History: but suppose it were a parable; yet every parable is either true in the persons named, or else may be true in some others: The Holy Ghost tells no lies, nor fables, nor speaks not to us in parables, consisting either of impossibilities, or things improbable, Job 5. 1. Call now, if there be any that will answer thee, and to which of the Saints wilt thou turne? It had been a frivolous thing in Eliphaz, to have asked Job the question; if invocation of Saints had not been the practise of that time.

The Fathers affirme the same, S. Diony. c. 7. S. Athan. Ser. de Anunt. S. Basil. Orat. 44. in Mat. S. Chrys. Hom. 66. ad Popul. S. Hier. pray'd to S. Paula in Epi­taph. S. Paulae. S. Maximus to S. Agnes, Ser. de S. Ag­nete. S. Bern. to our blessed Lady.

We hold, Confirmation necessary; you not: we have Scrip­ture for it, Acts 8. 14. Peter and John prayed for them, that they might receive the holy Ghost (for as yet he was fallen upon none of them; onely they were bapti­zed in the name of the Lord Jesus) Then laid they their hands on them; and they received the holy Ghost: Where we see the holy Ghost was given in Confir­mation, [Page 70] which was not given in Baptisme: also Heb. 6. 1. Therefore leaving the principles of the Doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection, not laying againe the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith, towards God, of Baptisme, and of Laying on of hands.

The Fathers affirme the same. Tert. lib. de Resurrect. Carn. S. Pacian. lib. de Bapt. S. Amb. lib. de Sac. S. Hier. Cont. Lucif. S. Cypr. lib. 2. Ep. 1. speaking both of Baptisme, and Confirmation, saith, Then they may be sanctified and be the sons of God, if they be borne in both Sacraments.

We hold it sufficient to communicate in one kind; you not: we have Scripture for it, John 6. 15. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. If everlasting life be sufficient, then is it also sufficient to communicate under one kind: So Acts 2. 42. And they continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine, and fellowship (or communion) and in breaking of bread and prayer: where is no mention of the cup, and yet they remained stedfast in the Apostles doctrine, Luke 24. 30. 8. 35. where Christ communicated his two Disciples under one kind.

Saint Augustine and Theophylact, lib. de Consens. Evang. cap. 25. expound this place of the blessed Sacra­ment, S. Chrys. Hom. 17. oper. imperfecti.

We hold, that Christ offered up unto his Father, in the Sacrifice of the Masse (as an expiation for the sins of the people) is a true and proper Sacrifice; this you deny: this we prove by Scripture, viz. Malach. 1. 11. From the ri­sing of the Sun, unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles: and in every place incense shall be offered to my name, and a pure offering: This could not be meant of the figurative offe­rings [Page 71] of the Jewes, because it was spoken of the Gentiles; neither can it be understood, of the reall Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse; because that was done but in one place, and at one time, and then, and there, not among the Gentiles neither: which could be no other, but the daily Sacrifice of the Masse; which is, and ever was, from East to West, a pure and daily Sacrifice, Luke 22. 19. This is my body, which is given for you: not to you; therefore a Sacri­fice.

The Fathers are of this opinion: S. Clem. Apost. Const. lib. 6. cap. 23. who calleth it a reasonable, unbloudy, and Mysticall Sacrament, S. Aug. lib. 1. Cont. advers. leg. & proph. cap. 18. 19. calleth it a singular, and most excellent Sacrifice. S. Chrys. Hom. in Psal. 95. calleth it a pure and unbloudy host, a heavenly, and most reverend Sacrifice. S. Greg. Nicen. Orat. 4. de Resurrect.

We say that the Sacrament of Orders, confers grace upon those, on whom the hands of the Presbytery are imposed; you both deny it to be a Sacrament, notwithstanding the holy Ghost is given unto them thereby; and also you deny, that it confers any inferiour grace at all upon them: we have Scripture for what we hold, viz. 1 Tim. 4. 14. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by Pro­phesie, and with the laying on the hands of the Presby­tery, So 1 Tim. 1. 6. Stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on my hands.

S. Aug. lib. 4. Quaest. super Num. S. Cyp. Ep. ad Magnum. Optatus Milevit. the place beginneth, ne quis miretur. Tertul. in prescript. The place beginneth E­dant Origines.

We hold, that the Priest, and other Religious persons who have vowed chastity to God, may not Marry afterwards; you deny, first, that it is lawfull to make any such vows: [Page 72] and secondly, That those who have made any such vowes, are not bound to keep them; we have Scripture for what we hold, Deuteronomie 23. 22. When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the Lord thy God will require it of thee. So 1 Tim. 5. 11, 12. But the younger widows refuse, for when they have begun to wax wanton, against the Lord, they will marry, having damnation; because they have cast off their first faith. What can be meant hereby, but the vow of Chastity? or by their first faith, but some promise made to Christ, in that behalfe? otherwise, Marriage could not be damnable: so all the antient Fathers have ex­pounded it. Saint Aug. lib. de bona viduit. cap. 9. Saint Athanas. lib. de Virginitat. Saint Epiph: Heres. 48. Saint Hier. cont. Jovin. lib. cap. 7.

We say, Christ descended into Hell, and delivered thence the Soules of the Fathers; ye deny it: we have Scripture for it, viz. Ephes. 4. 8. When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, &c. Descending first, into the lower part of the Earth. This lower part of the Earth, could not be a Grave; for that was the upper part: nor could it have been the place of the damned; for the Devils would have been brought againe into heaven: more clearly, Acts 2. 27. Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell, nei­ther wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption: there is hell for his soule for a time; and the grave for his body, for a while: plainer yet, 1 Pet. 3. 18, 19. Being put to death in the flesh, but quickned by the Spirit, by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in pri­son: this prison cannot be heaven, nor hell, as it is the place of the damned; nor the grave, as it is the place of rest; therefore it must be (as Saint Aug. Epist. 99. ad Evod. saith) some third place; which third place, the Fathers [Page 73] have called Limbus patrum: also Zachary 9. 11. As for thee also, by the bloud of thy Covenant, I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is water: by this pit, could not be meant the place of the damned; for they have no share in the Covenant; neither are they Christs prisoners, but the devils; neither could this pit be the grave; because Christs grave was a new pit, where never any was laid before.

The Fathers affirme as much; Saint Hier. in 4. ad Ephes. Saint Greg. lib. 13. Moral. cap. 20. Saint Aug: in Psal. 3. 7. ver. 1.

We hold purgatory fire, where satisfaction shall be made for sinnes after death; you deny it: we have Scripture for it, 1 Cor. 3. 13. 15. The fire shall try every mans work of what sort it is, if any mans work shall be burnt he shall suffer losse; but he himselfe shall be saved, yet so as by fire. Saint Aug. so interprets this place upon the 37. Psal. also S. Amb. upon 1 Cor. 3. and Ser. 20. in Psal. 118. S. Hier. l. 2. cap. 13. ad vers. Joan. S. Greg. lib. 4. dialog. c. 39. Orig. hom. 9. in c. 15. Exod.

Lastly, We hold extreme Unction to be a Sacrament; you neither hold it to be a Sacrament, neither doe you practice it, as a duty: we have Scripture for it, James 5. 13. Is any sick among you? let him call the Elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oyle, in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick: and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him: Neither any, nor all the Sacraments, were or could be more effectuall, mens good, nor more substantiall in mat­ter, nor more exquisite in forme; nor more punctuall in designation of its ministry: other Sacraments being bound­ed within the limits of the soules onely good; this extends it selfe to the good both of soule and body: he shall reco­ver from his sicknesse, and his sins shall be forgiven him: and yet it is both left out in your practise, and acknowledg­ment.

[Page 74] The Fathers are on our side, Orig. Hom. 2. in Levit. S. Chrys. lib. 3. de Sacerd. S. Aug. in speculo & Ser. 215. de temp. Vener. Bed. in 6. Marke, and S. James, and many others.

Thus most Sacred SIR, we have no reason to wave the Scriptures umpirage; so that you will hear it speak in the mother language, and not produce it, as a witnesse on your side, when the producers tell us nothing, but their owne meaning, in a language unknowne to all the former ages, and then tell us, that she saith so, and they will have it so; because, he that hath a Bible and a sword, shall carry away the meaning from him that hath a Bible, and ne're a sword: nor is it more blasphemy, to say, that the Scripture is the Churches off spring, because it is the word of God, then it is for me to say, I am the sonne of such a man, because God made me instrumentally; I am so, and so was shee; for as saith Saint Aug: Evangelio non crederum, nisi me Ec­clesiae anthoritas commoveret. I should not believe the Gospel it selfe, unlesse I were moved by the authority of the Church. There was a Church, before there was a Scripture, take which Testament you please.

We grant you, that the Scripture is the Originall of all light: yet we see light, before we see the Sun; and we know there was a light, when there was no Sun: the one is but the body of the other. We grant you the Scriptures to be the Celestiall globe, but we must not grant you that every one knows how to use it; or that it is necessary or possible they should. We grant that the Scripture is a light to our feet, and a lanthorne to our paths: then you must grant me that it is requisite that we have a guide, or else we may lose our way in the light, as well as in the darke. We grant you that it is the food of our souls, yet there must be some body that must divide, or break the bread. We grant you that it is the [Page 75] onely antidote against the infection of the Devil, yet it is not every ones profession to be a compounder of the ingre­dients. We grant your Majesty the Scripture to be the only sword and buckler to defend a Church from her Ghostly enemies: yet I hope you will not have the glorious compa­ny of the Apostles, and the goodly fellow ship of the Prophets to exclude the noble Army of Martyrs, and the holy Church, which through all the world doth acknowledge Christ; wherefore having shewne Your Majestie how much the Scriptures are ours: I shall now consider your opinions apart from us, and see how they are yours; and who sides with You, in Your opinion, besides Your selves: and first, I shall crave the boldnesse to begin with the Protestants of the Church of England.

The Church of England.

WHose Religion, as it is in opposition to ours, consists altogether in denying (for what she affirms, we af­firme the same) as the Reall presence; the infallibility, visi­bility, universality, and unity of the Church; confession and remission of sins; free-will, and possibility of keeping the Commandments, &c. All these things you deny, and you may as well deny the blessed Trinity (for we have no such word in Scripture, onely inference) then that which ye have already denyed; and for which we have plaine Scripture, Fathers, Councels, practise of the Church: that which ye hold positive in your Discipline, is more erroneous, then that which is negative in your Doctrine: as your main­taining a woman to be head, Supreame, or Moderatrix in the Church, who by the Apostles rule is not to speak in the Church (or that a Lay-man may be so) what Scripture, or [Page 76] Fathers, or custome have ye for this? or that a Lay-man (as your Lay-Chancellour) should excommunicate and deli­ver up soules to Sathan? Whereas matters of so weighty concernment, as delivering of mens soules into the Devils hands should not be executed, and upon mature deliberation, and immergent occasions, and not by any, but those who have the undoubted Authority; lest otherwise, you make the Authority it selfe to be doubted of. A strange Religion, whose Ministers are denyed the power of remitting sins; whilst Lay-men are admitted to the power of retaining them: and that upon every ordinary occasion, as non-payment of fees, and the like: Whereas such practises as these have rendred the rod of Aaron, no more formidable then a reed shaken with the wind; so that you have brought it to this, that whilst such men as these were permitted to excommu­nicate for a threepeny matter, the people made not a three­peny matter of their Excommunication.

The Church of Saxony.

NOw for the Church of Saxony, you shall find Luther, Ad Argent. An. 1525. a man not only obtruding new Doctrine upon his Dis­ciples, without Scripture, or contrary to Scripture; but also Doctrine denying Scripture, to be Scripture, and vilipend­ing those books of Scripture, which were received into the Canon, and acknowledged to be the word of God, in all ages. As,

The book of Eccles. saying, That it hath never a per­fect sentence in it, and that the Author thereof had nei­ther boots nor spurs, but rid upon a long stick, or beg­ging shooes, as he did when he was a Fryar. Luther anvi­val. tit. de lib. novi & ver. testam. Reben­stock, lib. 2. Colloq. laet. Luth. c. de vet. test.

And the book of Job, that the argument thereof, is a [Page 77] meer fiction; invented onely, for the setting downe of a true and lively example of patience. Luth. Ser. convinal tit. ut supra. & tit. de Patrick. & Pro­phet.

That it is a false opinion, and to be abolished, that there are four Gospels; and that the Gospel of S. John is only true. Luth. prae­fat. in nov. test. & lib. de de­script. & Eccles. auth. c. 3.

That the Epistle of S. James is contentious, swelling, dry, strawy, and unworthy an Apostolical spirit. Luth. praef. in Epist. Tac. edit. Jenensi.

And that Moses in his writings, shewes unpleasant, stopped and angry lips; in which the word of grace is not, but of wrath, death and sin. Luth. Tom. 3. Wit. fol. 422.

He calls him a Goaler, Executioner, and a cruell Serjeant. Fol. 421. 422.

For his doctrine: He holds, a threefold Divinity: or three kinds; as there are three persons whereupon Zwin­glius taxes him for maning three Gods, or three Natures in the Divinity. Zwingl. part. 2. fol. 474.

He himselfe is angry with the word Trinity, calling it a humane invention, and a thing that soundeth very coldly. Luth. po­still. majore Basil apud Harv g. enarr Evang. dom. Trinit.

He justifies the Arrians, and saith, they did very well in expelling the word (Homousion) being a word that his soule hated. Luth. l. cont. latom. tom. wit. imp. an. 1551.

He affirmed that Christ was from all eternity, even ac­cording to his humane nature: taxed for it by Zwing. in these words, how can Christ then be said to be borne of a woman? Zwingl. Part. 2. fol. 402.

He affirmes that, as Christ dyed with great pain, so he seeems to have sustained pains in Hell after death. Luth. tom. 3. fol. 219.

That the divinity of Christ suffered, or else he were none of his Christ. Luth. lib. de Council. part. 2. & Hosp. Hist. Sac. part. 2 fol. 76.

That if the humane nature should only suffer for him, that Christ were but a Saviour of a vile account, and had need himselfe of another Saviour. Luth. Con­fes. ma. de caena. tom. 3. ten. fol. 454.

[Page 78] Luther held not onely consubstantiation, but also (saith Hospinian) that the body and bloud of Christ both is, and may be found, according to the substance, not only in the bread and wine of the Eucharist: or in the hearts of the faithfull, but also in all Creatures, in fire, water, or in the rope and halter wherewith desperate persons hang themselves. Hospin. v. 61. supra. fol. 44. Luth. ser. de Mose.

He averreth, that the Ten Commandments belong not unto us, for God did not lead us, but the Jewes forth of Aegypt. See epist. ad Galat. c. 4. &c. 20. Exod.

That faith, except it be without (even the least) good works, doth not justifie, and is no faith: Whereof you may see him condemned and cited by Covel. def. of M. Hooker. pag. 42.

That we are equall in dignity and honour with Saint Paul, Saint Peter, or the blessed Virgin Mary, or all the Saints. Luth. tom. 5. fol. 442.

That all the holinesse which they have used in fasting, and prayer, enduring labours, chastising their bodies, austerity and hardnesse of life, may be daily performed by a hog or a dog. Luth. praef. in Alex. lib. de Eccles.

That in absence of a Priest, a woman or a boy, or any Christian may absolve. Luth. tom. 2. fol. 103.

That they onely communicate worthily, who have confused and erroneous consciences. Ibid. fol. 73.

That a Priest, especially in the new Testament, is not made, but borne; not consecrated, but created. Ibid fol. 367.

That the Sacrament were true, though it were admi­nistred by the Devil: See him baited for it by two of his fellow Protestants. Hosp. Hist. Sac. part 2. fol. 14. Covel. def. of Hooker, pag. 101.

That among Christians no man can, or ought to be a Magistrate; but each one is to other equally subject: and that among Christian men, none is superiour save one, and only Christ: Luth. tom. 6. Ger. de sae­cul. potest. That the husband, in case [Page 79] the wife refuse his bed; may say unto her, if thou wilt not, another will; if the Mistresse will not, let the maid come. Luth. tom. 5. fol. 123. That the Magistrates duty is to put such a wife to death: and that if that the Magistrate omit to doe so, the husband may imagine that his wife is stolne away by theeves, and slaine, and consider how to marry another. Ibid. fol. 123. See also 111.

That the adulterer may flie into another Country; and if he cannot contain, marry againe. Luth. Ibid. fol. 123.

That Polygamy is no more abrogated then the rest of Moses Law; and that it is free, as being neither com­manded, nor forbidden. Luth. pro­pos. de Bigam. Epist. An. 1528. propos. 62. 65, 66. See in c. 16. Gen. edit. An. 525.

That it is no more in his power to be without a wo­man, then it is in his power to be no man: and that it is more necessary then to eat, drink, purge, or blow his nose. Luth. tom. 5. fol. 119.

I will give you the latine of another opinion of his, be­cause they are his owne words; but not any of my english shall be accessary to the transportation of such a blast into my native language: Perinde faciunt qui continenter vi­vere instituunt, acsi qui excrementa vel lotium contra naturae impetum retinere velit: Luth. in suo glossem. in de­cret. Noreberg. Luther saith, How can man prepare himselfe to good? seeing it is not in his power to make his waies evill; for God worketh the wicked work in the wicked. Luth. tom. 2. Wit. An. 1551. assert. art. 36. also de servo. arbit. edit. 1603. fol. 195.

But I pray you where have you this, or any of all this in Scripture, nay what Scripture have you for it? that Scripture should be no Scripture, as hitherto he hath made a great part of it; and Zwingl. almost all the rest, denying all Pauls Epist: to be sacred: Zwing. tom. 2. fol. 10. What Councel, what Fathers, what primitive, or sequent Church (Us (que) ad) ever taught or approved such doctrine as this? and how are we cryed out upon for errors, notwithstanding [Page 80] we have all for our Justification? and yet this is the man that boasted, that Christ was first published by him; Luth. Ep. ad Argent. An. 1525. and by all of you that he was the first reformer: this is he who calls himselfe a more excellent Doctor then all those who are in the papacy. Epist. ad Anonymum. tom. 5.

This is he who thus brags of himselfe, viz. Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, a Papist and an Asse are directly the same; so is my will, such is my command; my will is my reason. Luth. tom. 5. Germ. fol. from 141, to 144.

This is he that tells you, I will have you to know, that I will not (hereafter) vouchsafe you the honour, as that I will suffer either you, or the very Angels of heaven, to judge of my doctrine, &c. Nor will I have my doctrine judged by any, no not by the Angels themselves: for I being certaine thereof, will (by it) be judge both of you and the Angels. Luth. ad­vers. falso no­min. Eccles. stat. prope init.

And lastly, this is he that gave the alarme to all Christen­dome, of the errors, idolatries, superstitions and prophane­nesse of the Church of Rome: but what Scriptures have you for it, that you should not belive the Scriptures? what Fathers have you, that you should not believe the Church? what custome have you, that you should not believe the Fa­thers, rather then any private interpretation? the promised holy Ghost, alwaies ruling in the Church, rather then the presumed private Spirit in any particular man.

The Church of Geneva.

NOw for the Church of Geneva: Calvin comming af­ter him, is not contented to stop himselfe at Luthers bounds; but he goes further, and detracts not onely from the Scripture, but from Christ and God himselfe. For first,

[Page 81] He maintaines, that three essences doe arise out of the holy Trinity. Tract. theol. p. 793.

That the Sonne hath his substance distinct from the Father; and that he is a distinct God, from the Fa­ther. Act. Serv. p. 249, 250. 871, 872.

He teacheth that the Father can neither wholly, nor by parts, communicate his nature to Christ; but must withall be deprived thereof himselfe. Tract. theol. p. 771, 772.

He denies that the Sonne is begotten of the Fathers substance and essence; affirming that he is God of him­selfe, not God of God: 1 Instit. c. 13. Sect. 23. 29. He saies, that that dream of the absolute power of God, which the Schoolmen have brought in, is execrable blasphemy. Calv. ad c. 23. Ezech. gal. script. also In­stit. l. 3. c. 23. Sect. 2.

He saith, that where it is said, that the Father is greater then I, it hath been restrained to the humane nature of Christ; but I doe not doubt to extend it to him as God and man. Tract. theol. p. 794. see p. 792. & 2. In­stit. cap. 14. Sect. 3. and cap. 17. Jo. v. 12. and c. 22. Math.

He severeth the person of the Mediator from Christs di­vine person; maintaining with Nestorius two persons in Christ, the one humane, and the other divine. Lib. 1. In­stit. cap. 13. Sect 9. 23, 24.

That Christs soule was subject to ignorance; and that this was the onely difference betwixt us, and him: that our infirmities are of necessity, and this was volun­tary. In cap. 2. Luke v. 40.

That it is evident that ignorance was common to Christ, with the Angels. In cap. 24. Mat. v. 36.

And particulariseth wherein, viz. that he knew not the day of Judgement; In cap. 24. Mat. v. 36. Nor that the Fig-tree was bar­ren which he cursed, till he came near it. In c. 21. Mat. ver. 19. also ib. c. 9. v. 2.

He is not afraid to censure, certaine words of Christ to be but a weak confutation, of what he sought to refute. In c. 12. Mat. v. 25.

And saies, Christ seems here not to reason solidly. Id. in c. 9. Mat. v. 5.

He tells us that this similitude of Christ seemes to be [Page 82] harsh, and farre fetch'd, and (a little after) the similitude of sitting doth not hang together. Calv. in c. 16. & 22. Luke.

Where Christ inferred All things, therefore whatso­ever you will, &c. Calvin giveth it this glosse: It is a superfluous or vaine illation. In c. 7. Mat. v. 12.

This Metaphor of Christ is somewhat harsh: In. c. 9. Mat. v. 49. He saith, insomuch as Christ should promise from God a reward to fasting, it was an improper speech. In Mat. c. 9. v. 16, 17, 18.

He writeth of a saying of Christ, that it seemes to be spoken improperly, and absurdly, in French sans raison. In. c. 3. Joan. v. 21.

He saith, that Christ refused, and denyed, as much as lay in him, to performe the office of a Mediator. In c. 26. Mat. v. 39.

That he manifested his owne effeminatenesse, by his shunning of death. Cap. 12. Jo. v. 27.

He saith, that Theeves, and malefactors, hasten to death with obstinate resolution; despising it with haughty courage, others mildly suffer it: but what constancy, stoutnesse, or courage was there in the Son of God, who was astonished, and in a manner, striken dead with fear of death? how shamefull a tendernesse was it, to be so far tormented with fear of common death, as to melt in bloudy sweat, and not to be able to be comforted but by the sight of Angels? Lib. 2. Instit. c. 16. Ser. 22.

And that the same vehemency took him from the present memory of the heavenly decree; so that he for­got at that instant, that he was sent hither to be our re­deemer. In c. 26. Mat. v. 39.

This prayer of Christ was not premeditate: but the force, and extremity of grief, wringed from him this hasty speech; to which a correction was presently added, and a little before, he chastiseth, and recalleth that vow of his, which he had let suddainly slip. Id. 16.

[Page 83] Thus doe we see Christ to be on all sides so vexed, as being over-whelmed with desparation, he ceased to call upon God: which was as much as to renounce his sal­vation, and this (saith he) a little before, was not fained, or as a thing only acted upon a stage. In c. 27. Mat. v 46, 47.

That Christ in his soul suffered the terrible torments of a damned and forsaken man. Lib. 2 Instit. c. 16. Sect. 10.

In the death of Christ occurs a spectacle full of de­speration. In c. 27. Mat v. 57.

In this spectacle there was nothing but matter of ex­treame despair. In c. 14. Joan. v. 6.

It is no marvell if it be said that Christ went downe into Hell, since he suffered that death wherewith God in wrath striketh wicked doers. Lib. 2. In­stit. c. 6. Sect. 10.

That Christ sitting at the right hand of his Father, holds but a second degree with him in honour, and rule, and is but his Vicar. In c. 26. Mat. v. 64.

Lastly, Calvin holds it to be absurd, that Christ should challenge to himselfe, the glory of his owne resurrecti­on; when the Scripture, saith he, every where teacheth it to be the work of God the Father. In. c. 2. Joan. also in c. 8. ad Rom.

That God is the Author of all those things, which these Popish Judges would have to happen onely by his idle sufferance, Instit. lib. cap. 18. Sect. 3.

That our sins are not onely by his commission, but decree, and will: 16. Sect. 1, 2. & lib. 2. cap. 4. Sect. 3, 4. Which blasphemy is condemned by his famous brethren: Fleming. lib. de univers. grat. p. 109. Osiander Euchir. Controvers. p. 104. Schaffm. de peccat. causis. p. 155. 27. Sitzlinus disput. Theol. de providentia Dei, Sect. 141. Insomuch that the Magistrates of Berne, made it penall by their Laws, for any man to preach, or read any of his books or doctrine: Vide literas Senat. Bern. ad mini­stros, An. 1555.

[Page 84] This man strikes neither at the right hand, nor on the left, but at the King of Israel himselfe; who can thinke this mans mouth any slander, or his invections, a deprave­ment, when he belches forth such blasphemies against the Son of God, in whom the fulnesse of the God-head dwelt bodily? or who could thinke this man fit to reforme a Church, when nothing more required reformation then his owne errours? But what Scriptures or Fathers is there for all this?

The Doctrine of the Zwinglians.

ZWinglius confesseth himselfe to have been instruct­ed against the Masse, by a certaine admonisher, which he knew not, whether it was black or white. Zwingl. tom. 2. fol. 249.

The same derided, as illusion by the learned Prote­stants. Andr. con­fut. Grinae. p. 128. 254. 304. Schlus. Theol. Calv. 6. 1. in Proaem.

The same as Luther's Devil, largely set downe by him­selfe. In tom. 7. wit. fol. 228. and tom. 6. Germ. tenen. fol. 28. Calv. theol. l. 2. Act. 1. Zwingl. tom. 2. fol. 210.

He is taxed by Calvin for depraving the Scripture, for changing the word est, and putting in significat in his Translation of the New Testament: He saies, that these sayings, and the like, viz. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the Commandments, &c. are but superfluous and hyperbolicall. Zwingl. tom. 1. 137.

He denies, that Originall sin can damne us; calling it but a disease or contagion. Zwingl. tom. 2. fol. 90. See fol. 89. 115, 116. and in Epist. Oe­col. & Zwingl. l. 1. p. 252. 258.

He maketh Baptizing of Infants, a thing indifferent; which may be used or left off. Tom 2. fol. 96.

That Princes may be deposed by the godly, if they be wicked, or goe contrary to the rule of Christ. Tom. 1 fol. 84, 85. & lib. 4. Epist. Swingl: & Oe­col. p. 868, 869.

He saith, that when we commit adultery, or murder, [Page 85] it is the work of God: being the mover, the Author, or inciter, &c. God moveth the thiefe to kill, &c. he is forced to sin, &c. God hardned Pharaoh, not speaking hyperbolically, but he truly, hardned him, though he had resisted. Zwing. to. 10. de provid. Dei, fo: 365, 366, 367.

For which he is particularly reprehended by the learned Protestant, Grawerus. Absurda: Ab­surd: c. 5. de praedest. fo. 3, 4 But where is there any Scripture, or Fathers or Doctors of the Church, that ever taught this Doctrine before?

Melancthons Doctrine.

FOr Melancthon he taught that there are three Divini­ties, as there are three Persons. Melanct. loc. com. An. 1545. c. de Christo.

For which he is reprehended by Stancarus. l. 4. de Trin.

He affirmes polygamy, not to be against Jus Divi­num: and adviseth Hen. 8. unto it. Melanc. Con­cil. Theol. pag. 134.

He teacheth peremptory resistance against Magi­strates. Ep. ad Rom. cap. 13.

He inableth the inferiour Magistrate, to alter Re­ligion against the contrary Edicts of the Superiour. Con. Theol. part 1. p. 314.

So Calvin, so Beza, so Goodman, so Danaeus, so Knox, so Buch: so Bancroft, so Fenners, so Scutcliff, so Hotto­manus, so Ficlerus, so Renekerus, all hold it lawfull, to de­pose, murder, or to arraigne their Prince. Call in forraigne ayd to assist them. Bestow the Crown at their pleasure. De­stroy them, either by peaceable practices, or open War. Pro­pose rewards to such: but where have they Scriptures, or Fathers, or times, that shewed the practise of such doings, before these latter times, and latter practices?

The Doctrine of Andreas Musculus.

AS for Andreas Musculus, he was not afraid openly to teach, that the Divine Nature of Christ, (which is God) died upon the crosse with his humane Nature. Nei­ther did he desist (publickly) to professe and spread abroad this Doctrine of the death of Christs Divinity. And that by the help of Johannes Islebius. Thus far. Sylvest. E­zecanorius. Di­al. de corrupt. mor. art. 3. fol. 5. See Andr. Muscul. and Isleb. in refut. Simleri.

It is manifest, (saith Simlerus) forth of the writings of Brentius, Myricus, and Andreas Musculus, that they make nothing of the ascention of Christ, but a vanishing, or disappearing. What is this but making way for Maho­met? but what Scriptures, or Fathers, or times hath he wherein this Doctrine was ever taught before? In vita Bul­ling. fol. 55.

The Divisions of Protestants.

IF Ye would but consider, how the Lutherans are divided into Antinomians, Osiandrians, Majorists, Synergists, Stancarians, Amsdorfians, Flaccians, Substantiarians, Ac­cidentarians, Adjaphorists, Musculans of Effingereans, Vi­biquilists, &c. So dissenting from, and persecuting one another, that they will not permit one another to live in the same Town, in so much, that Oecolampadius reckons up seventy seven changes, not onely in their ex­planations of Scripture, but also in certaine imaginary phantsies. Lin. germ. aequa. resp. ad Luth. Prefat. Or if we should consider the Divisions that are between the old and new Sacramentaries, the old, called Zwinglians: the new, Calvinists; with us, Puritans: in France, Hugonots: in other places Formalists, else­where Familists: somewhere Brownists: every where [Page 87] Arminians, Seekers, Dippers, Shakers, Adamists.

Luther complaining of seven Sects risen in two years; Tom. 16. fol. 335. And we of new Sects rising every day; If we should consider the severall species of Independency, how it hath brought Religion to nothing, but Confusion, we would con­clude with Saint Angustine, That it is necessary, that (rent and divided into small pieces) we perish, who have preferred the swelling pride of our haughty Stomacks, before the most holy band of Catholick peace and Unity. Aug. cont. Parm. l. 1. c. 4.

Whilst the Catholicks have no jars undecided, no diffe­rences uncomposed; having one common Father, one Con­ductor and Adviser; as Sir Edward Sands confesseth. In his Re­lat. of Religi­on Sect. 47. fol. 5. 2, 8. None contend about the Scripture, all Consent and Credit the Fathers, adhere to the Councels, submit to the holy Sea of Rome. And the Divisions that are, are but humane dissentions, as is confessed by Luther, Tom. fol. 380. Beza, Beza Epist. 1 Whitaker, Whit. de Eccles. cont. Bell. cont. 2. q. 5. p. 327. Fulk Fulk ag. Hesk. Sand. &c. p. 293. &c.

Thus Religion, being at Unity with it selfe, is the true Speculum Creatoris, or looking glasse of the Creatour: wherein the full proportion of a Deity may be seen: but once broken into pieces, it may represent divers faces, but no true proportion: and loseth at once both its value, and its virtue.

I have thus presented Your Majesty, with a view of the Cotholick Religion, asserted by the Fathers; and the Prote­stant Religion asserted by their founders. I shall humbly de­sire Your Majesties further patience, that Your Majestie will be pleased to consider the lives and Conversations of the one, and of the other: First the rare Sanctity, and ad­mired holinesse, which all ages and writers have ascribed unto these holy Fathers. And the strange and unheard of blasphemies, vilenesse and wickednesse that are cast upon [Page 88] the other, not by any of their Adversaries, but by themselves upon one another: If these testimonies had been by any of our side, I could not have expected credit, but being by Protestants themselves, I cannot see how it should be denied.

Luther confesseth, saith the learned Protestant Hospi­nian, that he was taught by the devil, that the Masse was naught, and overcome with the devils reasons, he abolisht it: Hist. Sacr. part. ult. f. 131.

The same confessed by himselfe: Tom. 7. Wit. fol. 228. I ingeniously con­fesse (saith Luther) that I cannot (henceforth) place Zwinglius in the number of Christians, Tom. 2. Germ. fol. 190. and further he affirmes that he had lost whole Christ. In fol. 182. Zwinglius (saith Schlusselburg) after the manner of all Hereticks was stricken with the spirit of giddinesse, and blindnesse; deriving it from the etimologie of his name, in dutch, von dem Schwindel. Lin. 2 act. 1.

Gualterus calls Zwinglius, the Author of War, the disturber of peace, proud and cruell; and instances in his strange attempt against the Tygurines, his fellows, whom he forced by want, and famine, to follow his doctrine; and that he dyed in armor, and in the Warre. In apolog. pro Zwing. 1 tom. fol. 30, 31. and Osiander Epist. Cent. 16. p. 203.

And Luther saith, he dyed like a thiefe, because he would compell others to his error. Luther collog. lat. tom. 2. c. de Advers.

And he saith further, that he denyed Christ and is damn'd. Luth. col. lat. tom. 1. c. de dam. & in­ferno.

He tells us also, that the devill or the devills dam, used to appeare to Carolose, and taught him the exposition of, this is my body. Tom. 3. Jen. Germ. f. 68. so Chemnitius de caena p. 214. As also that he possessed him corporally; and that he was possessed with more devils then one. Luther loc. com. class. 5. c. 15. p. 47. Neither would he have any man wonder that he calls him devill: for he saith he hath nothing to doe with him: but has onely relation to him, by whom he [Page 89] is obsest, who speaks by him. Luth. tom. 3. Jen. fol. 61. The last apparition of the devill to him, which was three dayes before his death, is recorded by Albert. Cont. Car­lost. fol. 6. See Jo. Schutzl. 50 caus. c. 50.

If you look into Bezas Epigrams, printed at Paris, An. 1548. you will find pretty passages concerning his boy An­debers, and his wench Candida; and the businesse debated at large, concerning which sin is to be preferr'd; and his chusing the boy at last.

Sclusselberg said, that Peter Martyr was a heretick, and dyed so. Theol. Calv. l. 2. act. 1.

Nicolaus Selneverus said, that Oecolampadius, in his doctrine built upon the sand. Seln. part. c. Enarrat. ger. in Psal. f. 215. And

(Saith Luther) Emser: and Oecolampadius, and such like, were hiddenly slain by those horrible blowes and shakings of the devill. Luth. tom. 7. fol. 30.

Simlerus saith, that Brentius Miricus, and Andrew Mus­culus, in their writings, did nothing else but make way for the devill. Siml. in vita Bulling. fol. 55.

Luther (saith Calvin) was infected with many vices; I would he had been more carefull in correcting his vices. Calv. alledg­ed by Schlus­selb. theol. cal. lib. 2. fol. 126.

God, for the sin of pride, (wherewith Luther exalted himself) took away his true spirit. Cont. Rheg. l. Germ. cont. Jo. Hess. de coena domini.

We have found (saith Oecalompadius) in the faith and confession of Luthers 12. Articles, whereof some are more vaine then is fitting; some lesse faithfull, and over-guilefully expounded; others again are false, and reprobate; but some there are which plainly dissent from the Word of God, and the Articles of Christian faith. Oecol. resp. ad. Luth. confess. See Zuenck­feld. praef. super praecept. fidei. artic. & Hospin. hist. Sacra part 2. fol. 5.

Thou O Luther, saith Zwinglius, corruptest and adul­terest the Scriptures, imitating therein the Marcionists, and the Arians. Zwing. tom. 2. fol. 412.

[Page 90] In translating and expounding of Scripture, Luthers errors are many, and manifest. Bucer dial. Cont. Melanct.

Zwinglius tells us, that Luther affirms sometimes this, and sometimes that, of one and the same thing, that he is never at one with himself; taxing him with inconstancy, and lightnesse in the word of God. Zwing. tom. 2. fol. 458.

That he cares not what he saith, though he be found contradicting the Oracles of God. Zwing. tom. 2. resp. ad confes. Luth.

As sure as God is God, so sure, and devilish a lyer is Luther. Jo. Camp. col­loq. lat. Luth. Tom. 2. c. de adv. f. 354.

Luthers writings containe nothing, but railing and reproaches: insomuch that it maketh the Protestant Religion suspected, and hated. Tigur. con­fess. Orthod. fol. 122, 123.

He calls an anointed King, Hen. 8. of England, a furi­ous dolt, indued with an impudent and whorish face, without a vein of princely bloud in his whole body; a lying Sophist; a damnable rotten worm, a basilisk, the progeny of an Adder; scurrilous lyer, covered with a title of a King; a clown, a block-head; foolish, wicked, and impudent Henry: and saies, that he lies like a scur­rilous knave: and thou liest in thy throat, foolish and sacrilegious King. Luth. Tom. 2. fol. 333, 334, 335. 338. 340.

Nor did he lesse raile at other Princes; as at the Duke of Brunswick, in his Booke called Wider hans worst, writ­ten purposely against him, as also against the Bishop of Mentz, one of the Princes Electors. Tom. 3. Germ. fol. 533. 339. 360. And against the Princes of Germany. Tom. 2. Germ. fol. 190. 200.

No marvaile that he saith, that he had eaten a peck or two of Salt with the Devill; and that he knew the De­vill very well, and that the Devill knew him againe. Luth. conc. de turb. sedant.

No marvaile that he confessed of himselfe, that the Devill sometimes passed through his brains. Tom. 3. Jen. Germ. fol. 485.

No marvaile that he said, the Devill did more fre­quently [Page 91] sleep with him, and cling to him closer, then his Catharine. Luth. Colloq. mens Germ. fol. 281.

No marvaile that he said that the Devil walked with him in his bed chamber; and that he had one or two wonderfull Devils, by whom he was diligently and carefully served: and they no smal Devils, but great ones; yea, Doctors of divinity, amongst the Devils. Luth. 16. fol. 275.

No marvaile that his fellow Prot. could wonder how marvelously he bewrayed himselfe with his Devils; and that he could use such filthy words, so replenished with all the Devils in Hell. Tigur. tract. 3. cont. supra. Luth. confessio.

No marvaile that they said that, never any man writ more filthily, more uncivilly, more lewdly, and be­yond all bounds of Christian modesty, then did Lu­ther. Tigur. theol. Orthod. con­fess. fol. 10.

No marvel that he is so taxed for his obscenity in his Henzius Anglicus, against King Hen. the eight, for his beastlinesse in his Hans worst against the Jewes: for his filthy mentioning of Hogs; for his stincking repetition of turds and dunghils, in his Schemhamphorise: But if you will hear of his Master-piece, you mast read the Book which he writ against the Pope; where he asks him, out of what mouth (O Pope) dost thou speak, is it out of that from whence thy farts doe burst? If it come thence, keep it to thy selfe: if it comes from that where­in thou powrest thy Corisca wine, let the Dog fill that with his excrements; good Asse doe not kick; kick not my little Pope: O my dear Asse, doe not so: fie how this little Pope hath bewrayed himselfe. Luth. cont. pontif. Rom. adiab. fund. in tom. 8. Jen. p. 207, 208.

Is this the way to win to his side? or to gaine souls to Christ? or to reforme Churches? or to confute heresies? It is observed, that Saint Paul in his Epistles repeated the sacred name of Jesus 500 times, and it is the observa­tion [Page 92] of the learned Tygurin Divines, that so many times Luther hath used the name of Devill in his Bookes: and it is no marvaile that they burst out into this admiration; How wonderfull is Luther here, with his Devils! what impure words he useth, with how many Devils doth he burst? Theol. Tigur. confess. Germ. fol. 3. & part 3. fol. 114.

Nor marvail that Zwinglius saith to him, we fill not our Books with so many Devils, nor doe we bring so many armies of Devils against thee. Zwing. tom. 2. fol. 381.

If you can expect to gather figgs from thorns, or grapes from thistles, then ye may expect words from a sanctified spirit, to proceed from such a mouth, else not.

What should I say more? Melancthon tells us, that Caro­lostadius was a barbarous fellow; without wit, with­out learning, without common sense; in whom was no signe of the holy Ghost: but manifest tokens of im­piety. Melanct. E­pist. ad Freder. micon. Hosp. hist. Sac.

Lastly, Hutterus Beza's owne fellow Protestant, thus saies of him, and casts this dirt in his face, which is so shamelesse a testimony, that you must give me leave to throw a latine vail over it, viz. Beza in fine libri, de absentia corporis Christi in coena scribit; Candidae, sive Amascae suae, culum, imo partem diversam, magis adhuc puden­dam, mundiora esse, quam illorum ora, qui simpliciter verbis Christi inherentes, credant se praesens Christi Corpus in coena sacra, ore suo accipere. Hut. explic. lib. concord. art. 7. p. 703.

And another: Beza, by his most filthy manners, was a disgrace to honest Discipline; who in sacrilegious verse published to the world, his detestable loves, his unlawfull carnall acts, whoredoms, and fowl adulteries: not content that himselfe onely should like a hog wal­low in the durt of wicked lusts, but he must also pollute the ears of studious youth with his filth. Tilm. Heshus. Ver. & Sanc. Conf.

[Page 93] I could inlarge my Paper to a volume of like instances in others, but these are the prime reformers of the Protestant Churches: and how the people edified under their Doctrine; these Narratives from their owne mouths shall tell you.

When we were seduced by the Pope (saith Luther) every man did willingly follow good works: and now every man neither saith, nor knoweth any thing, but how to get all to himselfe, by exactions, pillage, theft, lying, usury. Luth. Dom. 26. post Trin. See Mr. Stubs motive to good works. p. 44, 45.

Certainly, to speak the truth, there is many times found Conscionable, and plainer dealing amongst most Papists, then among many Protestants. And if we look narrowly to the ages past, we shall find more god­linesse, devotion and zeal, (though blind) more love, one toward another, more fidelity and faithfulnesse, eve­ry way in them, then is now to be found in us. Master Stubs motive, pag. 43.

If any man be desirous to see a great rabble of knaves, of persons turbulent, deceitfull, Cosoners, Usureis, let him goe to any City, where the Gospel is purely preached, and he shall find them there by multitudes. For it is more manifest then the day light, that there were never among the Ethnicks, Turks, or infidels more unbridled, and unruly persons, with whom all virtue and honesty is quite extinct, then are amongst the Pro­fessonrs of the Gospel. Andr. Mu­scul. Domin. 1. Adv. See him also lib. de Pro­phet. & Sim. Paulus in Serm. Dom. 13. post Trinit.

The children of them of the reformed Gospel grow every day worse, more untractable, and dare commit such crimes, as men of former times were never subject to. Jo. Wygand. l. de bon. & mal. Germ.

If you cast your eyes upon Protestant Doctours, you shall find that some of them moved through vaine glory, envious zeal, and a prejudicate opinion, disor­der the true Doctrine, disperse, and earnestly defend the [Page 94] false; some of them without cause stir up contentions, and with inconsiderate spight defend them: many wrest their Doctrines every way, of purpose to please their Princes, and the people: by whose grace and favour they are maintained: they overthrow with their wicked life, all that they had formerly built with their true do­ctrine. Paul Eber. praefat. comm. Philippi. in E­pist. ad Cor.

How could the people be better, when their Ministers were so bad? like lips, like lettice. I will conclude all with the learned Protestant, Zanchius, and then you will neither wonder at one or other; I have read (saith he) the Latine copy of the Apology, and diligently read it over, not without choller, when I perceived what manner of wri­ting, very many (let me not say for the most part, but all) doe use, in the Churches of the reformed Gospel, who would seeme (notwithstanding) to be Pastors, Doctors, and Pillars of the Church.

The state of the question, that it may not be under­stood, we often, (of set purpose) over-cloud with dark­nesse: things which are manifest, we impudently deny: things false, we (without shame) avouch: things plainly impious, we propose as the first principles of faith: things orthodoxall, we condemne of heresie: Scripture at our pleasure, we detort to our owne dreams: we boast of Fathers, when we will follow nothing lesse then their doctrine: to deceive, to calumniate, to raile, is familiar with us: so as we may defend our cause, good or bad, by right or by wrong; all other things we turne upside down: Oh times, Oh manners! Zanch. epist. ad Jo. Sturm. this in fine, l. 7. & 8. Misccllan.

It is no marvel that M. Sutcliff, saies, that the Prote­stant writers offered great violence to the Scriptures, ex­pounding them contrary both to antient Fathers, Histo­ry, and common reason. Sutclif. answ. Cal. pet. p. 141.

[Page 95] It is no marvel that Cambden tells us, that Holland is a fruitfull province of heretiques: Elizab. p. 300

It is no marvell that Your royall Father tells us, that both Hungary, and Bohemia, abound with infinite varie­ties of sects. K. James his Works, p. 371

It is no marvell, that he said he could never see a Bible well translated into English; and that the worst of all was the Geneva, whereunto were added notes, untrue, seditious, and savouring too much of dangerous, and trai­terous conceits. Page 45, 46.

It is no marvel that He protested before the great God, that you should never find among the High­land, or Border-theeves, greater ingratitude, more lies, and vile perjuries, then with those phanatick spi­rits. K. James his Works, p. 161.

It is no marvel that M. Bancroft said that the Puritans of Scotland, were published in a Declaration by his Ma­jestie, to be unnaturall Subjects, seditious, troublesome, and unquiet spirits, members of Sathan, enemies to the King, and the Common-wealth of their owne native Country. Dang. po­sit. 22.

And lastly, because your Church of England most followed Calvins doctrine of any of the rest, I shall shew you what end he made, answerable to his beginning, and course of life, written by two knowne and approved Protestant Au­thors, viz. God in the rod of his fury, visiting Calvin, did horribly punish him, before the fearfull hour of his unhappy death; for he so struck this heretick with his mighty hand, that being in despair, and calling, upon the Devill, he gave up his wicked soule, swearing cur­sing, and blaspheming, dying upon the disease of lyce and wormes, increasing in a most loathsome ulcer about his privie parts, so as none present could endure the [Page 96] stentch; these things are objected unto Calvin in pub­lick writing, in which also horrible things are declared concerning his lasciviousnesse, his sundry abominable vices, and Sodomiticall lusts, for which last he was by the Magistrate (at Nayon) under whom he lived brand­ed on the shoulder with a hot borning iron; And this is said of him by Schlusberg. Theolog Calvinist. lib. 2. fol. 72. She which is likewise con­firmed by Jo. Herennius. li. de vita Calvini.

It may be your Majestie may taxt me of bitternesse, or for the discovery of nakednesse. But I hope you will give me leave to look what staffe I leane upon when I am to looke down upon so great and terrible a precipice as Hell, and to consider the rottennesse of the severall rounds of that lad­der, which is proposed to me for my ascent unto heaven, and to forewarne others of the dangers I espie; their owne words can be none of my railing: nor their owne accusations, my errour: except it be a fault, to take notice, of what is pub­lished, and make use of what I see: Ex ore tuo was our Sa­viours rule, and shall be mine. There hath not been used one Catholick Author throughout the accusation, and I take it to be the providenee of God, that they should be thus in­fatuated, as to accuse one another, that good men may take heed how they rely upon such mens Judgements, in order to their eternall Salvation.

As to Your Majesties Objection, that we of the Church of Rome fell away from our selves, and that you did not fall away from us, as also to the common saying of all Pro­testants, bidding us to returne to our selves, and they will re­turne to us, we accept of their offer, we will doe so; that is to say, we will hold our selves to the same Doctrine, which the Church of Rome held, before she converted this Nation to Christianity, and then they cannot say, we fell away from them, or from our selves, whilst we maintaine the same Do­ctrine [Page 97] we held before you were of us: that is to say, whilst we maintain'd the same Doctrine that we maintained du­ring the four first Councels, acknowledged by most Prote­stants, and during Saint August, time concerning whom Luther himself acknowledged, That after the sacred Scriptures, there is no Doctor of the Church to be com­pared, Luth. loc. com. Class. 4. p. 45. thereby excluding himself and all his associates from being preferr'd before him, concerning whom Master Field of the Church writes, that Saint Aug. was the grea­test Father since the Apostles. lib. 3. fol. 170. Concerning whom Co­vel writes, that he did shine in learning above all that ever did, or will appear. Covel. in his answ. to Jo. Burges. Concerning whom Jewell appeals, as to a true and Orthodox Doctor. In his chal­lenge at Pauls Crosse. Concer­ning whom Mr. Forrester. Non. Tessagraph. calls him the Fathers Monarch. In proem. p. 3. And

Concerning whom Gomer acknowledges his opinion to be most pure. Gom. spec. verae Eccles.

Concerning whom Master Whitaker doubts not, but that he was a Protestant. Whit. answ. to f. Camp. in the cont. fol. a. 2. parag. 28. And lastly, concerning whom your royall Father seemed to appeal, when he objected unto Card. Peron, That the face and exteriour form of the Church was changed since his time, and far different to what it was in his dayes, wherefore we will take a view of what it was then, and see whether we lose or keep our ground, and whether it be the same which you acknowledged then to be so firm.

Our Church believed then a true and reall presence, and the orall manducation of the body of Christ, in the Sa­crament, as the prince of the Sacramentarians acknow­ledged Zwingl. lib. de vera & falsa relig. cap. de Eucharist. in these words from the time of S. Augustin, which was for the space of twelve hundred yeares, the opinion of corporall flesh, had already got the mastery. And in this quality she adored the Eucarist, Chrys. in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. with out­ward [Page 98] gestures and adoration, as the true and proper body of Christ. Then the Church believed the body of Christ to be in the Sacrament Cyrill. Alex. Ep. and Caesar. pat.; even besides the time that it was in use: And for this cause kept it after Con­secration, for Domesticall Communions Cypr. de lapsu., to give to the sick Euseb. hist. lib. 7., to carry upon the Sea Ambr. de o­biit Sayer., to send into far Pro­vinces Euseb. hist. lib. 1..

Then she believed that Communion under both kinds was not necessary for the sufficiency of participa­tion, but that all the body, and all the bloud was taken in either kind: And for this cause, in Domesticall Com­munions, in Communions for children, for sick persons by Sea, and at the hour of death it was distributed under one kind, onely. Paulin. in vita Ambr. Tertul. ad ux. c. 55. Basil. Epist. ad Cae­sar. pat.

Then the Church believed Cypr. ad Cae­cil. ep. 63., that the Eucharist was a true, full, and intire sacrifice; not onely Eucharisticall, but Euseb. de vita Const. l. 4. propitiatory; and offered it as well for the living Chryss. in 1 Cor. hom 41. as the dead. The faithfull and devout people of the Church then made pilgrimages to Basil. in 40. Martyrs. the bodies of the Martyrs Ambr. de vid.; pray'd to the Martyrs to pray to God for them Aug. in Psal. 63. and 88.: Cele­brated their Feasts Hier. and Marcell. ep. 17., reverenced their Reliques in all ho­nourable forms. And when they had received help from God, by the intercession of the said Martyrs Theod. de Gr. aff. l. 8., they hung up in the Temples, and upon the Altars, erected to their memory, images of those parts of their bodies that had been healed.

The Church then held Basil. de Sanct. Spirit. the Apostolicall traditions, to be equall to the Apostolicall writings; and held for A­postolicall traditions, all that the Church of Rome now embraceth under that Title: She then offered prayers for the dead Tertul. de mon. Aug. de verb. Ap., both publick and private, to the end to pro­cure for them, ease and rest: And held this custome as a thing Aug. de cura pro mort. necessary for the refreshment of their souls. The [Page 99] Church then held the fast Hier. ad Marcell. ep. 54. of the forty dayes of Lent for a custome, not free, but necessary, and of Apostolicall tra­dition. And out of the time of Pentecost fasted all the Fry­dayes in the year in memory of the death of Christ, ex­cept Christmay-Day fell on a Fryday Epiph. in Compen., which she then ex­cepted as an Apostolicall tradition: The Church then held Epiph. Cont. Apost. Hae­res. 51. marriage after the vow of Virginity to be a sin: and reputed Chrys. ad Theod. Hier. Cont. Jov. l. 1. those, who married together after their vowes, not onely for adulterers, but also for incestuous persons.

The Church held then Cypr. Caecil. epist. 63. mingling of water with wine in the sacrifice of the Eucharist, for a thing necessary, and of Divine, and Apostolicall tradition. She held then Aug. de pec. orig. cap. 40. exor­cismes, exsufflations, and renunciations, which are made in Batisme, for sacred Ceremonies, and of Apostolicall tra­dition: She held then Aug. Cont. Pet. l. 3. c. 4., besides Batisme and the Eucharist, Confirmation Aug. de nupt. & Conc. c. 17., Marriage Ambr. de paenit. c. 7., Orders, and extream Uncti­on, Leo 1. epist. for true and proper Sacraments which the Church Aug Cont. Parm. l. 2. c. 13. of Rome now acknowledgeth: The Church, in the Ceremonies of Baptisme, used then Cyp. epist. 70. oyl, Conc. Carth. 3. cap. 5. salt, Greg. Naz. de bapt. wax­lights, Aug. ep. 10. exorcismes, Aug. Cont. Jul. l. 6. c. 8. the signe of the Cross, Ambr. de sacr. l. 1. the word Ephata, and other that accompany it, none of them with­out reason, and excellent signification. The Church held then Aug. de an. & evis orig. l. 3. c. 15. Baptisme for infants of absolute necessity: and for this cause then permitted, Tert. de bapt. lay men to baptise in danger of death, the Church used then holy water, consecrated by certain words and Ceremonies: and made use of it both for Baptisme, Basil. de S. Spirit. c. 17. and Epiph. haer. 30. against inchantments, and to make Theod. Hist. Eccles. l. 5. c. 3. exorcismes, and conjurations against evill spirits.

The Church held then divers degrees in the Ecclesiasticall Regiment, to wit, Concil. Laod. c. 24. Concil. Carth. 4. 6. 2. Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Subdea­cons, the Acolite, Exorcist, Reader and Porter conse­secrated and blessed them with divers Forms and Ceremo­nies: And in the Episcopall Order acknowledged, divers [Page 100] seats of Jurisdiction of positive right; to wit, Archbi­shops, Primates, Patriarchs, and Hier. ad Da­masc. Ep. 57. Concil. Chal. ep. ad Leon. one Supereminent (by Divine law) which was the Pope, without whom no­thing could be decided, appertaining to the universall Hier. praef. in paralip. Church; and the want of whose presence, either by himselfe, or his Legats, or his Confirmation, made all Councels (pretended to be universall) unlawfull.

In the Church then the service was said throughout the East, in Greek, and throughout the West Aug. Epist. 57. de Doct. Christ. lib. 2. cap. 13., as well in Africa, as in Europe, in Latin: although that in none of the provinces (except in Italy, and the Cities, where the Romane Colonies resided) the Latine tongue, was under­stood by the common people. She observed then the distinction of feasts Aug. Epist. 118. & Psal. 63. & 38. and ordinary dayes, the Distinction of He. ad He. Ep. 3. Theod. Hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 27. Ecclesiasticall and lay habits: the Op. l. I. p. 19. reverence of sacred vessels, the custome of Theod. Hist. l. 5. c. 8. l sid. de Div off. l. I. c. 4. shaming and Greg. Naz. de pac. or. I. unction for the collation of orders; the Ceremony of the Cyril. Hier. Cat. Mat. 5. Priest, wash­ing his hands at the Altar, before the consecration of the Mysteries. She then Co. Laod. c. 9. pronounced a part of the service, at the Altar with a low voice, made Aug. de Civ. Dei, l. 2. c. 8. processions with the reliques of Martyrs Hier co. Vigil. kissed them Hier. co. Vigil., carried them in clothes of silke, and vessels of gold Hier. c. Vigil., took and esteemed the dust from under their reliquaries: accompanied the dead to their sepulchres, with Greg. Naz. in Jul. orat. 2. wax tapers in sign of joy, for the certainty of their future resurrection. The Church then had the picture of Christ, and of his Saints, both Euseb. de Vita Const. out of Churches, Paulin Epist. 12. Basil. in Martyr. Bar. and in them: and upon the very Prudent. in. S. Cassian. Altars, (not to adore them with God like worship) but by them, to reverence the Souldiers and Champions of Christ.

The faithfull then used the Tert. de coron. milit. sign of the Crosse, in all their Conversations Cyril. Cont. Jul. l. 6., painted it on the portal of all the houses of the faithfull Hier. in Vit. Hil.; gave their blessing to the peo­ple with their hand, by the signe of the Crosse Athan. cont. Idol., imployed [Page 101] it to drive away evill spirits, Paul Ep. II. proposed in Jerusalem the very Crosse to be adored on good Friday: Finally, the Church held then Tert. de prae­script. Iren. l. 3. c. 3. & l. 4. c. 32. that to the Catholick Church onely belongs the keeping of the Apostolicall tradition, the Authority of interpretation of Scripture; and the deci­sion of Controversies of faith; and that out of the suc­cession Cypr. de unit. Eccles. Conc. Car. 4. c. I. of her communion, of Hier. Cont. Lucif. Aug. de util. cred. c. 8. her Doctrine Cypr. ad pub. Ep. 63. ad mag. Ep. 67. Hier. ad Tit. c. 3. and her ministery, there was neither Church, nor Salvation.

Neither will I insist with you onely upon the word, then, but before, and before, and before that, even to the first age of all, will I shew you our doctrine of the reall presence, and holy Sacrifice of the Masse; Invocation of Saints; Veneration of Reliques and Images, Confession, and Priestly absolution; Purgatory and prayer for the dead; Traditi­ons, &c.

In the fift Age, or hundred of years, Saint Augustine was for the reall and corporall presence. Aug. Conc. I. in Psal. 33.

In the fourth Age, Saint Ambrose. Lib. 4. de Sacra. c. 5. and l. de iis, qui misteriis initi­antur, c. 9.

In the third Age Saint Cyprian. Serm. de Coena Dom. prope init.

In the second Age, or hundred of years, S. Irenaeus. l. 4. c. 32. infin.

And in the first Age Ep. ad smir­num. ut cit. a Theod. Dial. 3. Saint Ignatius, Martyr, and Dis­ciple of Saint John the Evangelist.

Concerning the honour and invocation of Saints, In the fifth Age we find Saint Augustine, Serm. de Verb. Apost. prope init. & medit. c. 40. & l. de lo­quutionibus in gen. prope finē. praying to the Virgin Mary, ond other Saints.

In the fourth Age, we find Greg. Naz. praying to S. Basil the great. In Orat. 20. quae est in lau­dem. in Basil. mag. and Saint Hier. Cont Vi­gil. 13. initio.

In the third Age, we find S. Origen, praying to Father Abraham. Initio sui la­menti.

In the second Age, Justin Martyr. Apol. 2. ad Anton. pium. Imper. non longe ab initio.

And in the first age, in the Liturgy of S. James the lesse. Ante Med.

For the use and veneration of holy Reliques and Ima­ges, and chiefly of the Holy Crosse; in the fifth age, Saint Augustine. Tract. 118. in Joan fine.

[Page 102] In the fourth Age Athanasius. Ad Antio­chum princip.

In the third Age Origen. Hom. 8. in diversos Evan­gelii locos.

In the second Age St. Justin Martyr. Ad quaest. 28. Gentilium.

And in the first Age S. Ignatius. Epist. ad Phil. ante Med.

Concerning Confession and Absolutions: In the fifth Age S. August. Hom. 49. ante Med.

In the fourth Age S. Basil. the Great. Sui regulis brevior. interr. 288.

In the third Age S. Cypr. Ser. de lapsis.

In the second Age Tertull. l. de poen. c. 10

And in the first Age S. Clement. Clement Rom. Epist. 1.

Now concerning Purgatory, and Prayer for the dead in the fifth Age S. Augustin. De Civ. Dei, l. 26. c. 24. and also Ser. 41. de sanct. prope init. also Ser. 22. de Verb. Apost.

In the fourth Age S. Ambrose. Ambr. in 1 Cor. 3. S. Hier. in Com. in c. 11. proverb.

In the third Age S. Cypr. Ep. 5. ad Ant. post. med.

In the second Age Tertull. l. de animae c. 58. de Corona milit. c. 3. 4. l Clem. Rom. Ep. 1. de S. Petr. prope fin.

And in the first Age S. Clement. e.

Concerning Traditions in the fifth Age S. Aug. l 4. de bapt. Con. Donat. c. 24.

In the fourth Age S. Basil. lib. de Sp. Sancto. c. 27.

In the third Age S. Epiphanins. Heres. 61.

In the second Age S. Irenaeus. lib. 3. cap. 4.

And in the first Age S. Dennis. Areopag. c. 1. Eccles. Hierar.

Now suppose that all these quotations be right. The sa­ving of a soul, of your own soul, of the soul of a King, of the souls of so many Kingdoms: and the gaining of that King­dome for a reward, (which in comparison of these Earthly ones (for which you so often fight, so much strive, and labour so much for to obtain) your tetrarchate would be a gain for you to lose it, so that you might but obtain that) would be worth the search; and when you have found them to be truly cited, I dare trust your judgement, that it will tell you, that we have not changed our Countenance, nor fled our Colours, nor fallen away, nor altered our Religion, nor forsaken our first Love, nor denyed our Principles, nor brought Novel­ties [Page 103] into the Church, (but that we doe antiquum obtinere) whereby we should be forsaken of you, for forsaking our selves: but rather that we should win you unto us, by being still the same, we were when we won you first unto us, and were at the beginning. And is it for the honour of the Eng­lish Nation, famous for the first Christian King, and the first Christian Emperour, to forsake her Mother Church, so renowned for antiquity, and to annex their Religion as a codicell to an appeal of a company of Protesters, against a decree at Spira? and to forsake so glorious a name as Ca­tholick, and to take a name upon them, wherein they had neither right nor interest; and then to take measure of the Scottish Discipline for the new fashion of their souls, and to make to themselves posies of the weedings of that Garden, into which Christ himself came down Cant. 6. 1., upon which both the north and south-winds do blow Cant. 4. 16., in which is a well of living waters and streams from Lebanon Cant. 4. 15.: about which is an enclosure of brotherly affection Cant. 4. 12. Cant. 2. 1.. Will you forsake the Rose of Sharon, and the Lillie of the Vallies for such a Nose-gay? For I shall make it apparent unto your Ma­jesty, that the Doctrines which Protestants now hold, as in opposition unto us, were but so many condemned heresies, by the Antient and Orthodoxall Fathers of the Church, and never opposed by any of them: As for example, Prote­stants hold that the Church may Erre; this they had from the Donatists, for which they were frequently reproved by St. Augustin. Passim. cont. Donat.

Protestants deny unwritten traditions, and urge Scrip­ture onely. This they had from the Arrians, who were con­demned for it by St. Epiphanius, and S. Augustin, both Epiph. Her. 75. Aug. cont. maxim. l. 1. c. 2. & ult..

Protestants teach, that Priests may Marry; this they had from Vigilantius, who is condemned for it by St. Hiero­nimus Con. Vigi­lan. c. 1..

[Page 104] Protestants deny prayer for the dead: this they had from Arrius, for which he is condemned by Saint August: and Epiphanius both. Aug. haer. 53. Epiph. haer. 75.

Protestants deny Invocation of Saints: this they had from Vigilantius, for which he was condemned by Saint Hieron. Hier. Cont. Vigil. c. 3.

Protestants deny Reverence to Images: this they had from Xenias, for which he is reproved by Nice­phorus. Hist. l. 16. c. 27 and 55.

Protestants deny the reall Presence: this they had from the Carpenaites, who were, saith Saint Augustin, the first Hereticks, that denied the reall Presence: and that Judas was the first Suborner and Maintainer of this he­resie. Aug. in Psal.

Protestants deny Confession of sins to a Priest: so did the Novatian Hereticks, and the Montanists, for which they are reproved by Saint Ambrose and Saint Hieron. Ambr. li. de poenit. c. 7. Hier. Epist. ad Marcel. 54.

Protestants say that they are justified by Faith onely: this they had from the pseudo-Apostles, for which they are comdemned by St. Augustin. Aug. de fide & oper. c. 14.

Lastly, as I have shewed Your Majesty, that Your Church, as it stands in opposition to ours, is but a congeries of so many heresies, to which I could easily make an enlargement: but that I fear, I have been too tedious already; So I shall make it appeare, that our Church as she stands in opposition unto yours, is true and right, even your selves being wit­nesses, and you shall find our Doctrine among your owne Doctors. First the Greek Church, whom you court to your side, as indeed they are Protestants according to your vulgar reception, being you call all those Protestants, who are or were in any Opposition to the Church of Rome, though in their Tenents otherwise, they never so much doe disagree. [Page 105] For the Greek Church with which you so often hit us in the teeth and take to be of your faction, she holds Invoca­tion of Saints, Adoration of Images, Transubstantia­tion, Cōmunion in one kind for the sick, and many others.

Master Parker confesseth, that Luther crossed himselfe morning and evening, and is never seene to be painted praying, but before a Crucifix. Against Simb. part. 1. c. 2. sect. 30. p. 105. See Jo. Crevel. refut. Cerem. miss. p. 188. Jo. Manl. Loc. Com. p. 636.

As touching the Invocation of Saints (saith Luther) I think with the whole Christian Church, and hold, that Saints are to be honoured by us, and invocated Purgat. quo­rund. art. & in Ep. ad Georg. Spal.. I never denyed Purgatory (saith Luther) and yet I believe it, as I have often written and confessed Tom. 7. fol. 132. adversus bullam. See him also in disp. Lips. c. de purgat. & reso­lut. de indulg. Conclus. 16. See likewise Zwingl. Tom. 2. fol. 378.. If it is lawfull, (saith Luther,) for the Jews to have the picture of Caesar upon their Coins; much more is it lawfull for Christi­ans to have in their Churches Crosses and Images of Mary Luth. in Con­solat. prolab. l. 6 See this cited forth of Luth. by Hasp. Hist. Sac. p. 2. f. 33.; and lastly he maintained the reall Presence. See Zwingl. Tom. 2. f. 375.

But let us goe a little further, and consider what they held, whom ye call your Predecessours, under whom ye shrowd your Visibility, and on whom you look beyond Luther, for your Doctrines Patronage, viz. First upon the Hussites, who brake forth about the year 1400. they held seven Sa­craments p. 2. 16.. Transubstantiation Pag. 209., the Popes prima­cy Pag. 217. art. 7, 8., and the Masse Luth, in Col­loq. Germ. e. de missa., as Fox in his acts and monuments acknowledgeth.

Let us goe further, and consider Wickliffe, (our owne Countrey-man,) who appeared about the year 1370. he main­tained holy water Wick. de bla­sphem. cap. 17., worship of Reliques, and Images Idem de Eu­charist. c. 9., Intercession of the blessed Virgin Mary Idem in Serm. de Assump. Mariae., the rites and Ceremonies of the Masse Idem de apostasia c. 18., all the seven Sacraments Idem in postill. sup. c. 15. Marci.. Moreover, he held Opinions contrary, and condemned both by Catholick and Protestants, as that if a Bishop or Priest be in any mortal sin, his Ordaining, Consecrating, or [Page 106] Baptizing is of no effect Acts & mon. p. 96. art. 4.. He condemned lawfull Oaths with the Anabaptists Osi and. E­pist. Hist. Ec­cles. p. 459. art. 43.. Lastly he maintained that any Ec­clesiasticall Ministers were not to have any temporall possessions Act. & mon. p. 96.. This last Opinion was such savory Doctrine, that rather then some of those times would not hearken to that, they would listen to all; as the greedy appetites to Bi­shops Lands, make some now adayes to hearken unto any thing, that Cryers downe of Bishops shall foment.

To goe further yet to the Waldenses, descended from the race of one Waldo, a Merchant of Lions, who brake out about the year 1220. These men held the reall Presence In Epist. 244. p. 450., for which they were reproved by Calvin. These men ex­tolled the merit of voluntary poverty; they held Tran­substantiation Illyricus Ca­talog. Test. p. 1498., and many other opinions which most Pro­testants no way allow. Idem Cata­log. Test. pag. 1502.

And lastly, I shall run your pedegree to the radix, and ut­most Derivation, that the best read Herauld in the Prote­stant Genealogy, can run its linc, and that is to the Wal­denses, and to Berengarius, who broacht his heresie in the year 1048. and he held all the points of Doctrine that we held, onely he differed from us in the point of Transubstan­tiation. And for this cause they took him into the name and number of Protestants and Reformers, notwithstanding he presently afterwards recanted and died a Catholick. So it ends, where it never had beginning.

Finally: if neither prescription of 1600 years possession, and continuance of our Churches Doctrine, nor our evi­dence out of the word of God, nor the Fathers witnessings to that evidence: nor the Decrees of Councels: nor your owne acknowledgments, be sufficient to mollifie and turne your royall heart, there is no more means left for truth, or me, but I must leave it to God, in whose hand are the hearts of Kings.

AN ANSWER TO THE Marquesse of WORCESTER His Reply to the KINGS Paper.

YOur MAJESTY is pleased to wave all the Markes of the true Church, and to make recourse unto the Scriptures.

Ans. 1. His MAJESTY did not wave all Marquesse page 52. the Markes of the true Church, assigned by the Marquesse, but shewed them to be such as may (without distinction and further explication) belong to a false Church. From Ier. 44. 16. His MAJESTY shewed that An­tiquity, Succession and Universality was alledged in defence of Idolatry. That Demetrius (Acts 19.) alledged Anti­quity and Universality for the worship of Diana; and that What is there also in His Ma­jesties Paper cited out of Prudenti­us, is through some mistake a­scribed to Prudentius, whereas it was only the objectiō of Symmachus, and answered by Prudentius, who wrote against Symmachus, as also did Amb. Symmachus alledged Antiquity as a plea for all heathenish Idolatry and Superstition, page 47. That Ezechiel bids, Be not stiff-necked as your fore-fathers were, page Ibid. These words (the place being not cited) I confesse, I can­not find, but there are those which are equi­valent, Ez. 20. 30. Are yee polluted after the manner of your [Page 108] Fathers? and commit you whoredome after their abominations? So the Prophet Zachary cries, Be ye not as your Fathers, Zach. 1. 4. The like may be seen in other places. His Majesty likewise al­ledgeth our Saviour telling us, that we must not so much hearken to what was said by them of old time, as to that which he shall tell us, Mat. 5. 21. &c. (not as it is cited, 21. 12.) pag. 48. It is strange therefore that the Marquesse should say, that all the markes of the true Church were waved by His Majesty. As for the markes set down by the Marquesse, our learned writers have over and over shewed the insufficiency of them, so that there is Hâc defensio communis fu­roris est furen­tium multitu­do, Minutius Felix. no need now to say much. First for Universality, it is certaine that error may spread for a while more universally then truth. So did Gentilisme for many ages, it overspread in a manner the whole World. Onely in Iudah was God known, Psal. 76. 1. Onely the people of the Iewes had Gods saving truth among them, all the World besides did lie in grosse ignorance, and damnable error, Psal. 147. 19, 20. Ioh. 4. 22. Rom. 3. 1, 2. 1 Thess. 4. 5. Eph. 2. 11, 12. Acts 14. 16. & 17. 30. So for a while Arrianisme did beare all the sway, in so much that as Hierome observed, The World groaned, and wondered to see it Ingemuit orbis, & Arrianum se esse miratus est. Hierom. advers. Luciferian. selfe become an Arrian. So also did Pelagianisme, as Bradwardine sometimes Archbishop of Canterbury complained. As in times past (saith he) against one true Prophet there were 850 Prophets of Baal, and the like, to whom an innumerable company of people did adhere: So also now in this cause, how many, O Lord, doe with Pelagius fight for Free will against Thy Free-grace? The whole World almost is gone into error after Pe­lagius. And againe, The whole World Sicut olim contra unicum Dei Prophetam 850. Prophetae Baal, & similes sunt reper­ti, quibus & innumerabilis populus ad­haerebat: ita & hodiè in hâc causâ quot, Do­mine, cum Pelagio pro libero arbitrio contra gratuitam gratiam tuam pugnant? Bradward: de causâ Dei in Praefat. Totus penè mundus post hunc abit, & erroribus ejus favet, dum ferè omnes com­muniter aestimant solius liberi arbitrii viri­bus se posse declinare à malo, facere bo­num, &c. Bradw. de caus. Dei lib. 2. cap. 31. almost goeth after him, and favoureth his errors, whiles all almost thinke that by the strength of Free-will alone, they can eschew evill, and doe good. The Scripture also hath foretold us that all the World should wonder after the beast. Revel. 13. 3. And that the whore of Babylon (whereby that Rome is meant, the Scripture is so cleare, that even the Romanists themselves are forced to confesse it) [Page 109] should sit upon many waters, Revel. 17. 1. and that by those wa­ters Bellar. de Rom. Pontif. lib. 2. cap. 2. Ril. in Apoc. 14. & 17. are meant Peoples, and Multitudes, and Nations, and Tongues, v. 15. This note therefore, viz. Universality, is farre from proving the Church of Rome to be the true Church. As for the Scriptures which the Marquesse citeth, viz. Esay 2. 2. Psal. 2. 8. (not as it is mis-printed 2.) and Mat. 24. (not 20) 14. these and the like places only shew that in the time of the Go­spell the Church should not (as before it was) be confined to one Nation, but should be extended unto all so that Gen­tiles as well as Jewes, as well one Nation as another should have admittance into it, the middle wall of partition being now broken down, Ephes. 2. 14. So that there is neither Greeke nor Iew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, but Christ is all, and in all. Col. 3. 11.

2. For Antiquity, it is true, the Prophet Ieremy bids, Aske for the old paths, where is the good way, and walke therein. Ier. 6. 16. And so we grant that primary antiquity is a sure note of Id verum quodcunque primum; id adulterum quodcunque posterius. Tert. advers. Prax. c. 4 truth, for error being a deviation and swerving from truth, it must needs be that truth is more ancient then error. But there is a secondary antiquity which is no argument of truth. For there is vetustas erroris, as Cyprian observed long agoe, an antiquity of error. The woman of Samaria could say, Our Fathers worshipped in this Mountaine; yet our Saviour answered her, Yee worship yee know not what. Ioh. 4. 20. 22. And Symmachus Cypr. Epist. 74. Edit. Pamel. (whom His Majesty cited) could bring in heathenish Rome thus pleading antiquity, Let me use those ceremonies, which mine Utar ceremo­niis avitis, sera & contumelio­sa est emenda­tio senectutis. Sym. ancestors have used. It's too late, and too great an injury to reforme me now I am old. This plea, I dare say our adversaries them­selves will not allow as used by Symmachus; and why then should we allow it, as they use it?

Thirdly, for Visibility, it is granted that ordinarily the Church is visible, i. e. that there is a visible company of such as professe the truth, though the places cited by the Marquesse doe not evince so much. He saith, David compares the Church to a Tabernacle in the Sun. He meanes Psal. 19. 4. where indeed according to the vulgar Latine translation it is, He hath set his Tabernacle in the Sun: but In sole posuit Tabernaculum suum. Solem posuit in Tabernaculo suo, i. e. in coelis: unde Hebr. Soli posuit tentorium in eis. Genebr. Genebrard is forced to expound it by an Hypallage [Page 110] thus, He hath set the Sun in his Tabernacle, that is, in the heavens. For (as he confesseth) the Hebrew runs thus, He hath set a Taber­nacle for the Sun in them. Now what is this to the Visibility of the Church? or how doth it concerne the Church at all? Neither do I see, that (as the Marquesse alledgeth) our Saviour compares the Church to a candle in a candlestick, not under a bushell, Mat. 5. 15. But either (as Iansenius a Romish Writer doth expound it) our Saviour there spake of his Apostles, who as a candle in a can­dlestick were to give light unto the dark world by the preaching of the Gospel. Or else in generall he shewed the duty of all, viz. That in their places and callings they ought to be a means to in-lighten others, especially by their good example. This sense is a­greeable to that which follows immediately ver. 16. Let your light so shine forth before men, &c. So when our Saviour saith Mat. 24. 26. If they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert, go not forth: Behold, he is in the secret chambers, beleeve it not. It is nothing to the Churches visibility, but onely he foreshews that many should come in his name, pretending themselves to be Christ, and forewarnes to beware of them. These places alledged by the Marquesse, are but little to the purpose, though (as I said) it is granted, that ordinarily the Church (i. e. the company of such as professe the truth) is visible. Yet neverthelesse we hold that sometimes through persecution, and prevalencie of error, the Church may be so obscured, as to be scarcely visible. Thus it was in Elias his time, when he complained unto God, saying, The children of Israel have forsaken thy Covenant, throwne downe thine Altars, and slaine thy Prophets with the sword, and I, even I am I am left a­lone, Rom. 11. 3. left, and they seeke my life to take it away. 1 King. 19. 10. And what great visibility was there of the Church, when both Priests, and People, were conspired together against Christ, to put him to death, and his Disciples also generally forsook him, and fled from him. So when the heresie of Arrius overspread all, so that such as were orthodox and sound in the faith, could scarce ap­pear; Hilar. contra Auxent: Mon­tes mihi, & sil­vae, & lacus, & carceres, & vo­ragines, sunt tutiores, &c. Hilarius, who lived in those times, saith, that mountains, and woods, and lakes, and Prisons, and deep pits, were more safe then Churches, and publick places of Gods worship, these being all possessed by the Arrians, and the true beleeving Christians having onely the other to lurke and lie hid in. How visible also [Page 111] was the Church like to be, when that should be fulfilled which is written Revel. 13. 15, 16, 17. that as many as would not worship the Beast, should be killed. And that all both great and small should be forced to receive a marke in their right hand, or in their foreheads. And that none should buy, or sell, save he that had the marke, or the name of the Beast, or the number of his name. Bellarmine himselfe saith, It is certaine that the persecution by Antichrist shall be most grievous, Certū est An­tichristi perse­cutionem fore gravissimam, & notissimam, ita ut cessent om­nes publicae re­ligionis ceremoniae, & sacrificia. Bell. de Pont. Rom. l. 3. c. 7. and most notorious, so that all publick ceremonies of Reli­gion and Sacrifices shall cease. Denique quòd Antichristi tem­pore propter atrocitatem persecutionis cessare debeat publicum, & quotidianum Ecclesiae offi­cium, &c. Antichristum interdicturum omnem divinum cultum. Ibid. And againe, that in the time of An­tichrist the publike service of the Church shall cease through the grievousnesse of persecution, and that Antichrist shall interdict all di­vine worship, &c.

4. For Succession of Pastours, which the Marquesse saith is re­quired in a true Church, and is onely to be found in the Church of Rome. We must distinguish of Succession: There is a successi­on of Persons, and a succession of Doctrine; the former succes­sion without the latter is to no purpose. The Priests that condem­ned Christ had a personal succession, but that was worth nothing, they wanting doctrinall succession. They did personally succeed those that were before them, and they others, and so on till they came to Aaron: but they could not shew the like succession of their doctrine. So neither can they of the Church of Rome shew that they hold the same faith which was delivered by the Apo­stles; and therefore though they can shew that their Popes doe personally succeed one another from the very times of the Apo­stles, it availes nothing. Bell. de Eccles. l. 4. c. 8. Non colligitur necessariò, ibi esse Ecclesiam, ubi est successio. Omnes Ecclesiae illae Pa­triarchales habuerunt per longa tem­pora Episcopos manifestos haereticos, & proinde interrupta est veterum Pa­storum successio. Bellarmine, though he struggle a little about it, yet cannot deny but that a succession of persons is to be found is the Greek Church, and therefore grants that it doth not necessarily follow, that where such succession is, there is also a true Church. Yea, he saith, that all those Patriarchall Chur­ches had for a long time Bishops, that were manifest Heretiques, and that therefore the succession of ancient Pastours was inter­rupted. What is this else but to confesse that a succession of Pa­stours [Page 112] without a succession of the true doctrine is no mark of a true Church. The ancient Doctors of the Church, tis true, have sometimes used this argument drawne from succession, to con­vince Heretiques, but so as to shew that a succession of doctrine did concur with a succession of persons. Yea they plainly shew, that it was succession of doctrine, which they did stand upon, and that without this they made no account of the other. Oportet adhaetere his, qui Apo­stolorum doctrinam custodiunt. Iren. l. 4. c. 44. And c. 43. he calls this Prin­cipalem successionem. We must adhere unto those (saith Ireneus) who keep the doctrine of the A­postles. This succession of doctrine he calls the principall succession. So Non habent Petri haereditatem, qui fidem Petri non habent. Amb. de poeu. l. 1. c. 6. Ambrose, They doe not succeed Peter, who have not the faith of Peter. And Ipsa doctrina eorum cum Aposto­lica comparata, ex diversitate & con­trarietate sua pronuntiabit, ne (que) Apo­stoli alicujus authoris esse, ne (que) Apo­stoli. Tertul de praescrip. c. 32. Tertullian speaking of He­retiques, saith, Their doctrine being compared with the Apostles doctrine, shewes that it was not received from the Apostles, nor from any Apo­stolicall teachers. And speaking of Churches planted since the Apostles times, he saith, That In eadem fide conspirantes, non minùs Apostolicae deputantur pro consanguinitate doctrinae. Ibid. they agreeing in the same faith, are neverthelesse accounted Apostolicall for the con­sanguinity of doctrine.

5. For Unity in doctrine; by which the Marquesse proves the Roman Church to be the true Church: I answer, that Unity without Verity will not prove it, and the one is not alwayes ne­cessarily accompanyed with the other. The words of the Prophets declare good unto the King with one mouth, said the messenger to Micaiah, 1 King. 22. 13. They were about foure hundred Pro­phets, ver. 6. and all of them did agree in one; yet they prophe­cyed falsly for all that, there was a lying spirit in the mouth of all those Prophets, how unanimous soever they were, ver. 22. Nei­ther is there such unity in the Church of Rome as is pretended. The difference betwixt the Dominicans and the Jesuits about Gods decrees, the concurrence of his grace, and the determinati­on of mans will; this difference (I say) betwixt them is as great, and as important as any (I think) that is amongst Protestants. Neither doth it suffice to say (as the Marquesse doth) that the Church hath not determined any thing in these points, and there­fore such difference about them is not against the Churches unity. [Page 113] For if the Popes authority be so great, and his judgement so in­fallible, as they pretend, why hath he not decided the contro­versie, and so put an end to the difference long ere this? Besides (which the Marquesse took no notice of) they of the Romane Church differ much about the very head of it, the Pope himselfe. For some will have him to be above a generall councell & others hold the councell to be above the Pope: and this also was the determination both of the councell of Constance, and of the councell of Basill. Finally, I grant, that unity in the truth is much to be desired, and so much the places cited by the Mar­quesse doe prove, viz. 1 Cor. 1. 10. Eph. 4. 3. Acts 2. 42. Phil. 1. 27. & 2. 2. yet we see that the Apostle doth acknowledge the Church of Corinth a true Church notwithstanding the differences and divisions that were in it, so that all dis-union of people is not enough to dis­church them. Neither if the confessions of the reformed Churches be considered, as they ought to be, wil the differences that are among them (however particular persons be exorbitant) be found so many, and so great (though too many, and too great; I grant) as our adversaries of Rome would make them.

6. And lastly, for the conversion of Nations, which the Marquesse also will have to be a marke of the true Church, and thereby prove that the Church of Rome is it, and not the Church of Protestants; I answer, that the Scriptures which hee alledgeth, viz. Esay 49. 23. and 60. 16. and Psal. 2. 8. doe shew indeed, that in the time of the Gospell the Gentiles should be converted, and joyned to the Church, which the Scripture of the New Testament, and experience also shewes to have been accomplished. But they doe not shew either that every true Church must necessarily evidence it selfe to be a true Church by working a conversion in infidels, or that every Church that doth worke any conversion in that kind, must therefore be acknowledged to be a true Church. The Scribes and Pharisees did make Proselytes, and were very zealous in it, yet neverthe­lesse were guilty of grosse errors, which all were to beware of as most pernicious, Mat. 23. 15. Besides, there is a conversion as from unbeliefe to faith, so from misbeliefe to a right and found faith. And though Protestants have done little or nothing it may be in the former kinde of conversion, so as to convert meer [Page 114] Infidels, yet in the other kinde, viz. in converting mis-believers, they have done much. This the Marquesse (pag. 44.) is pleas­ed to call perversion rather then conversion; but that must be judged by the consideration of the Doctrines held by Prote­stants. As for those conversions wrought in the Indies by the Romanists, we may well conceive that it was not so much the word preached by the Jesuits, as the sword brandished by the Spaniards, that did worke them. Non satis liquet mihi an fides Chri­stiana fuerit barbaris hactenus ita proposita, & annuntiata, ut teneantur credere sub novo peccato.—Mira­cula & signa nulla audio, nec exempla vitae adeò religiosa: contrà multa scandala, seu facinora, & multas im­pietates; unde non videtur, quod re­ligio Christiana satis commodè & piè sit illis praedicata, ut illi tenean­tur acquiescere; quanquam viden­tur multi religiosi, & alii Ecclesiastici viri, & vitâ, & exemplo, & diligenti praedicatione sufficienter operam & industriam adhibuisse in hoc negotio, nisi ab aliis, quibus alia cura est, im­pediti essent. Francise de Victor. Relect. 4. Sect. 38. Fran­ciscus de Victoria (a learned Writer among the Papists) writing of the Indians, saith he did not see, that the Christian faith was so propounded and declared to them, as that under the guilt of a new sin they were bound to embrace it. He heard (he sayes) of no Miracles, and Signes that were wrought, nor of very good examples of life that were given, but on the contrary of many scandalous acts, and many impieties. Whereupon he conceiveth, that Christian religion was not so conveniently and pro­perly preached to that barbarous people, as that they were bound to acquiesce in it, though he grants, that there were many re­ligious, and other Ecclesiasticall men, who both by life and example, and also by diligent preaching did suf­ficiently doe their indeavour, but that they were hindred by others, who minded other matters. Thus I have as briefly as I could gone over the markes, which the Marquesse assigneth of the true Church, and that because he saith that his Majesty did wave them all, whereas indeed his Majesty did not wholly wave them, though as his occasions would not suffer him to return any answer at all to the Marquesses reply, so neither would they (it's likely) permit him to answer the former Paper so fully as other­wise he would have done. Whereas the Marquesse saith, that His Majesty is pleased to make recourse unto the Scriptures, This is surely the course that all ought to follow, that wil discusse matters of Religion, they ought to have recourse to the Scriptures, by wch all such matters are to be tried and determined. To the Law, and to [Page 115] the testimony (saith the Prophet Esay) if they speake not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Esay 8. 20. Utrùm ipsi Ecclesiam teneant, non ni si divinarum Scripturarum Cano­nicis libris ostendant: quia nec nos propterea dicimus nobis credi opor­tere, quòd in Ecclesiâ Christi sumus, quia ipsam quam tenemus, commen­davit Milevitanits Optatus, vel Medi­olanensis Ambrosious, vel alii innumer­abilis nostrae communions Episcopi. Aug. de unit. Eccles. cap. 16. Non audiamus, Haec dico, haec dicis, sed au­diamus, Haec dicit Dominus.—Aufer­antur illa de medio, quae adversus nos invicem non ex divinis Canonicis li­bris, sed aliundè recit amus.—No­lo humanis documentis, sed divinie oracula sanctam Ecclesiam demon­strari. Aug. ibid. cap. 3. Augustine speaking of the Donatists, bade let them shew their Church onely by the Canonicall bookes of the Scriptures, pro­fessing that he would not have any to be­leeve that he was in the true Church, be­cause of the commendation that Optatus, Ambrose, and many others did give of it. And againe, Let us not heare (saith he) Thus say I, thus sayest thou, but let us heare, Thus saith the Lord.—Let those things be removed out of the way, which we alledge one against another, otherwise then from the Bookes of Ca­nonicall Scripture.—I will not have the holy Church demonstrated by humane tokens, but by divine Oracles. But saith the Mar­quesse.

What Heretick that ever was, did not do so? How shall the grea­test Page 52. Heretick in the World be confuted or censured, if any man may be permitted to appeale to Scriptures, margin'd with his own notes, sens'd with his owne meaning, and enlivened with his owne private spirit? to what end were those markes so fully, both by the Prophets, the Apostles, and our Saviour himselfe set down, if we make no use of them?

Answ. 1. Though Hereticks make recourse unto Scripture, it follows not that therefore this is not the course which ought to be followed, or that therefore they are Hereticks that doe it. The Marquesse himselfe did make recourse unto Scripture in setting down the markes of the true Church, and so also doth he in handling sundry points in controversie betwixt Papists, and Protestants. This course therefore, himselfe being Judge, is not to be condemned: neither certainly is it, however Hereticks may abuse it. Though Hereticks will alledge Scripture in defence of their Heresics, yet are they neverthelesse to be confuted by Scrip­ture. The Sadduces thought by Scripture to overthrow the re­surrection, yet by Scripture did our Saviour convince them. Mat. 22. 23. 32. Yea when the Devill himselfe did cite Scripture, [Page 116] our Saviour did not therefore dislike it, but made use of it for the resisting of Satan, and the repelling of his temptation, Mat. 4. 6, 7.

2. It's true, none may appeal to Scriptures margin'd with their own Notes, sens'd with their own meaning, and enliven'd with their own private spirit. It's to no purpose to alledge Scripture, except that sense, in which it is alledged, may be made good by Scripture. The Jewish Rabbin (as Master Selden cites him) saith [...] well, All interpretation (of Scripture) which is not grounded upon the Scripture, is vaine. But what this makes against his Majesties making recourse unto the Scriptures, or against any mans taking that course in disputes of this nature, I doe not see. For that his Majesty did so make recourse unto Scripture, the Marquesse doth Eliah Ben Mosis apud Selden: de Anno Civili He­braeorum, cap. 2. not say, neither ought any man to be charged in this kind, ex­cept it can be proved that he is indeed guilty.

3. It doth not yet appear that the particulars before menti­oned, viz. Universality, Antiquity, Visibility, Succession of Pa­stours, Unity in Doctrine, and Conversion of Nations; that these (I say) were set down either by our Saviour, or his Apostles, or the Prophets, as marks of the True Church, at least so as to make any thing for the Marquesses purpose, viz. to prove the Church of Rome to be the True Church.

Your Majesty was pleased to urge the Errours of certain Fathers, Marq: pag. 54. to the prejudice of their Authority. Which I conceive would have been so, had they been all Montanists, Rebaptists, all Anthropomor­phists, and all of them generally guilty of the faults, wherewith they were soverally charged in the particulars: seeing that when we pro­duce a Father, we doe not intend to produce a man in whose mouth was never found guile; the infallibility being never attributed by us otherwise then unto the Church, not unto particular Church men. As your Majesty hath most excellently observed in the failings of the holy Apostles, who erred after they had received the Holy Ghost in so ample manner. But when they were all gathered together in Coun­cell, and could send about their Edicts with these Capitall Letters in the Front, Visum est Sipritui Sancto, & nobis, Act. 15. 28. then I hope your Majesty cannot say, that it was possible for them to Erre. So though the Fathers might erre in particulars; yet those particu­lar Errours would be swallowed up in a Generall Councell, &c.

Here the Marquesse grants, that the Fathers singly and seve­rally Answ. [Page 117] considered, may erre, but not if gathered together in a ge­nerall Councell. But first, doth not this invalidate the authority of the Fathers, when they are severally cited, as they are in this Reply frequently by the Marquesse? Indeed, here presently after he addes, Neither is a particular defection in any man any exception against his testimony, except it be in the thing wherein he is deficient. But certainly if a man be liable to errour in one thing, he is so in another thing; and therefore his bare testimony, except it have something to support it, is not sufficient to rely upon. The testi­mony of the Lord is sure, saith David, Psal. 19. 7. because he can neither deceive, nor be deceived. But man may, and therefore his testimony, as his, is not sure. No, Let God be true, and every man a lyar, saith the Apostle, Rom. 3. 4.

2. For a generall Councell, why it should necessarily be ex­empt from Errour, I see nothing here alledged by the Marquesse, except it be, that Acts 15. 28. It seemed good to the holy Ghost, and to us. But the inference made from that Councell, wherein the Apostles themselves did sit, and give sentence, to prove that no generall Councell can Erre, is no better than if one should argue, that a particular Father or Doctor is infallible, because a particular Apostle was so in that which he either wrote or prea­ched. For we must take heed of entertaining such a thought (al­though the Marquesses words do seem to imply so much) as that each particular Apostle might fall into Errour, though all of them together could not. For how then should we be able to build our faith upon those Scriptures, which were composed by particular Apostles, and not by a whole Councell of them? It's true, (as his Majesty observed, pag. 50.) the Apostles were ig­norant, and erronious in some things, but not in any thing that they delivered unto People to believe, and obey, either by word, or writing; for then (as I said) we could have no certainty of the Scriptures, we could not be built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, as Believers are, Ephes. 2. 20. But that generall Councells may erre, Austin made no question; Quis nesciat ipsa concilia, quae per singu­las regiones, vel provincias fiunt, plenari­orum conciliorum authoritati, quae fiunt ex universo orbe Christiano, sine ullis ambagibus cedere: ipsa (que) plenaria saepè priora posterioribus emendari, cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod clausum erat. Aug. de baptis. contra Donatist. lib. 5: cap. 3. Who knowes not (saith he) that Provinciall and Nationall Councells [Page 118] doe yeild to the authority of Generall Councells; and that Generall Councells are often amended, the former by the latter, that being after found out, which before lay hid? It is well known that the Romanists reject the authority of the Councels of Constance, and Basil, (two Generall Councels) when they determine the Pope to be inferiour, and subject to a Generall Councell. Indeed, generally the Pontificians make little account of a Councel, though otherwise never so generall, except it be confirmed by the Pope. Bellarmine makes it a clear case, and without all difficulty, that Bellarm. de Concil. lib. 2. cap. 11. Generall Councells may Erre, if the Fathers of the Councell de­fine any thing, when as the Legates of the Pope dissent from them: or if the Legates themselves do consent, but so as to go against the instructions which the Pope gave them. And he further holds, that in case the Legates had no certain instructions from the Pope, the Councell may Erre, and that before the Popes Confirmation of it, the judgment of a Gene­rall Ego existimo tale concilium posse errare, neque esse infalli­bile ejus judicium ante con­firmationem Pontificis. Bel­larm. ibid. Councell is not infallible. The Marquesse him­self (pag. 55. &c.) doth seeme to assent unto His Majesty, taxing Generall Councells for committing Errours, but some passages he hath, which to me seeme very strange. If (saith he) we should suppose them to be Generall, and free Councels, yet they could not be Erronious in any particular mans judgement, untill a like Generall Councell should have conclu­ded the former to be Erronious. By this Assertion Arrianisme being confirmed by the Councell of Ariminum, Athanasius, and every particular man should have assented to it, untill another Gene­rall Councell had determined against it; but this is such a positi­on, as (I dare say) our Romish adversaries themselves will not allow. Again, If it should be granted (saith the Marquesse) that Pag. 56. the Church had at any time determined amisse, the Church cannot be said to have erred, because you must not take the particular time for the Catholike Church, because the Church is as well Catholike for time, as territory; except you will make rectification an errour. But when our adversaries of Rome speak of the Churches freedome from errour, they understand it of the Church representative, a generall Councel. Idem est ec­clesiam non posse errare in definiendis re­bus fidei, & E­piscopos non posse errare; atqui singuli seorsim errare possunt: igitur congregati in unum errare non po­terunt. Bellarm. de concil. l. 2. c. 2. It is one and the same thing, (saith Bellarmine) [Page 119] that the Church cannot erre in determining matters of faith, and that Bishops cannot erre. But severally they may erre, therefore being gathered together they shall be free from errour. So then, if a Generall Councell may erre at any one time, it is sufficient to overthrow their Tenet, that the Church cannot erre. That the Church (represented in a Generall Councell) may after rectifie what before was amisse, and that also by the determination of a Generall Councell, is so farre from proving, that the Church (as they take it) cannot Erre, that on the contrary it proves, that it may Erre. For though rectification be not errour, yet it doth presuppose Errour. Again, If I recall mine own words (saith the Pag. 56. Marquesse) it is no Errour, but an avoidance of Errour. So where the same power Rectifies it self, though some things formerly have been Decreed amisse, yet that cannot render the Decrees of Gene­rall Councels not binding, or incident to Errour, quoad nos, though in themselves, & pro tempore, they may be so. I answer, it is with­out all doubt, that for one to recall his words, being Erronious, is no Errour, but a correcting of Errour, yet this doth clearly shew a man to be subject to Errour. And so if the Church at one time in a Generall Councell may Rectifie what at another time in a Generall Councell it had Decreed amisse, it evidently ap­pears, that the Church in a Generall Councell may Erre. For otherwise, what need of Rectification were there, if there had been no Errour? And certainly, if the Decrees of Generall Councells be Erronious (as the Marquesse denies not but they may be) they are not binding Quoad nos, we are not bound to assent unto them, but rather to dissent from them: For we are not bound to embrace Errour, but to embrace Truth. Prove all things, hold fast that which is good, saith the Apostle, 1 Thes. 5. 21. By the Marquesses reason the Decree of the Councell of Arimi­num, confirming the Heresie of Arrius, should for the time have been binding; so that neither Athanasius, nor any other, should have presumed to oppose it, or to dissent from it, untill another Generall Councell had declared against it.

As to your Majesties objecting the Errours of the Holy Apostles, Marq: pag. 56. and Pen-men of the Holy Ghost, and your inference thereupon, viz. that Truth is no where to be found but in holy Scripture: under your Majesties correction I take this to be the greatest argument against the [Page 120] private Spirit (urged by your Majesty) its leading us into all Truth, that could possibly be found out. For if such men (as they) indued with the Holy Ghost, innobled with the power of working Miracles, so sanctified in their callings, and inlightned in their understandings, could Erre: how can any man (lesse qualified) assume to himselfe a freedome from Erring, by the assistance of a private Spirit?

1. His Majesty was farre from thinking, that the Apostles, as Answ. Pen-men of the Holy Ghost, could Erre. For then there were no room for that inference, That Truth is no where to be found but in Holy Scripture. 2. His Majesty spake not of any private Spirit, but of the Spirit of God leading us into all Truth, alledging that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 2. 12. We have received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are freely given unto us of God. It's true, if any under pretence of the Spirit goe contrary to the Word, (as too many doe) whether they be particular Persons, or generall Councells that doe so, it is a private Spirit, viz. their owne Spirit that they are guided by. Therefore Saint Iohn bids, Believe not every spirit, but trie the spirits, whether they be of God, because many false Pro­phets, (many that falsly pretend the Spirit) are gone out into the world, 1 Iohn 4. 1. But whoever they be that goe according to the Word, though they be particular and private persons, yet it is not their own particular and private Spirit, but the Spirit of God that doth guide them. The Scripture was given by inspiration of God, 2 Tim. 3. 16. Therefore it is Gods Spirit, and not Mans, that doth speak in, and by the Scriptures.

Lastly, as to your Majesties quotation of so many Fathers, for the Marq. pag. 57. Scriptures easinesse, and plainnesse to be understand, If the Scriptures themselves doe tell us, that they are hard to be understood, &c.

1. His Majesty did not quote many Fathers, nor any at all to Answ. prove that the Scriptures are every where plain, and easie to be understood, but to shew that the Scriptures are their own inter­preters, which are His Majesties words, pag. 50. To prove this, (which is a most certain truth) His Majesty quoted indeed many Fathers, as Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Crysostome, Basil, Au­stine, Gregory and Optatus. The Scriptures quoted by the Mar­quesse make nothing against this, viz. 2 Pet. 3. 16. Act. 8. 31. (not, as it is mis-printed, 13.) Luke 24. 25. (rather 45.) Apoc. 5. 4. [Page 121] where, not the Angel, (as the Marquesse saith) but Iohn wept, be­cause none was found worthy to open, and to read the Book. Neither doth it appear, that by the Book there mentioned, is meant the Scripture, as the Marquesse seemeth to suppose. And so indeed many have thought, as the Jesuit Ribera telleth us, who yet neverthelesse professeth that he At ego non video, quo modo historicè liber, de quo loquitur Joannes, sit S. Scriptura. Ri­bera in Apoc. 5. 1. did not see how historically this could be. For this Book was shut and sealed (as he observes) untill that time that Iohn had this Revelation, when as all the other Apostles were deceived: so that the Scripture (if it were the Book there spoken of) was alwayes shut to Peter and Paul, and the other Apostles. The other places (I grant) do shew that in the Scriptures there are some things obscure and difficult, at least to some; but this is nothing against the Scriptures being their own interpreters. What is obscure in one place, must be cleared by some other place, or else without extraordinary reve­lation I see not how we should attain to the understanding of it. No need therefore to put those sayings of the Fathers, cited by His Majesty, among the Errata's that are behind their Books, as the Marquesse speaketh, pag. 57. where he addes, Or else we must look out some other meaning of their words than what your Maj: hath inferred from thence; as thus, they were easie in aliquibus locis, but not in omnibus locis: or thus, they were easie as to the attainment of particular salvation, but not as to the generall cognizance of all the Divine Mystery therein contained, &c. But this is nothing contrary to his Majesties inference, which was only this, That the Scriptures are their own Interpreters, i. e. that Scripture is to be interpreted by Scripture, not that the Scriptures are clear in all points, and in all places; it sufficeth that (which the Marquesse himselfe doth seeme to yeild) they are clear in those things which concern Sal­vation: And this was Austines determination, In those things (saith he) which are plainly set down in the In iis, que apertè posita sunt in Scripturâ, inveniuntur illa omnia, quae continent fidem mores (que) vivendi. Aug. de doct. Christ. lib. 2. cap. 9. Scriptures, are found all those things, which concern faith, and good life. Yea, so much the Scripture doth testimony of it self, The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. Psal. 19. 7. The entrance of thy words giveth light, it giveth understanding to the simple, Psal. 119. 130. From a child thou hast known the Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, &c. 2 Tim. 3. 15.

[Page 122] First, we hold the reall presence, you deny it; we say his Body is there, you say there is nothing but bare Bread: we have Scripture Marq: p. 57, 58. for it, Mat. 20. (for 26.) 26. Take eat, this is my Body. So Luke 22. 19. This is my Body which is given for you.

Here the Marquesse comes to performe that which before he promised (pag. 53, & 54.) viz. to shew that in those points Answ. wherein they and we differ, the Scriptures are on their side, and not on ours: And he begins with the controversie about the pre­sence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, alledging those words, This is my Body, as a clear proof of their opinion, viz. that after Consecration there is no longer the substance of Bread, but that the Bread is transubstantiated, and turned into the sub­stance of Christs Body. But doth it appear that those words, This is my Body, are to be understood properly any more than those, Gen. 17. 10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee, every man-child among you shall be circumcised? There Circumcision is called Gods Covenant, whereas properly it was not the Covenant it self, but the token of the Covenant, as it is called immediately after, ver. 11. So Exod. 12. 13. and in other places the Lamb is called the Lords. Passeover, whereas properly it was not the Passeover, but a Token of the Passeover, being slain, and eaten in remembrance of the Lords passing over the houses of the Israelites, when he saw the First-born of the Aegyptians, Exod. 12. 13. And thus also it's said, 1 Cor. 10. 4. that the Rock was Christ. How could that be? Not in respect of Substance, but in respect of Signification; the Rock signified Christ, was a Type and a Figure of Christ. Bel­larmine (I know) doth indeavour to elude all these instances, as if the speeches were not Figurative, but Proper. To that place concerning Circumcision he answereth, that both Speeches are proper, viz. Circumcision is the Covenant, and Circumcision is the Token of the Covenant. Circumcision (he saith) was the Token Bell. de Eu­char. l. 1. c. 11. Sect. Secundò vocatum est. of the Covenant, as the Covenant is taken for Gods Promise: and it was also the Covenant it self, as the Covenant is taken for the Instrument whereby the Promise is applyed. But here Bel­larmine is contrary both to himself, and to Reason. He is con­trary to himselfe, for a little before he saith, that these words, Ibid. Sect. Quartò peccat. Circumcision is the Token of the Covenant, Gen. 17. 11. are an Expli­cation [Page 123] of that which went before, ver. 10. viz. that Circumcision is the Covenant. Now if the one be an Explication of the other, then needs must the word Covenant be taken alike in both. He is also contrary unto Reason, for it is absurd to say, that a Cove­nant doth properly signifie both a Promise, and also an Instru­ment, whereby the Promise is applyed. As well may one say, that Christs Body doth properly signifie both his Body, and also the Sacrament of his Body. A Covenant, in the very nature of it, being properly taken, doth signifie a Promise: and therefore the instrument, whereby it is applyed, cannot properly be the Cove­nant, but onely the Token, Pledge, and Assurance of it. It may as well be said, that a Covenant may have two diverse and di­stinct natures, as that a Covenant can be taken two diverse and distinct wayes, and yet be taken properly both the one way, and the other.

To those words, It (viz. the Lamb) is the Lords passeover, Exod. 12. 11. Bellarmine answers, that the Speech is not Figura­tive, Bellarm. Ibid. Quaedam ci­tantur. but Proper. The Lamb he saith was properly the Lords Passeover: and mark his Reason, Quia agnus immolabatur in me­moriam illius transitus; that is, Because the Lamb was slain (or sacrificed) in memory of that passeover, or passing over. Now what greater absurdity can there be, then this, which here Bellarmine doth fall into? He alledgeth that as a Reason of his assertion, which indeed doth quite overthrow it. For if the Lamb were slaine, and sacrificed in memory of the Lords Passeover, or pas­sing over, then was it not properly the Passeover it self, but only a Signe and Memoriall of it.

As for those words, 1 Cor. 10. 4. The Rock was Christ; Bellar­mine Bellarm. ubi supra, Sect. Il­lud etiam. saith, that not a Materiall, but a Spirituall work is there meant; and that therefore, though the word Rock be taken Fi­guratively, yet the proposition it selfe, The Spirituall Rock was Christ, is not figuratively, but properly taken. But it is evident, that the Rock spoken of by the Apostle, was a materiall Rock, a Rock of Stone: For the Apostle speaketh of a Rock which the Israelites drank of; They drank of that Rock, saith he. Now that Rock which the Israelites drank of, was a materiall Rock, a Rock of Stone, as Moses doth shew, Exod. 17. and Numb. 20. Austin never questioned this to be the meaning of [Page 124] the Apostles words, After a sort (saith he) Quodammodo omnia significantia videntur earum rerum, quas signifi­cant, sustinere personas: sicut dictum est ab Apostolo, petra erat Christus, quoniam Petra illa, de quâ hoc di­ctum est, significabat utique Christum. Aug. de civit. Dei lib. 18. cap. 48. all things signifying, seeme to be instead of those things, which they signifie: as it is said by the Apostle, The Rocke was Christ, be­cause that Rock, of which that is spoken, did indeed signifie Christ.

These words of that learned Father are very remarkable, that onely for the understanding of that particular place of Scripture, but also for the determining of the maine Controversie betwixt us, and our Romane Adversaries. For he not onely saith, that the Rock is said to have been Christ, because it did signifie Christ, supposing and taking it as granted, that the Apostle spake of a materiall Rock; but also he saith, that after a sort all things signifying are in­stead of the things signified by them, and therefore are called by the same names. If our adversaries would minde this rule, they would soon see, that they have no cause to insist upon those words, This is my Body, and to urge the proper sense of them. But for these words, The Rock was Christ, Bellarmine argueth that a materiall Rock is not there meant, because the Apostle calleth it a spirituall Rock. I answer, so the Apostle there calleth Manna spirituall meat, yet was Manna a materiall thing, onely it had a spirituall signification. And so also was the Rock a ma­teriall Rock, onely it's called spirituall for the same reason. Bellarmine objects, that a materiall Rock did not follow the Israelites, as the Apostle saith that the Rock did, which hee speakes of; for they dranke (saith he) of that spirituall Rock that followed them. I answer 1. The materiall Rock may be said to have followed them, that is, to have satisfied their desire of water. Thus (as Beza observes) [...]. Photius apud Oecumen: though I confesse, he understands it of Christ as meant by the spirituall Rock there mentioned. Photius a Greek Author doth expound it, and so al­so (as Pareus testifies) Lyra and Dionysius, two Romish expositors. Bellarmine notes Peter Martyr, as thus expounding it, neither hath he any thing against this exposition, but only that the Greek Fathers, and Erasmus interpret the word used by the Apostle comitante, i. e. accompanying. But this is no­thing, for they might meane accompanying in a metaphoricall [Page 125] sense, viz. in respect of satisfying the desire. Againe, the Rock may be said to have followed the Israelites, in that the water flowing forth of the Rock, did follow them. Genebrard, a great man of the Romish party, commenting upon those words, Psal. 78. 15. He clave the Rocks in the Wildernesse, &c. saith that the Septuagint, and the vulgar Latine interpreter have it in the singular number, Rock, because by the Hebrew traditions there was but one Rock, which was smitten, and so sent forth water, at severall times, and in severall places: and that this Rock did remove with the Israelites, and follow them in their travells through the Wildernesse. And this, he saith, is agreable to that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 10. 4. But this is over Rabbinicall, and therfore he addes, that the Rock may be said to have followed the Israelites, that is, that Nisi malis consecutam petram, id est, petrae fluxum, per derivationem, viz. & deductionem aquae à populo ad loca castrorum procuratam, sive per ipsius Dei transmissionem & directi­onem. Genebr loc. citat. Paulò post indiguerunt rursus aqua. Bell. ubi supra, Sect. Calvinus. the water which flowed out of the Rock did follow them, either in that they them­selves by their own art, and industrie did derive and bring it to the place, where they camped; or that it was effected by Gods transmission and direction. Bellarmine ob­jects, that a little after the Israelites did want water againe, as as we read Num. 20. and therefore the water did not follow them. But that want of water spoken of Num. 20. was not a little after, but a long time after the other mentioned Exod. 17. For that in Exodus was the Israelites camped in Rephidim, not long after they came out of Egypt; and the other was when they camped in Kadesh, in the fourtieth yeare after they left Egypt, as is noted in the Hebrew Chronicle called Seder Olam cap. 9. Compare Numbers. 33. 14. with 36. Nec obstat, quòd in deserto ex­citatum sit alterum murmur ob aquae penuriam, ut secundò educeretur aqua ex alterâ rupe post annos 38. Nam de hâc ipsâ rupe, nempe de priore hâc Rabbini veteres, & recentiores intelligunt, cujus aquam tradunt de­fecisse propter Mariae mortem, donec secundò educeretur ex eâdem ad secun­dū de aquâ murmur. Genebr. ubi suprà. Genebrard in the place before cited, meetes with this Objection, that Bellarmine makes, and answers, that according to the Rabbins both ancient, and moderne, that which is recorded Num. 20. is meant of the same Rock that is spoken of Exod. 17. the water whereof (they say) did faile be­cause of Miriams death (which happened there in Kadesh) untill upon the peoples [Page 126] murmuring againe it was drawn out of the same Rock the se­cond time.

This conceit of the Rabbines is far from pleasing me, onely I note how little force Bellarmines objection was of with his own copartner Genebrard. Indeed this is enough to shew the vanity of the objection, that (as Genebrard notes) the want of water in Kadesh was 38. years after that in Rephidim, and there­fore was not (as Bellarmine sayes) a little after. But though it had not been one halfe quarter of that time before the Israe­lites wanted water againe, yet that is no argument why the Apostle speaking of the Rock that followed them, should not meane a materiall and visible Rock; for the materiall and vi­sible Rock, that is, the water that flowed from it, might fol­low the Israelites, though but for while, even so long as they encamped in Rephidim: neither doth the Apostle say, that it followed them either perpetually, or for any long time, but onely that it followed them. But howsoever it be understood, that the Rock followed them (which I confesse is somewhat obscure) how by the Rock there should be meant Christ, as the efficient cause giving them water to drinke? For to drinke of [...]. the Rock, is there expressed in the same phrase, as to drinke of the Cup, 1 Cor. 11. 28. Neither (I thinke) can one in any con­gruity be said to drinke of a man, that giveth him either water, or any thing else to drinke; but onely to drinke either of the liquour, or (metonymically) of that wherein the liquour is contained. Finally Bellarmine himselfe doth acknowledge, that the materiall Rock, which afforded the Israelites water to Bell. ubi suprà, Sect. est tamen. drinke, was a figure of Christ, and that the water proceeding from that Rock, was a figure of Christs Blood; onely he denies, that so much is meant by the Apostle in those words, they dranke of the spirituall Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. But, I demand then, from what place of Scripture, if not from those words of the Apostle, can so much bee gathered? Est hic ponitur pro significare, quem­admodum & ibi, Petra autem erat Christus, Iansen. concord. cap. 51. Iansenius a learned Romanist, is more can­did and free then Bellarmine; for expound­ing the Parable of the sower he saith that the word is (as when it is said, The seed is the word of God, &c. Luke 8. 11.) is put for signifieth, as also there where it is said, And the Rock was Christ.

[Page 127] And so also (say we) when 'tis said, This is my Body, the mea­ning is, This doth signifie my Body, or, This is a Signe, a Token, a Seal, a Pledge of my Body.

The Lord (saith Non dubitavit Dominus dicere, Hoc est corpus meus, cum signum da­ret corporis sui. Aug. coutra Adi­mant. cap. 12. Austine) doubted not to say, This is my Body, when he gave the Signe of his Body. And again, speaking of those words, Facinus vel Flagitium videtur ju­bere. Figura ergo est, praecipiens pas­sionibus Domini esse communican­dum, & suaviter atque utiliter recon­dendum esse in memorià, quòd pro nobis caro ejus crucisixa, & vulne­rata est. Aug. de doct. Christ. lib 3. cap. 16. Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his Bloud, ye have no life in you, Ioh. 6. 53. he saith, That Christ seemeth to com­mand some hainous act, or some grosse wicked­nesse: And that therefore it is a figurative speech, requiring us to communicate with the Lords sufferings, and sweetly and profitably to keep in memory that his flesh was Crucified, and wounded for us. And yet again, Qui discordat à Christo, nec car­nem ejus manducat, nec sangninem bibit, etiamsi tantae rei sacramentum ad judicium suae praesumptionis quo­tidiè indifferenter accipiat. Prosper in Sentent. ex Augustino, sent. 341. He that is at enmity with Christ (saith he) doth neither eat his Flesh, nor drink his Bloud, although to the condemnation of his presumption, he daily receive: the Sacrament of so great a thing as well as others.

These saying of Austin doe sufficiently shew how he under­stood those words, This is my Body, and how far he was from be­ing of the now-Romane Faith concerning the presence of Christ in the Sacrament. Indeed, these very words, This is my Body, which our Adversaries pretend to make so much for them, are most strong against them, and enough to throw down Tran­substantiation. For Christ saying, This is my Body, what is meant by the word This? They of the Church of Rome cannot agree about it, but some say one thing, some another, only by no means they will have Bread to be meant by it. For they very well know that so their Transubstantiation were quite overthrown. But look into the Scripture, and mind it well, and see if any thing else but Bread can be meant by the word This. It's said, Mat. 26. 26. Iesus took Bread and blessed it, & brake it, and gave it to the Disciples, and said, Take, eat, This is my Body. What is here meant by the word This? What is it that Christ calls his Body? That which he bade the Disciples take and eate. And what was that? That which he gave unto them. And what was that? That which he brake. [Page 128] And what was that? That which he blessed. And what was that? That which he took. And what was that? Bread. For so expresly the Evangelist tells us, that Iesus took Bread. So then it was Bread that Christ took, and Bread that he blessed, and Bread that he brake, and Bread that he gave to the Disciples, and Bread that he bade them take and eat, and Bread of which he spake, saying, This is my Body. As if he should say, This Bread which I have taken, and blessed, and broken, and given unto you to eat, even this Bread is my Body. Now the word This relating unto Bread, the speech must needs be Figurative, and cannot be Pro­per. For properly Bread cannot be Christs Body, Bread and Christs Body, being things of diverse and different natures, and so it being impossible that properly one should be the other. As Disparatum de disparato non potest univocè praedicari. when Christ called Herod a Fox, and the Pharisees Serpents and Vipers, the speeches are not Proper, but Figurative; so is it when he called Bread his Body, it being no more possible that Bread should be the Body of Christ in propriety of speech, then that a man should properly be a Fox, a Serpent, a Viper. Besides, doth not the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11. speaking of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, continually call it Bread, even after Consecration? In­deed, to distinguish it from ordinary and common Bread, he calls it This Bread; but yet still Bread, the same in substance, though not the same in use, as before. And (which is worthy to be ob­served) thus the Apostle calls it, viz. Bread, when he sharply re­proves the Corinthians for their unworthy receiving of the Sacra­ment, setting before them the grievousnesse of the sin, and the greatnesse of the danger that they did incur by it. Now what had been more forcible and effectuall to this end, than for the Apostle, if he had been of the Romish Faith, to have told them, that now it was not Bread, though it seemed unto them to be so, but that the substance of the Bread was gone, and instead thereof was come the very substance of Christs Body? He saith indeed, That whoso eat that Bread, and drink the Cup of the Lord unwor­thily, are guilty of the Body and Bloud of the Lord: But that is, be­cause that Bread, and that Cup, (i. e. the Wine in the Cup) are by the Lords own institution Signes and Seales of the Lords Body and Bloud; so that the unworthy receiving of them is an indi­gnity done to the things signified by them. But to return to the [Page 129] Marquesse, he citeth sundry passages in Iohn 6. where our Savi­our speakes of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, calling himselfe Bread, living Bread, and affirming that his Flesh is meat indeed, and his Blood drinke indeed. But all this is farre from proving that reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament, which the Marquesse doth contend for. For, 1. as Iansenius (not to name other of the Marquesses own party) hath unan­swerably Iansen. Con­cord. cap. 59. proved, Christ in Iohn 6. did not treat of the Sacra­ment, but onely of the spirituall eating of his Flesh, and the spirituall drinking of his Blood by faith. 2. The words of our Saviour Iohn 6. if they must prove any transubstantiation at all, will sooner prove the transubstantiation of Christs body into Bread, then the transubstantiation of Bread into Christs body. I am the Bread of life, saith he, Iohn 6. 35. & 48. I am the living Bread, &c. ver. 51. My flesh is meat indeed, &c. ver. 55. If these sayings bee taken properly, and without a figure, they will prove a conversion, not of Bread into the body of Christ, but of the Body of Christ into Bread. And the argument that Forsitan respondetur quòd idolum mateiale post consecrationem ritè factam totum transubstantiatur con­vertiturque in Deum.—Haec con­versio refellitur, quia videtur cuilibet sensui, omni experimento testante, quòd ibi sit idem idolum materiale quod prius. Quarè si aliqua conver­sio ibi siat, magis videtur Deum con­verti in idolum, quàm è contrà. Bradward: de causâ Dei l. 1. c. 1. Bradwardine useth against the Idols of the Pagans, is by full proportion of as much force against our adversaries transubstanti­ation. Perhaps (saith he) it is answered, that a materiall Idoll after consecration right­ly performed, is transubstantiated and turn­ed into God.—This conversion (viz. of the Idoll into God) is refelled, because it appears to every sense, all experience bearing wit­nesse, that there is the same materiall Idoll that was before. Therefore if there be any conversion made, it seemes rather that God is converted into the Idoll, then that the Idoll is converted into God. This argument, I say, doth as strongly militate against the opinion of the Ro­manists concerning the reall presence. For it no lesse appears, to every sense, all experience bearing witnesse, that there's the same materiall Bread that was before. Therefore if there be any conversion made, it seemes rather that Christs Body is converted into the Bread, then that the Bread is converted into Christs Body.

[Page 130] The Marquesse saith that we with the Iewes and Infidells say, Page 58. How can this man give us his flesh to eate? Ioh. 6. 52. But we say no such thing. How should wee, if wee believe Christ saying, except yee eate the flesh of the Son of man, and drinke his Blood, you have no life in you? vers. 53. We know and acknowledge, that we must eate the flesh of Christ, but yet spiritually, not (as those unbelieving Iewes imagined, being therein more like un­to our Adversaries) carnally. For so our Adversaries hold, that the wicked may eate the flesh of Christ, and yet be never the better, but receive it to their condemnation: whereas the eating of Christs Flesh spoken of Ioh. 6. is a thing that doth ac­company salvation. See Iansen. up­on those words, Concord. cap. 59. Who so eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood, hath eternall life, &c. v. 54.

But saith the Marquesse, Had this been but a figure, certainly Christ would have removed the doubt, when he saw them so offen­ded Page 58. at the reality. Joh. 6. 61. He would not have confirmed his saying in terminis, with promise of a greater wonder, Joh. 6. 62. You may as well deny his Incarnation, his Ascension, and aske, How could the man come down from Heaven, and goe up a­gaine?

I answer, 1. A figure, viz. in speech, is not properly oppo­sed to reality, but to propriety. The spirituall eating of Christs Flesh, is a reall, yet not a proper, but a figurative, a metapho­ricall eating of it: when Christ saith, I am the true Vine, Joh. 15. 1. there is a reality implied, as well as when he saith, My flesh is meate indeed, Joh. 6. 55. yet no Romanist (I presume) but will grant, that Christ is a Vine, not properly, but figu­ratively so called. True Vine, that is, excellent, incorruptible and spirituall Vine, as Vitis vera, id est, eximia, incorruptibi­lis, & spiritualis. Iansen. ex Eutbymio Concord. cap. 135. Iansenius out of Euthymius doth expound it. So meate indeed, that is, excellent, incompar­able and spirituall meate.

2. For those words of our Saviour, Iohn 6. 62. What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? they make nothing for our Adversaries, but rather against them. For our Saviour in those words most probably intended to let the Jewes see, that he did not speak of a Carnall eating of his Flesh, as [Page 131] they supposed, but of a Spirituall eating of it. So Austine under­stood those words, as Iansenius notes, and judgeth that exposi­tion Jansen. Con­cord. cap. 59. most probable. And so the Jesuite Mal­donate, who cites Beda and Rupertus as fol­lowing Non nego me hujus interpretationis authorem habere neminem (scil. Quid facietis cum videritis me ascendentem in coelum? quanto magis scandalizabi­mini? quanto minus credetis?) sed hanc eò magis probo, quàm illam al­teram Augustini, caeterarum alioqui probabilissimam, quòd haec cum Cal­vinistarum sensu magis pugnet, quod mihi magnum est probabilitatis argu­mentum. Maldon. ad Joh. 6. 62. the same exposition, confesseth that exposition more probable than any other that he met with. Yea, that he had no Author of that Interpretation which he embraced, viz. What will ye doe when ye shall see me ascend into Heaven? How much more then will ye be of­fended? How much lesse will ye then believe? Yet he saith that he did approve this rather then that of Austine, though of all the rest most probable, be­cause this did more oppose the sense of the Calvinists, which to him (he saith) was a great argument of the probability of it. Here see, and observe the disposition of a Jesuit, what little recko­ning he made of Fathers, so he might but oppose Calvinists. Bellarmine also thinks this a very literall exposition, that Christs meaning was to shew that they should have greater cause to Bell. de Euchar. lib. 1. cap. 6. doubt after his Ascension then they had before. And this expo­sition he saith seems to be Chrysostomes; yet Iansenius attributeth another exposition unto Chrysostome, and Maldonate confesseth that he found none to expound it in that manner. Neither is this exposition agreeable to the letter. For it is equally incon­ceiveable, that Christ being on Earth, should give his Flesh to many thousands to eat, if it be meant of Carnall eating, as that he should doe it being in Heaven. But Bellarmine first hath ano­ther Bell. Ibid. exposition of those words of our Saviour, which here the Marquesse seemeth to follow, viz. that our Saviour would con­firme one wonderfull thing by another no lesse wonderfull, if not more, he means the wonderfull eating of his Flesh (in their sense) by his wonderfull Ascension into Heaven. And this exposition, he saith, doth confirm their opinion; for that, if Christ had not promised to give his true Flesh in the Sacrament, he needed not to prove his power by his Ascension. I answer, it doth argue an extraordinary power in Christ to give his Flesh to eat, though there be no turning of the substance of the Bread in the Sacra­ment into the substance of his Flesh. Bellarmine indeed saith, it Bell. Ibid. [Page 132] is no miracle (such as the Jewes required of Christ, Ioh: 6. 30, 31.) that common Bread should signifie Christs Body, or that Christs Body should be eaten by Faith. But is this so ordinary and easie a matter, that common Bread (common for substance, though not for use) should so signifie the Body of Christ, that by the due receiving of it, the very Body of Christ should be received, and so Christ and the Receiver be united together Spiritually, even as Bread, and he that eateth it, are united together Corpo­rally? Is all this nothing, except the Bread be substantially chan­ged and turned into Christs Body? Why then doth Bellarmine Bell. de effect. Sacram. l. 2. c. 7. Sect. Calvinus. elswhere tell us, that the Fathers refer the wonderfull effects of Baptisme (for of that Sacrament particularly doe almost all the Fathers speak, which are cited by him) to Gods Almighty power? I am sure Bellarmine would not have us believe for all this, that the substance of the water in Baptisme is changed into any other substance.

Where our Saviour tels them (saith the Marquesse) thus to argue Pag. 58, 59. according to flesh and bloud, in these words, The flesh profiteth nothing, and that if they will be enlivened in their understanding, they must have Faith to believe it in these words, It is the Spirit that quickneth, John 6. 63. They pervert our Saviours meaning into a contrary sense of their own imagination, viz. The flesh profiteth nothing, that is to say, Christs Body is not in the Sacrament: but it is the Spirit that quickneth, that is to say, we must onely believe that Christ dyed for us, but not that his Body is there. As if there were any need of so many inculcations, pressures, offences, mis-believings of, and in a thing that were no more but a bare memoriall of a thing, being a thing nothing more usuall with the Israelites, as the 12. stones which were erected as a signe of the children of Israels passing over Iordan, &c. Josh. 4.

Those words of our Saviour, The Flesh profiteth nothing, It is Answ. the Spirit that quickneth, make also rather against our Adversaries opinion, than for it. For as Iansenius com­ments upon them, our Saviour in those words Significat modum, quo caro ejus esset edenda, spiritualem esse, & spiritu e­dendam esse, non carnaliter. Jansen. Concord. cap. 59. signifies, That his flesh is to be eaten in spiri­tuall manner, and not carnally: which is that which we hold and maintain against them of the Church of Rome.

[Page 133] This exposition (as the same Ianse­nius observes) doth both answer the mur­muring Et scut haec explicatio optimè respon­det murmurantium verbis, ita & se­quenti sententiae congruit, Verba quae locutus sum vobis-spiritus & vita sunt, hoc est, sunt spiritualia, & spiritualiter intelligenda, ac sic auditori conferunt vitam. Sic enim hanc sententiam eti­am Augustinus enarrat. Jausen. Ibid. of the Jewes, and also agree with the sentence following, The words which I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life, that is, they are spirituall, and to be understood spiritually, and so they give life to those that hear them. Thus (he saith) Au­stine doth interpret this sentence; and a little before he cites Chrysostome, Theophylact, and others, as understanding Christs words in this sense. 2. To remove those offences, and mis-be­leevings which the Jewes had about the eating of Christs Flesh, which he spake of (they understanding his words in a carnall sense) there was need enough of so many inculcations and pres­sures, for we see, that after all those inculcations and pressures yet our Adversaries will not be taken off from the like Carnall conceit, as the offended and mis-beleeving Jewes had. Our Ad­versaries would seeme indeed to be far from compliance with those Jewes, because they doe not hold that Christs Flesh is to be eaten by bits, so as to be divided one piece from another (as those Jewes seeme to have imagined) but that it is to be eaten, though corporally, yet in an invisible, and indivisible manner. But Pope Nicolas caused Berengarius to re­cant his opinion, and to confesse, That not Ore & corde confiteor, &c. panem & vinum, quae in altari ponuntur, post consecrationem non solùm Sacramen­tum, sed etiam verum corpus & san­quinem D. N. Jesu Christi esse, & sensualiter non solùm sacramentum, sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari, frangi, fidelium dentibus at­teri. De Consecr. dist. 2. cap. Ego Berengar. only the Sacrament of Christs Body, but the very body it selfe is sensually held in the Priests hands, and torne by the Teeth of the Faith­full. Which expressions are as harsh as our Adversaries can use, when they would set forth the grosnesse of that conceit which the Jewes had about eating Christs Flesh.

And indeed so harsh are those expressions in Berengarius his recantation prescribed by the Pope, that the Glosse upon it is forced to say, Except you rightly under­stand the words of Berengarius, (hee might Nisi sanè intelligas verba Berengarii, in majorem incides haeresin, quàm ipse habuit: & ideò omnia referas ad species ipsas: nam de Christi cor­pore partes non facimus, Gloss. have said of Pope Nicolas, who did pre­scribe them) you will fall into a greater Heresie, then he was in. And therefore you [Page 134] must referre all to the species (or shewes) themselves; for we doe not make any parts of Christs Body. So then to free themselves from a Capernaiticall manner of eating Christs Flesh, our ad­versaries hold, that neither Christs body, nor bread, but onely the species, or shewes of bread, as quantity, colour, savour, and the like, meere accidents without a substance, are torne with the teeth, divided and broken. And is this properly to eate Christs Body? or is not this eating of Christs Flesh as im­maginable as that of the Iewes? whereas the Marquesse speak­eth of a bare memoriall; 1. Christ himselfe hath plainly taught us, that the Sacrament is a memoriall of him, saying, Doe this in remembrance of me. 2. We doe not say, that Christ is barely remembred in the Sacrament, but so remembred; as also to be received, viz. by such as have faith whereby to receive him. For to receive Christ, is to believe in him, as is cleare Ioh. 1. 12. So that this receiving of Christ, though it be a reall, yet it is not a corporall, but a spirituall receiving of him.

After the Scriptures, the Marquesse cites some Fathers, as Ig­natius Epist. ad Smyr. Iustine Apol. 2. Cyprian Ser. 4. de Laps. Ambros. Page 67. l. 4. de Sacram. and Remigius (the place where not noted) who (he saith) affirme the flesh of Christ to be in the Sacrament, and the same flesh, which the Word of God tooke in the Vir­gins Wombe.

Answ. The question is not whether Christs Flesh be in the Sa­crament, but how it is in it, concerning which these Fathers, so farre as the Marquesse doth shew, speake nothing: To say, that they speake of the same flesh, which the Word of God tooke in the Wombe of the Virgin, is onely to shew that they speake of Christs flesh properly so called, but it doth not shew that they speake of that flesh being properly in the Sacrament. I know no flesh of Christ properly so called, but that, which the Word made Flesh (Ioh. 1. 14) tooke of the Virgin Mary: but though it be granted (as it is) that this flesh of Christ is in the Sacra­ment, yet still the question remaines whether this flesh of Christ be properly, substantially, and corporally in the Sacrament, viz. under the species, or shewes of bread, as our Adversaries hold; and to this question the Marquesse doth not say that the Fathers alledged by him, doe speake any thing: and therefore I [Page 135] might well let them passe without any further answer.

But to consider them, and their testimonies more particu­larly. First, Ignatius his words (as they are cited by Bellarmine) are to this effect, They (meaning certaine Hereticks) doe not ad­mit Eucharists, and oblations, because they doe not confesse the Eu­charist Bell. de Euchar. l. 2. c. 2. to be the flesh of our Saviour, which did suffer for our sins, and which the Father of his goodnesse did raise up. This testimony is nothing against us, who doe not deny the Eucharist, that is, the bread in the Eucharist to be the flesh of Christ, onely wee say that it is not his flesh in a proper, but in a figurative sense, viz. (as Austine in the words before cited observes) the thing signifying being called by the name of the thing signified. And this must be the meaning of Ignatius; for hee speakes, not of Christs flesh being in the Eucharist, but of the Eucharist being Christs Flesh. Whereby the Eucharist can be meant nothing but the Sacramentall bread, and that (as I have before demonstra­ted) by the confession of all cannot properly, but onely figu­ratively be Christs Flesh. Bellarmine objects, that the Here­ticks Bell. Ibid. spoken of by Ignatius, denyed Christ to have true flesh, holding that he was but seemingly borne, crucified, and raised againe. And therefore (hee saith) they did not deny the Eu­charist to signifie the flesh of Christ, but onely to be the Flesh of Christ, lest they should be forced to admit that Christ had true flesh. But (say I) how could those Hereticks yeeld that Eucharist doth signifie the flesh of Christ, and yet deny that Christ hath flesh? For a thing must needs first be, before there can be truly any signification of it. Men (saith Bellarmine) may paint bodies, which indeed are not. But who will say that these Pictures are representations of bodies, and not meere Pictures? And this is all that Bellarmine could make out of Ignatius. The next Father is [...]. Iustin. Apol. 2. Iustine Mar­tyr, who saith that the Bread in the Sacra­ment, is not common Bread, nor the Cup a common Cup. We say the same, they are not common, being sanctified, and set apart for a holy use. But doth this prove any transubstantiation? our adversaries hold no substantiall change of the water in Bap­tisme, [Page 136] and yet they will not say, that it is common water; I am sure it is farre more justly to be accounted Holy, than that which they use to call Holy Water.

Iustine also saith, That we are taught, that the food in the Eucharist, by which being chan­ged, [...]. Iustin. Ibid. our flesh and bloud is nourished, is the flesh and bloud of that Iesus that was incarnate. But this was so far from proving Transubstantia­tion, that indeed it overthrowes it: For in saying that we are nourished by the food, the Bread and the Wine in the Sacrament, he saith in effect that the substance of that food, that Bread and Wine, doth still remaine; for otherwise how should we be nou­rished by it? Christs Body and Bloud are not for our corporall nourishment, of which Iustine speaketh; neither can the bare Spe­cies, or shewes of Bread and Wine afford any such nourishment.

But (saith Bellarmine) Iustine writing an Apology for Chri­stians, and their Religion, was a prevaricatour, and made the Christian Faith most odious, by expressing himself so as he did, Bell. de Euchar. l. 2. c. 4. whereas he might have avoided all superstition, if he had believed that Christ is not so in the Sacrament, as that the Bread is substan­tially changed, and turned into his Body. I answer, that Iustines expressions are agreeable to our Saviours: 1. This is my Body, and therefore no more apt to render the Faith of Christians odi­ous than the other. Neither was it much to be feared, that the Heathens, to whom he wrote his Apology, should not be able to understand the Figure, whereby the signe is called that which it signifieth; there was no need (as Bellarmine scoffingly speakes) that for Opinatur fortasse Petrus Martyr Im­peratorem illum versatum fuisse in Scholâ Calvinistarum, ut statim ad tropos omnia revocaret. Bellar. Ibid. the understanding of this Figure they should be conversant in the School of the Cal­vinists.

The next Father cited by the Marquesse is Cyprian, who speak­ing of some, that in time of Persecution denyed the Faith, and yet presumed to receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; to let them see the hainousnesse of their presumption, he first alledged some places of Scripture, as Levit. 7. 19, 20. and 1 Cor. 10. 21. and [Page 137] 11. 27. And then he addes, All these things Spretis his omnibus, atque contemptis vis infertur corpori ejus, & sanguini; & plus modò in Dominum manibus atque ore delinquunt, quàm cum Do­minum negaverunt. Cypr. de Laps. being despised and contemned, violence is of­fered to Christs Body and Bloud; and they now sinne against the Lord more by their hands and mouth, then they did before when that they denyed him. But what is there in all this to shew Cyprian held any such presence of Christ in the Sacrament, as they of the Romish Church maintaine? Yes (saith Bellarmine, Bell. de Euchar. lib. 2. cap. 9. for the Marquesse onely points at places, but cites no words, much lesse drawes any argument from them) Cyprian did cer­tainly beleeve Christ to be so in the Sacrament, or else he would never have so aggravated the unworthy receiving of the Sacra­ment, as to make it a greater sinne than to deny Christ before a persecutor. But this reason is over-weak. For first, Cyprian be­ing very Rhetoricall, might a little hyperbolize in his expression. And 2. without any Hyperbole at all the words may be made good, and yet no Transubstantiation, nor any corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament be supposed. For the sin of denying Christ under Persecution might be (and most probably was) of infirmity; and the sinne of receiving the Sacrament unworthily might be of presumption, and so more hainous in that respect than the other. In the same place Cyprian also relates some mi­raculous punishments which were inflicted on some that unwor­thily received the Sacrament: and hence also Bellarmine infers Bell. Ibid. that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament, for that we doe not read (he sayes) of any such miracles shewed upon those who have unworthily medled with other Signes. I answer, yes, we doe; we read of Nadab and Abihu slain with fire from Heaven, for offering Incense with strange Fire, Levit. 10. and yet that Incense, and the Altar on which it was offered, were but Types and Figures. So the Arke was but a Signe of Gods Presence, and yet many thousands of the Bethshemites were destroyed for looking into it, 1 Sam. 6. 4. so also was Uzza for presuming to touch it, 2 Sam. 6.

Next to Cyprian, the Marquesse cites, Ambrose Lib. 4. de Sacram. but no Chapter is cited by him. Bellarmine cites Accipe que dico, anteriora esse mysteria Christianorum quàm Judeorum, & diviniora esse Sacramenta. Ambros. de Sacram. lib. 4. cap. 3. Chap. 3, 4, and 5. Now all that Ambrose saith, chap. 3. as look­ing [Page 138] that way, is but this, That the Sacraments of Christians are more Divine then those of the Iewes. Which we grant, not in re­spect of the thing signified, For Iesus Christ yesterday, and to day, and the same for ever, Heb. 13. the same Christ was signified by the Jewish Sacraments as by ours: but in respect of the manner of signifying, Christ being more clearly signified by our Sacraments, than he was by those which the Jewes had. See 2 Cor. 3. 12. &c.

But chap. 4. Ambrose hath something that may seem to make more against us, viz. That Sed panis iste, panis est ante verba Sa­cramentorū; ubiaccesserit consecratio, de pane fit caro Christi. Ambros. de Sacram. l. 4. c. 4. before Consecration it is Bread, but when Con­secration commeth, then of Bread it is made the Flesh of Christ.

To this I answer, that these words doe not inferre any Tran­substantiation. By Consecration, of Bread is made Christs Flesh, but Sacramentally, not Substantially; Figuratively, not Proper­ly. And that Ambrose in those words did intend no substantiall change of the Bread, appears by his owne words in the same Chapter. If (saith he) Si ergò tanta vis est in sermone Domi­ni Jesu, ut inciperent esse, quae non erant; quanto magis operatorius est, ut sint quae erant, & in aliud commu­tentur? Ambros. Ibid. there was such force in the speech of the Lord Iesus, that things should begin to be that were not: how much more operative is it, that those things should be, which were, and should withall be changed into ano­ther thing? Therefore in the judgement of Ambrose, the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, are what they were, viz. in respect of substance, yet by vertue of Christs institution are changed, viz. in respect of signification.

Bellarmine, to evade this testimony, first sayes, that Lanfrancus Bell. ubi supra. in his book against Berengarius speaks of some Copies of Ambrose his Workes, wherein those words were not, Ut sint quae erant, that is, That those things should be which were. But no such Copies either Printed, or Manuscript, it seems did Bellarmine meet with; for otherwise (I doubt not) he would have given us notice of them. Again, with the same Lanfrancus he answers, that those words are thus to be understood, that in respect of outward shew, the things which were, still are, but are changed in respect of inward substance. But how can a thing be said to be what it was, when as there is no substance of the thing remaining, but onely a shew and appearance of it? In the last place Bellarmine . [Page 139] addes of his own, that Ambrose meant, If Christ could make a thing of nothing, why can he not make a thing of something, not by annihilating the thing, but by changing it into that which is better? But if a thing be changed substantially into another thing, how doth it remain what it was before? But so the things doe, that Ambrose speaks of. For Bellarmines criticisme is poor in di­stinguishing betwixt, Ut sint id, quod erant, That they should be that which they were, and Ut sint quae erant, That the things should be that were, as if these words did not import that the same sub­stances still remain, as well as the other when Christ turned Wa­ter into Wine, can we say, that his Word was operative, and powerfull, Ut esset quod erat, & in aliud mutaretur, That that should be which was, and that withall, it should be changed into ano­ther thing? I confesse I cannot see how the thing may be said truly and properly to be, which was, if it be substantially changed into some other thing. Ambrose there a little after saith, Tu ipse eras, sed eras vetus creatura: posteaquam consecratus es, nova crea­tura esse coepisti. Thou thy self wast, but thou wast an old creature: after thou art consecrated, thou beginnest to be a new creature: which cannot be meant of any substantiall change in us. Chap. 5. the same Ambrose, (if it were Ambrose, for Bellarmine is not very confident that Ambrose was the Author of those Books, De Sa­cramentis) saith indeed, That before it is Con­secrated, it is Bread, but when the words of Antequam consecretur, panis est: ubi autem verba Christi accesserint, corpus est Christi. Ambr. de Sacr l. 4. c. 5. Christ are come, it is the Body of Christ. But that it is so the Body of Christ, as to be no longer Bread he doth not affirme. That he was of another mind, appears by the words before alledged. And so much also may be gathered from that which he saith in this same Chapter, viz. He that did eat Manna, Manna qui manducavit, mortuus est; qui mauducaverit hoc corpus, fiet ei remissio peccatorum, & non morietur in aeternum. Ambros. Ibid. dyed: but whose eateth this Body, shall have remission of sins, and shall live for ever. Which cannot be understood of a Corporall eating of Christs Body, but of a Spirituall eating of it. Bellarmine cites some other sayings of Ambrose out of another Work of his, viz. De iis, qui mysteriis initiantur, but they prove no more than these already cited, neither doth the Marquesse refer us to them. Yea, in that same work Ambrose doth sufficiently declare himselfe [Page 140] against Transubstantiation. For there he saith, It is truly the Sacrament of Christs Verè ergò carnis illius Sacramentum est.—post consccrationem corpus significatur. Ambros. de iis qui myster. init. cap. 6. Flesh. And, after Consecration, the Body (of Christ) is signified. And again, It is not there­fore Corporali food, but Spirituall. Whence also the Apostle saith of the Type of it, that our Fa­thers Non ergo corporalis esca, sed spiritua­lis est. Unde & Apostolus de typo ejus ait, Quia patres nostri escam spi­ritualem manducaverunt, & potum spi­ritualem biberunt. Ibid. did eat Spirituall meat, and did drink Spirituall drink, 1 Cor. 10. The last Author Remigius, is onely cited by the Marquesse at large, neither doe I find him cited by Bellarmine at all, and therefore untill we have some particular place cited out of him, it is in vain to trouble our selves about him; besides, that his An­tiquity is not such, as that his Authority should much be stood upon, being 890 years after Christ, as Bellarmine sheweth in his book of Ecclesiasticall Writers.

Secondly, (saith the Marquesse) We hold that there is in the Pag. 59, & 60. Church an infallible Rule for understanding of Scripture, besides the Scripture it self. This you deny, this we have Scripture for, as Rom. 12. 6. We must prophecy according to the Rule of Faith. We are bid to walke according to this Rule, Gal. 6. 16. We must en­crease our Faith, and preach the Gospell according to this Rule, 2 Cor. 10. 15. This rule of Faith the Holy Scriptures call a forme of Doctrine, Rom. 6. 17. a thing made ready to our hands, 2 Cor. 10. 16. that we may not measure our selves by our selves, 2 Cor. 10. 12. the depositions committed to the Churches trust, 1 Tim. 6. 20. for avoiding of profane and vaine bablings, and opposi­tions of sciences, And by this rule of faith is not meant the Holy Scriptures; for that cannot doe it, as the Apostle tells us, whilst there are unstable men, who wrest this way and that way to their own de­struction; but it is the tradition of the Church, as it is delivered from hand to hand, as most plainly appears, 2 Tim. 2. 2. The things which thou hast heard of us (not received in writing from me or o­thers) among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithfull men, who shall be able to teach it to others also.

That there is any infallible Rule for understanding of Scripture, Answ. or any other rule of Faith, besides the Scripture, we do deny, and that by authority of the Scripture it self. To the law, and to the te­stimony, if they speak not according to this Word, it is because they have [Page 141] no light in them. Isai. 8. 20. Search the Scriptures, for in them yee thinke to have eternall life, and they are they that testifie of mee. Joh. 5. 39. These were more noble then they of Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readinesse of minde, and searched the Scriptures, whether those things were so. Acts 17. 11. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for Doctrine, for reproofe, for correction, for instruction in righteous­nesse, That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good workes, 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. Neither doe those places alledged by the Marquesse make for the contrary.

We must prophesie according to the rule of Faith, saith the A­postle Rom. 12. 6. as the Marquesse hath it, following therein the Rhemists translation, as also their comment upon the place. But the word in the originall signifies rather proporti­on, [...]. then rule. And I see not but that by the proportion of saith may be understood the measure of saith, which is spoken of vers. 3.

But be it granted, that proportion of faith is as much as rule of faith, where doth the Apostle say, that this rule of faith is any other then the Scripture it selfe? The places before cited shew, that we are referred to the Scripture, as the rule, whereby all doctrines are to be tried; but no where doe I finde, that wee are referred to any unwritten tradition. Sure I am our Adver­saries can evince no such thing from the words of the Apostle, Rom. 12. 6. Except we must (to use the Marquesses expressions) Page 53. take them margin'd with their own notes, sens'd with their own meaning, and enlivened with their own private spirit. As for the rule mentioned, Gal. 6. 16. it is no generall rule of faith, or of interpreting Scripture, but a speciall rule, that in Christ Iesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature; as is cleare by the context, ver. 15. As many as walke according to this rule, that is, (as [...]. Oe­cum. ad loc. Oe­cumenius expounds it) as many as are con­tent with this rule, and this doctrine, that all things are made a new creature, and doe not subject themselves to the Law. Neither is the place, 2 Cor. 10. 15. to the purpose. For the Apostle there speakes of a ruleby [Page 142] way of similitude (as Cardinall Loquitur Paulus ad similitudinem filotum, quibus artifices utuntut proregulis operum efficiendorum. Ar­chimagister siquidem praesidens uni­verso operi fabricae, vel colendae terrae, vel efficiendorum aggerum, filis (quae regulae vocantur) distinguit partes operis, & juxta regulam cuique datam mensura est operis cujusque. Hâc metaphorâ utitur Paulus, ad sig­nificandum quòd materia gloriati­onis suae est mensurarum terrarum spatium, in quo hactenus praedica­verat secundum regulam, non à se­ipso, non ab apostolis, sed à Deo; quod terrarum spatium pertingebat usque ad Corinthios. Cajetan. in 2. Cor. 10. Cajetan doth well expound it) viz. that as an Ar­chitect, or the like chiefe workman, doth by rule divide the worke that is to be done, and appoint under-workemen where they shall imploy themselves, and how farre they shall reach: so God did as it were by rule appoint Paul, where he should preach the Gospell, and how farre his imployment should extend in that kinde. This plainly appeares to be the Apostles meaning by the two verses immediately preceding, But we will not boast of things without our measure, but according to the measure of the rule, which God hath distributed unto us, a measure to reach even unto you. For we stretch not our selves be­yond our measure, as though wee reached not unto you; for we are come as farre as you also in preaching the Gospell of Christ. Then he addes, Not boasting of things without our measure, that is, of other mens labours, but having hope, when your faith is encreased, that we shall be enlarged by you, according to our rule abundantly, To preach the Gospell in the regions beyond you, and not to boast in another mans line, of things made ready to our hand. All may plainly see, that here is nothing spoken of a rule of faith, or a rule for the understanding of the Scripture. And therefore most impertinently is 2 Cor. 10. 16. cited, as if the Apostle there did speak of a rule of faith made ready to their hands. And so also is that of not measuring our selves by our selves. 2 Cor. 10. 12.

Neither can our Adversaries ever be able to prove that by the forme of Doctrine mentioned Rom. 6. 17. the Apostle did meane any other Doctrine, then what is contained in the Scripture: or that any Doctrine, but the Doctrine of the Scripture is meant by that which was committed to Timotheus trust, 1 Tim. 6. 20. which the Apostle there bids him keepe, avoiding profane, and vaine bablings, &c. Though such as are unlearned, and unstable wrest the Scriptures, &c. 2 Pet. 3. 16. yet the same Apostle in the same Epistle doth teach us to take heed to the Scripture, as to a light shining in a darke place. 2 Pet. 1. 19.

[Page 143] That the Apostle spake of any unwritten tradition, as a rule whereby to interpret Scriptures, 2 Tim. 2. 2. can never be made good: by the things, which Timothy heard him, and was to commit to faithfull men, &c. hee meant nothing but the Doctrine of the Gospell, as the forementioned Evangelicos siquidem ser­mones intelli­git dicendo, & quae audisti à me. Cajet. in 2 Tim. 2. Cajetan doth truly interpret: and that Doctrine, I presume, is no where to be found, but in the Scripture. Surely the Apostle in the next Chapter after tells Timothy, that from a child hee had known the holy Scriptures, which were able to make him wise unto salvation, thorough faith, which is in Christ Iesus. 2 Tim. 3. 15.

After the Scriptures, the Marquesse cites the Fathers as being Page 60 and 61. of this opinion, viz. Ireneus l. 4. c. 45. Tertull. de Praescript. and Vincent. Lirin. in suo Commentario (perhaps it should be Com­monitorio) But it will not appeare, that the Fathers held any rule of faith, and of interpreting the Scripture, besides the Scripture it selfe. His Majesty (as I noted before) cited above twice as many Fathers, as the Marquesse here alledgeth, plainly Page 50. testifying that the Scriptures are their own interpreters, and that matters of faith are to be decided by them. I will adde a few more testimonies of the Fathers to this purpose. Ut haec, quae scripta sunt, non nega­mus, it a ea, quae non sunt scripta, renuimus, Hieron. advers. Helvid. As wee doe not deny (saith Hie­rome) those things which are written, so we re­fuse those things, which are not written. Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem. Tertull. contra Hermog. cap. 22. I adore (saith Tertullian) the fulnesse of the Scripture. And againe, Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis of­ficina. Si non est scriptum, timeat vae illud adjicientibus, aut detrahen­tibus destinatum. Tertull. Ibid. Let Hermogenes (saith hee) shew that it is written. If it be not written, let him feare that woe appointed for those that either adde to the Scripture, or detract from it. Nos nullam Cypriano facimus inju­riam, cum ejus quaslibet literas à ca­nonicâ divin trum Scripturarum au­thoritate distinguimus. Neque enim sine causà tam saluber vigilantiae ca­non Ecclesiasticus constitutus est, adquem certi Prophetarum & Aposto­lorum libri pertineant, quos omninò­judicare non audeamus, & secundum quos de caeteris literis vel fidelium, vel in fidelium liberè judicemus. Aug. contra Crescon. lib. 2. cap. 31. Wee doe Cyprian no wrong (saith Austine) when wee distinguish any of his writings from the canonicall authority of the Divine Scriptures. For not without cause is such a wholesome Ecclesiasticall rule of vi­gilancy constituted, to which certaine Bookes of the Prophets and the Apostles belong, which we may not at all dare to judge, and accord­ing to which wee may freely judge of other writings, whether they bee of Beleevers, [Page 144] or of unbelievers. And againe, I am not Ego Epistolae hujus authoritate non teneor, quia literas Cypriani non ut Canonicas habeo, sed eas ex Canoni­cis considero, & quod in eis divina­rum Scripturarum authoritati congruit, cum laude ejus accipio, quod autem non congruit, cum pace ejus respuo. Aug. ibid. bound (saith hee) by the authority of this E­pistle (viz. of Cyprian) because I doe not account Cyprians writings as Canonicall, but I examine them by those that are Canonicall, and that which is in them agreeable to the au­thority of the Divine Scriptures, I receive with his praise, and what is not agreeable, I refuse with his leave. For the Fathers here cited by the Marquesse, Ubi igitur charismata Domini po­sita sunt, ibi discere oportet verita­tem, apud quos est ea, quae est ab Apostolis, Ecclesiae successio, & id, quod est sanum, irreprobabile sermo­nis constat. Hi enim & eam, quae est in unum Deum, qui omnia fecit, fidem nostram custodiunt, & eam, quae est in filium Dei, dilectionem adaugent, qui tantas dispositiones propter nos fecit, & Scripturas sine pe­riculo nobis exponunt, neque Deum blasphemantes, neque Patriarchas exhonorantes, neque prophetas con­temnentes. Ircn. lib. 4. cap. 45. Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 45. hath nothing that may seeme to make that way except this, Where (saith hee) the gifts of the Lord are placed, there wee ought to learne truth, of those with whom is that succession of the Church, which is from the Apostles, and that sound speech not to be reproved. For they keepe that faith of ours, which is in one God, that made all things, and increase that love, which is to­wards the Son of God, who did such great things for us, and they without danger ex­pound unto us the Scriptures, neither blas­pheming God, nor dishonoring the Patriarcks, nor contemning the Prophets. Here Irenaeus speakes of some, of whom truth was to be learnt, who kept the faith, and did expound the Scriptures without danger: but hee doth not say, that they had any unwritten rule of faith, or any such rule, whereby to expound the Scriptures. No; for so Irenaeus should not agree with himselfe, who saith (as His Majesty observed) that the e­vidences, Ostensiones, quae sunt in Scripturis, non possunt ostendi nisi ex ipsis Scripturis. Iren. lib. 3. cap. 12. which are in the Scriptures, cannot be manifested but by the Scriptures themselves. Adde hereunto another saying of the Father very pertinent to the purpose. We have not known (saith hee) the dspensation of our salvation but by Non per alios dispositionem salutis no­strae, quàm per eos, per quos Evange­lium pervenit ad nos; quod quidem praeconiaverunt, posteà verò per Dei voluntatem in Scripturis nobis tradi­derunt, fundamentum & columnam fidei nostrae futurum. Ien. lib. 3. cap. 1. those, by whom the Gospell came unto us: which Gospell they preached, aad afterward by the Will of God delivered unto us in the Scriptures, as that which should be for the foundation and [Page 145] pillar of our Faith. So much for Irenaeus; The Marquesse cites the words of Tertullian, and so of Vincentius: Tertul­lians words (as he cites them) are these, wee doe not admit our adversaries to dispute out of Scripture, till they can shew, who their ancestors were, and from whom they received the Scriptures. For the ordinary course of Doctrine requires, that the first question should be, from whom, and by whom, and to whom the forme of Christi­an Religion was delivered, otherwise prescribing against him as a stranger. These words I cannot finde, nor any like unto them in the place cited, viz. de Praescrip. cap. 11. elsewhere indeed in that booke I finde words like unto these, though not the same. However if wee should be tried by these words, I see not how they will conclude against us. For though the Heretickes, with whom Tertullian had to doe, might be convinced otherwise then by Scripture, it followes not, that therefore this is not the ordinary way whereby to convince Hereticks. Thus Christ con­vinced the Sadduces that denied the Resurrection, Mat. 22. 29. &c. thus Apollos convinced the Jewes, who denied Jesus to be the Christ: Acts 18. 28. And thus the Apostles convinced those that urged Circumcision, and the observing of the Jewish Law, Acts 15. 15. &c. And thus both other Fathers, and even Ter­tullian himselfe doth usually dispute against Heretickes, and con­fute them by the Scriptures.

But (saith the Marquesse) If a Heathen should come by the Bible, as the Eunuch came by the prophecy of Esay, and have no Philip to interpret it unto him, hee would find out a Religion rather according to his own fancy, then Divine verity. Be it so, yet here is nothing to prove, that this Philip, that is to interpret the Bible, is not to fetch his interpretation from the Bible it selfe, but from some unwritten tradition. I come to Vincenti­us Lirinensis, whose words produced by the Marquesse, run thus, It is very needfull in regard of so many errors proceeding from mis­interpretations of Scriptures, that the line of propheticall and Apo­stolicall exposition should be directed according to the rule of the Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense. But I see not, that in the opinion of Vincentius, the rule of the Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense is any other then the Scripture. He insists much (I am sure) upon those words of the Apostle, If wee, or an Angell [Page 146] from heaven preach any other Gospell unto you, then that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1. 8. Now, as was noted before out of Irenaeus, the Gospell, which the Apostles preached, they delivered unto us in the Scriptures, and that is the foundation and pillar of our Faith.

Indeed, all that Vincentius in his Commonitory against Here­sies, aimes at, is this, That the Faith once delivered to the Saints (as Saint Iude speaks) might be preserved. To which end he descants Jude, ver. 3. well upon those words of the Apostle: O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, 1 Tim. 6. 20. That which is committed to thee, not that which is Id quod tibi creditum est, non quod à te inventum; quod accepisti, non quod excogitasti; rem non ingenii, sed doctrinae; non usurpationis privatae, sed publicae traditionis: rem ad te perductam, non à te prolatam; in quâ non autor debes esse, sed custos; non institutor, sed sectator; non ducens, sed sequens. Vincent. loc. citat. invented by thee; that which thou hast received, not that which thou hast devised; a matter nōt of wit, but of doctrine; not of private usurpation, but of publick tradition; a thing brought unto thee, not brought forth by thee, in which thou art not to be an author, but a keeper; not an ordainer, but an observer; not a leader, but a follower. That this Depositum, or thing committed to Timothy, was any unwritten Tradition, and not the doctrine of the Go­spell contained in the Scripture; neither doth Vincentius say, neither can it be proved. Bellarmine himself is forced to confesse, That all things necessary Dico illa omnia scripta esse ab Apo­stolis, quae sunt omnibus necessa­ria, &c. Bellarm. de Verbo non scripto lib. 4. c. 11. for all, are written by the Apostles: Yea, and that those things which have the testimony of Tradition (he means unwritten tradition) re­ceived Loquitur Origenes de obscurissim is quaestionibus, quales ut plurimùm non sunt illae, quae testimonium habent traditionis in totâ Ecclesiâ receptae. Bellar. Ibid. in the whole Church, are not usually such as concern most obscure questions. And how then should such Tradition be the Rule of Faith, and of Expounding the Scriptures? The Marquesse saith, that in matters of Faith Christ bids us to observe, and doe whatsoever they bid us, who sit in Moses Seat, Pag. 60, & 61, Mat. 23. 2, 3. whence he infers, Therefore surely there is something more to be observed then onely Scripture: Will you not as well be­lieve what you hear Christ say, as what you hear his Ministers write? You hear Christ when you hear them, as well as you read Christ when you read his Word. He that heareth you heareth me, Luk. 10. 16.

Thus the Marquesse, but it was from our Saviours meaning, [Page 147] that the people should doe simply, and absolutely, whatsoever the Scribes and Pharisees, who sate in Moses Seat, should enjoyn. Our Saviour meant nothing lesse, for expresly he bade beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, Mat. 16. 6. that is, of the Doctrine of the Pharisees, v. 12. Our Saviours meaning therefore was only this, that whiles the Scribes and Pharisees sitting in Moses Seat, did deliver the Law and Doctrine of Moses, people should hear and obey, though otherwise they were most corrupt both in life & Doctrine.

The Jesuite Maldonate doth thus expound the place, as in­deed it cannot with any probability be otherwise expounded. When Christ (saith he) bids observe, and doe Cum jubet servare, & facere, quae Scri­bae & Pharisaei, dum in Cathedrâ Mosis sedent, dicunt, non de ipsorū, sed de Le­gis, ac Mosis doctrinâ loquitur. Perinde enim est, acsi dicat, Omnia, quae Lex, & Mosesvobis dixerint, Scribis & Pharisae­is recitantibus, servate & facite; secun­dū autē opera, &c. Mald. ad Mat. 23. 23. what the Scribes and Pharisees say, whiles they sit in Moses seat, he speaks not of their Doctrine, but of the Doctrine of the Law, and of Moses. For it is as if he should say, All things, that the Law, and Moses shall say unto you, the Scribes and Pharisees rehearsing it, observe, and do; but after their workes doe not. It's true, Christ doth tells us, that they that hear his Ministers, hear him, but that is, when they speak as his Ministers, when they speak his Word, not their owne. As God said to the Prophet Ezekiel, Thou shalt speak my Words unto them, Ezek. 2. 7. And to the Prophet Ieremy, Speak unto them all that I command thee, Ier. 1. 17. And so Christ to his A­postles, Teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you, Mat. 28. 20. So then, we hear Christ indeed, when we hear his Word spoken by his Ministers, as well as we read Christ, when we read his Word written in the Scriptures. But that which we hear, must be tried by that which we read; that which is spoken by Ministers, by that which is written in the Scriptures, as hath been shewed before by Isai. 8. 20. Ioh. 5. 39. Act. 17. 11.

We say (saith the Marquesse) the Scriptures are not easie to be Pag. 61. understood, you say they are: we have Scripture for it, as is before manifested at large. The Fathers say as much, &c.

We doe not say that the Scriptures throughout in every part Answ. of them are easie to be understood, but that they are so in things necessary unto Salvation. This hath been shewed before by the testimony both of the Scripture it self, and of Austine, as like­wise that the places of Scripture objected by the Marquesse, doe [Page 148] make nothing against the easinesse of the Scripture, either at all, or at least in this sense. Neither are the Fathers, here alledged by the Marquesse, against it.

Irenaeus (whose words the Marquesse produceth not, but Bel­larmine Bell. de Verbi Dei Interpret. l. 3. c. 1. doth) saith onely that of those things which are contai­ned in the Scriptures, quaedam, some are such that we must com­mend unto God, meaning that we cannot perfectly know them. Iren. l. 2. c. 47. This is nothing repugnant to what we say. Nor that which is said by Origen (whom the Marquesse onely citeth at large, con­tra Origen. l. 7. con­tra Cels. apud Bell. ubi supra. Cels. but I find both the book and the words in Bellarmine) viz. that the Scripture is Multis locis obscura, in many places obscure; of which, what Protestant (I marvell) doth make any question? So when Ambrose, Epist. 44. calleth the Scripture a Sea, and a depth of propheticall Riddles: And Hierom, Praefat. comment. in Ephes. saith, that he took great pains to understand the Scripture: And Austine, Epist. 119. cap. 21. saith, that the things of Holy Scripture, which he knew not, were more than those he knew: And Dionysius, B. of Corinth, (cited by Eusebius, Hist. l. 7. c. 20) saith, that the matter of the Scriptures was farre more profound then his Wit could reach; what is all this against Protestants, who onely hold that the Scriptures, in things that concern Faith, and Manners, are not so obscure, but that they ought to be read, or heard by all, and that all may profit by the reading or hearing of them? And in this sense Bellarmine yeildeth that Chrysostome in Chrysostomus ad excutiendum tor­porem multorū, qui possent, si vellent, magno cum fructu Scripturas legere, illis amplificationibus uti solet. Bell. de verbi Dei Interpret. l 3. c. 2. diverse places doth affirme the Scriptures to be plain and easie, viz. to shake off the lazi­nesse of many, who might, if they would, read the Scriptures with much benefit. And besides, we hold, that where the Scripture is obscure, the inter­pretation of it is to be fetched from the Scripture it self, against which these Fathers say nothing, but both diverse of these, and also diverse others (as hath been shewed) doe plainly avouch it. The Marquesse proceeds, saying, We say that this Church can­not Pag. 61. Erre, you say it can: we have Scripture for what we say, such Scripture that will tell you that fools cannot erre therein, Esay 35. 8. Such Scripture that will tell you, If you neglect to hear it, you shall be a heathen, and a publican, Mat. 18. 17. Such Scripture as will tell [Page 149] you, that this Church shall be unto Christ a glorious Church, that shall be without spot or wrinkle, Ephes. 5. 27. Such a Church as shall be enlivened for ever with his Spirit, Esay 59. 21. The Fathers af­firme the same, &c.

Concerning the Churches erring, or not erring, we must di­stinguish Answ. of the Church, and of Errour. The Church is either vi­sible, which consisteth both of good and bad, which therefore is compared to a Net, &c. Mat. 13. 47. &c. or invisible, which con­sisteth onely of the Elect, and true Beleevers, The Lord knoweth who are his, 2 Tim. 2. 19. Men may know who professe themselves to be his, but who are indeed, only God knoweth. All the Elect, they are the Church, Electi omnes, ipsi Ecclesia sunt. Bern. in Cant. Serm. 78. saith Bernard. And to the same effect Au­stine, The Church consisteth of those that are In bonis est ecclesia, in his, qui aedifi­cant super petram, non in his, qui aedi­ficant super arenam. Aug. de Unit. Eccles. good, who build upon the Rock, not of those that build upon the Sand. As for Errour, it is ei­ther damnable, or not damnable. Now it is granted, that the invisible Church cannot erre damnably. For this is that Church which Christ speaketh of, and saith, That the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it, Mat. 16. 18. But for the Church Visible, whether our Adversaries mean the Church Vir­tuall, whereby they understand the Pope, or the Church Repre­sentative, that is, a Generall Councell, we hold that it may Erre, and that damnably. The Scriptures alledged are not against this assertion. That Esai. 35. 8. speaks not of the Church, but of a Way, called there, The Way of Holinesse; so sure and safe, that Wayfaring men, though fooles, shall not Erre therein. That Mat. 18. 17. onely shewes that a member of the Church, being justly admonished by the Church, ought to submit to the Admo­nition of it, or else is to be accounted as a Publican or Heathen. But this is farre from proving the Churches infallibility. That Ephes. 5. 27. shewes, not what the Church is here in this world, but what it shall be hereafter in the world to come; Non est ita intelligendum quasi Ecclesia ita jam sit, sed quia praepara­tur ut sit. Aug. in Retractat. It is not so to be understood (saith Austine) as if the Church were now so, but that it is prepared that it may be so. And accordingly In regno coe­lorum Ecclesia plenè & perfectè erit non habens maculam, aut rugam, &c. Cum enim non tantùm dixit, ut exhiberet tibi ecclesiam non habentem maculam aut rugam, sed addidit, gloriosam, satis signi­ficavit, quando erit sine maculâ & rugâ. Beda ad loc. Bede, In the [Page 150] Kingdome of Heaven the Church shall be fully and perfectly without spot or wrinkle, &c. For when as the Apostle did not only say that he might present it to himself, a Church not having spot or wrinkle, but also added Glorious; he sufficiently signified when it shall be without Spot or Wrinkle. That Esai. 59. 21. sheweth that God will give both his Word and his Spirit for ever unto his Church, but it speaks of the invisible Church, the Elect and Godly, Such as turn from Transgression, ver. 20. not of any outward visible Church, which hath no such priviledge, but that it may Erre, and so Erre as to cease to be a Church, as the example of the Churches of Asia, mentioned Revel. 2. & 3. doth make manifest.

For the Fathers, the first, whom the Marquesse citeth is Austine, whom (as before is shewed) holdeth Generall Councells lyable to Errour, and such, as that the former may be corrected by the latter. That therefore which he saith, That place is objected by Bellarmine to prove that the Church can­not Erre. Contra Crescon. l. 1. c. 33. (so, I presume it should be, not cap. 3. as it is in the Marquesse his Paper) viz. That we hold the truth of the Scriptures, when we doe that, which hath pleased the whole Church, which the authority of the same Scriptures doth commend: That (I say) must be understood, so farre forth as the Scriptures doe commend the Church, we do well, and conformably to the Scriptures, in conforming to it. But I see not how Austine himself could hold the Church to be so commended in the Scriptures, as that we must simply and ab­solutely doe what the Church pleaseth. For then, what need of having one Generall Councell to be corrected and amended by another? Our Adversaries themselves, when they please, make no scruple of waving and altering that which was gene­rally held and practiced in the Church. I let passe (saith Maldonate) the opinion of Missam facio Augustini & Innocen­tii sententiam, quae 600. circiter an­nos viguit in Ecclesiâ, Eucharistiam etiam infantibus esse necessariam. Res jam ab Ecclasiâ, & multorum secu­lorum usu, & decreto concilii Triden­tini explicata est, non solùm non ne­cessariam illis esse, sed ne decere qui­dem dari. Maldou. ad Joh. 6. 53. Austine, and of Innocentius, which about 600. yeares did prevaile in the Church that the Eu­charist is necessary even for Infants. The thing is now declared by the Church, both by the Custome of many Ages, and also by the decree of the Councell of Trent, that it is not onely not necessary for them, but also that it is not meet to be given unto them. Cyprian, Epist. 55. (who is the next that the Marquesse citeth) speaketh indeed of the Authority of the [Page 151] Church, but how? so as to censure and excommunicate those that deserve it, about that hee writes unto Cornelius Bishop of Rome. But this is much short of proving the Church to be in­fallible, and that it cannot erre.

Cyprian was far from ascribing so much to the Church, when (as 'tis well known) contrary to what the Bishop of Rome, and the Church generally did hold, he held the re-baptizing of such as had been baptized by Heretikes. Though Cyprian in this did erre, yet his very erring in this, shewes that hee thought the Church, the generality of the visible Church, not onely subject to error, but indeed to have erred.

The last Father, whom the Marquesse here mentioneth (for though hee say cum multis aliis, yet hee nameth no more) is Non oportet adhuc quaerere aqud alios veritatem, quam facile est ab Ecclesiâ sumere, cum Apostoli quasi in depositorium dives, plenissimè in eâ contulerint omnia, quae sint veritatis, uti omnis quicunque velit, sumat ex eâ potum vitae. Iren. lib. 3. cap. 4. Irenaeus l. 3. c. 4. where he saith, It is not meet to seeke the truth among others, which it is easie to take of the Church, seeing the Apostles did lay in it, as in a rich depository, all things that concerne truth, that every one that will, may out of it receive the drinke of life.

This indeed is gloriously spoken of the Church, and not Hyperbolically neither; yet doth it not amount to this, that the Church cannot erre. The holy Scriptures, wherein all saving truth is contained, are committed to the Church, and the Doctine of salvation is ordinarily held forth in, and by the Church; but hence it doth not follow, that the Church, that is, such as beare sway in it, is not subject to error. All that Ire­naeus saith of the Church is no more, if so much as that of the Apostle, 1 Tim. 3. 15. that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth; which place it may seeme strange that the Marquesse pre­termitteth. Bellarmine disputing this point, brings in those words in the very first place, to prove that the Church cannot Bell. de Eccles. mili. 4. li. 3. cap. 4. erre. And whereas Calvin answers, that the Church is so styled by the Apostle, because in it the Scriptures are preserved and preached, he replies, that thus the Church should rather be compared to a Chest, then to a Pillar. But this is a frivolous ob­jection; for the Church doth not keepe the truth close and se­cret, as a thing is kept in a chest; but so as to professe and pub­lish [Page 152] it, and therefore is compared to a Pillar, to which a thing is fastned, and so hangeth, that all may see it. But that those words of the Apostle do not infer an infallibility of the Church, and an exemption from errour, is cleare by this, that he speakes of a particular visible Church, namely the Church of Ephesus: now that a particular visible Church may erre, our Adversaries will not deny, and that very Church of Ephesus there spoken of doth sufficiently demonstrate. The Apostle therefore in those words doth rather shew the duty of the Church then the dig­nity of it; rather what it should be, then what it alwayes is. As when it is said Mal. 2. 7. Labia sacerdotis custodient scientiam, The Priests lips shall keep knowledge, that is (as our translations rightly render it) should keepe. So the Jesuite Ribera doth expound Custodient, id est, custodire debent. Rib. ad Mal. 2. it, shall keepe, that is (saith he) ought to keep.

The Marquesse here comes againe to the visibility of the Church, and some other particulars before handled. That the Church is alwayes visible, he proves by Mat. 5. 14, 15. The light of the World; a City upon a Hill cannot be hid. But I have shew­ed before these words, Yee are the light of the world, to be meant of the Apostles, who (as their own Iansenius expounds it) were a light unto the World by their preaching. So also [...]. Theophyl. ad. loc. Theophylact, They did not enlighten (saith hee) one Nation, but the whole world. And the words following, A City set upon a Hill cannot be hid, he shewes to have been spoken by way of instruction. Christ (saith [...]. Theophyl. ibid. hee) doth instruct them to be carefull and accurate in the ordering of their life, as being to be seene of all. As if hee should say, Doe not thinke, that you shall lie hid in a corner; no, you shall be conspicuous. And therefore see that yee live unblameably, that so you may not give offence to others. This exposition sutes well with the admonition given vers. 16. Let your light so shine forth before men, that they seeing your good workes may glorifie your Father which is in Heaven.

The Marquesse here further addes, 2 Cor. 4. 3. & Isai. 22. I suppose it should be, Isai. 2. 2. Now the former of these two [Page 155] places is not to the purpose, viz. to prove a perpetuall visibi­lity of the Church. For how can that be inferred from those words of the Apostle, If our Gospell be hid, it is hid to them that are lost? The Apostle having said vers. 2. by manifestation of the truth commending our selves to every mans conscience in the sight of God, because (as [...]. Oecumen. ad. 2. Cor. 4. 3. Oecumenius notes) it might be objected, that the truth was not made manifest unto all, for that all did not believe, to prevent this Objection the Apostle addes, If our Gospell be hid, &c. As if hee should say, It is not our fault, as if the Gospell were not plainly enough preached by us, but it is their own fault, who perish through their owne blindnesse. That Isai. 2. 2. is more to the purpose, though not enough neither. It is said that in the last dayes the Mountaine of the Lords House shall be established in the top of the Mountaines, and shall be exalted above the Hills, and all Nations shall flow unto it. The Prophet there sheweth, (by metaphoricall expressions taken from Mount Sion, where the Temple stood) that by the preaching of the Gospell, the Church should be increased and exalted farre above what it was before. This prophesie was fulfilled by the bringing in of the Gentiles: but the Prophet doth not say, that in the times of the Gospell the Church should alwayes be so conspicuous and visible. Neither doe the Fathers here alledged by the Marquesse, viz. Origen, Chrysostome, Austine and Cyprian, speake of the perpetuall condition of the Church, but onely as it was in their time. I have proved before by Scriptures, and Fathers, and even by the acknowledgement of our Adversaries, that the Church is not perpetually visible.

After the Visibility of the Church, the Marquesse speaketh of Page 62. the Universality of it, saying that the universality of the Church is perpetuall, and that the Church of Rome is such a Church. For proofe hereof hee citeth, Psal. 2. 8. Rom. 1. 8. Now the former place shewes that Christ should have the heathen for his inhe­ritance, and the ends of the Earth for his possession; and con­sequently that the Church should not be confined (as it was [Page 154] in the time of the Law) to one Country, but should be exten­ded farre and wide throughout the World. This also hath been fulfilled, and yet shall be: but hence it doth not follow, that the Church is alwayes so universally extended throughout the World, but that sometimes errors and heresies doe so prevaile and overspread all, that the truth in comparison can finde no roome. See before page 2. The other place, viz. Rom. 1. 8. testi­fies indeed that the Church of Rome was a true Church, and fa­mous throughout the World: but neither doth the Apostle there say, neither (so farre as I see) can it in any congruity be said, that the Church of Rome either is, or was a Church univer­sally spread thorough the World. A part, and an eminent part of the Church so universall it might be, but the whole universall Church it could not be. The Apostle there saith no more of the Romanes, then he doth of the Thessalonians, 1 Thess. 1. 8. yet (I presume) our Adversaries will not therefore admit ei­ther the Church of Thessalonica to be universall, or ever since the Apostles time to have continued sound and Orthodox. And why then will they thinke to inforce so much from the Apostles words for the Church of Rome? To these two places of Scrip­ture the Marquesse addeth the testimonies of three Fathers, viz. Cyprian, Austine, and Hierome. But for the first of these, his words are pitifully mistaken. They are these, Dum apud vos Cyprian. ad Cornel. Epist. 57. una animus, & unae vox est, Ecclesia omnis Romana confessa est; the Marquesse renders it thus, whilst with you there is one minde, and one voyce, the whole Church is confessed to be the Ro­man Church: whereas any that can understand Latine, and wil minde the words, may see that they are to be rendred thus, whilest with you there is one minde, and one voyce, the whole Roman Church hath confessed. Cyprian here wrote to Cornelius Bishop of Rome, who together with others had before heathen per­secutors confessed the faith. For this Cyprian commends them, and saith that they so confessing as they did, and all being of one minde, and one voyce, the whole Roman Church did confesse. This makes indeed for the soundnesse of the Roman Church, as it was in Cyprians time, but for the universality of it, as if it were the universall Church, or a Church universally diffused, it makes nothing. For Austines words de unit. Eccles. cap. 4. Who [Page 155] so doth not communicate with the whole corps of Christendome, certaine it is, that they are not in the holy Catholick Church, I see not what they are to the purpose. They cannot be so under­stood, as that all must necessarily communicate with all that are of the corps of Christendome, that is, that professe them­selves Christians. For so all should be tied to communion with grosse and notorious Heretikes. They must then be understood of communicating with all Christians so farre forth as they are indeed Christians: but what is this to prove either the perpe­tuall universality of the Church, or that the Church of Rome is such a Church? Austine wrote against the Donatists, who confined the Church to Affrike, excluding all the World be­sides from being of the Church. This is nothing against us, who doe not confine the Church to any place whatsoever.

The last Father here cited is Hierom, who (as the Marquesse telleth us) saith, That it is all one to say the Roman Faith, and the Ca­tholike Faith. But the Marquesses quotation of the place where this is to be found in Hierome, is too laxe, viz. in Apol. ad Ruffin. it should be adversus Ruffin. But there are two Apologies which Hierome wrote against Ruffin, and one of them divided into se­verall Bookes; it was meet therefore that the place should have been cited more particularly then it is. Yet I think I have met with the place which the Marquesse meaneth, which yet doth not speake so much as the Marquesse supposeth. Nihil, inquit, in illis, quod à fide nostrâ discrepet, Latinus Lector in­veniet. Fidem suam quam vocat? eàmne, quâ Romana pollet Ecclesia? an illam, quae in Origenis volumini­bus continetur? Si Romanam respon­derit, ergò Catholici sumus, qui nihil de Origenis errore transtulimus: sin autem Origenis blasphemia fides illius est, dum mihi inconstantiae crimen impingit, se haereticum probat. Hieron. apol. 1. advers. Ruffin. lib. 1. cap. 1. Ruffinus translating Origens workes (which had many grosse errors in them) into La­tine, to justifie himselfe said, the Latine Reader shall finde nothing, that differs from our faith.

Hereupon Hierome asked, what faith he meant by our faith? whether that faith, which did flourish in the Church of Rome, or that, which was contained in the workes of Origen? If (saith hee) he shall answer, The Roman faith then are we Catholickes, who have translated nothing of Origens error: but if Origens blasphemy be his faith, whilest he chargeth me with inconstancy he proves him­selfe an Heretick. Here indeed Hierome implieth the Roman [Page 158] faith, and the Catholick faith, to have been then when he wrote one and the same, yet not simply, but so farre forth as did con­cerne the errors of Origen. But how can any justly hence con­clude, that in Hieromes Dialect it's all one to say the Roman faith, and the Catholick faith? as if in Hieromes opinion the Roman faith, and the Catholick faith, in all points, and at all times must needs be the same.

That Hierome did not overvalue the Church of Rome is evi­dent. For when the custome of that Church was objected against something that hee Si authoritas quaeritur, orbis major est urbe.—Quidmihi profers unius consuetudinem? Hieron. ad Euagr. held, hee rejected the authority of it with some disdaine, saying, If wee seek authority, the World is greater then the City. And againe, what doe you bring­ing the custome of one City?

From Universality, the Marquesse passeth to Unity, saying that Page 62. the unity of the Church is necessary in all points of faith, and proving it first by Scriptures, as Ephes. 4. 5. Acts 4. 35. and 1 Cor. 1. 10. then by fathers, as Austine contra Par. l. 3. c. 5. Cypr. de unit. Eccles. and Hilar. ad Constant. Now this unity of the Church hath been spoken of before, and it hath beene shewed how far it is requisite, as also how little cause they of the Church of Rome have either to applaud themselves for it, or to up­braide the Reformed Churches for want of it. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptisme, faith the Apostle, Eph. 4. 5. well, sup­pose they of the Roman-church have one faith, yet except they have the one faith, this, of which the Apostle speaketh, what are they the better? But indeed neither is their faith so one, as they pretend, there being many great and weighty points, where­in they differ one from another. See Gerard loc. com. de Eccles. Sect. 240 &c.

On the other side (as I have said before) if the confessions of the reformed churches be look't upon rather then particular mens opinions, or perhaps expressions, there will no great dif­ference in points of faith be found amongst them. Acts 4. 35. here cited by the Marquesse, is not to the purpose, as not speak­king of unity of faith, but rather of affection, 1 Cor. 1. 10. the Apostle exhorts them to unity, and that there might be no divisions among them; but because there was not such unity, as [Page 159] was meet, but there were divisions among them, he doth not therefore say, that they were no true Church: In a word, both the Scriptures and the Fathers are for the unity of the Church in points of Faith, and so are we; that the severall Articles of Pro­testant Churches deny this Unity, the Marquesse affirmeth, but doth not prove it.

We hold (faith the Marquesse) that every Minister of the Church, Pag. 62, & 63. especially the supreme Minister, or Head thereof, should be in a ca­pacity of fungifying his Office in Preaching the Gospell, Administring the Sacrament, Baptizing, Marrying, and not otherwise. This we have Scripture for, Heb. No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as Aaron was. This you deny; and not onely so, but you so deny it, as that your Church hath maintained and practiced it a long time, for a woman to be head, or supreme Mo­deratrix in the Church; when you know that according to the Word of God (in this respect) a woman is not onely forbidden to be the head of the man, but to have a tongue in her head, 1 Tim. 2. 11. 1 Cor. 14. 34. Yet so hath this been denyed by you, that many have beene hang'd, drawn and quarter'd for not acknowledging it. The Fathers are of our opinion, &c.

All this is but to strike at the Title which hath beene given to Answ. our Kings and Queens, viz. Supreme Heads, or Governours, and Governesses of the Church within their Dominions. We know our Adversaries have much stomack'd, and opposed this Title, but we know no just cause that they have had for it. We never made Kings or Queens Ministers of the Church, so as to dispense the Word, and Sacraments, only we have attributed unto them this Power, to look to, and have a care of the Church, that the Word be Preached, and the Sacraments Administred by fit persons, and in a right manner. This is no more then belongs unto Kings and Queens, as both Scriptures and Fathers doe informe us. We see in the Scriptures, that the good Kings of Iudah, as Asia, Ie­hoshaphat, Hezekiah and Iosiah, (not to speak of David and Solo­mon, who were Prophets as well as Kings, and so may be ex­cepted against as extraordinary persons) did put forth their power in ordering the Affaires of the Church, as well as of the Civill State. Asa put down Idolatry, and caused the People to en­ter into Covenant to serve the Lord, 2 Chron. 15. Iehoshaphat took [Page 158] away the High Places, and the Groves, and made the Priests and Levites to goe and teach the People, 2 Chron. 17. Hezekiah refor­med what had been amisse in matter of Gods Worship, caused the Priests and Levites to do their Duty, and the Passeover to be solemnly kept, 2 Chron. 29. & 30, & 31. So Iosiah also destroyed Idolatry, repaired the Temple, and kept a most solemne Passe­over, causing both Priests and People to performe their Duty.

Austine acknowledgeth this power to be­long unto Kings. In this (saith he) Kings, In hoc reges, sicut eis divinitus praeci­pitur, Deo serviunt, in quantum reges sunt, si in suo regno, bona jubeant, mala prohibeant, non solùm quae per­tinent ad humanam societatem, verum­etiam quae ad divinam religionem. Aug. contra Crescon. lib. 3. cap. 51. as they are commanded of God, doe serve God as Kings, if in their Kingdome they com­mand good things, and forbid evill things, not only which belong unto humane Society, but also which concerne Divine Religion. And the same Father speaking of Christian Princes, makes their happiness to lie in this, That they Si suam potestatem ad Dei cultum maximè dilatandum, majestati ejus fa­mulam faciunt. Aug. de Civil. Deil. 5. c. 24. make their power serviceable to Gods majesty, in enlarging his worship, as much as they are able.

This power also Christian Princes have exercised, and have not been taxed for it, as Constantine, Theodosius, &c. See Mason de Minist. Anglic. lib. 3. cap. 4. The exercising therefore of this power which we ascribe to Kings and Queenes, is no taking that Ho­nour to themselves, which is spoken of Heb. 5. 4. Neither is it any teaching, or speaking in the Church, which the Apostle will not allow unto a woman, 1 Tim. 2. 11, 12. and 1 Cor. 14. 34. Nei­ther is this crosse to what the Fathers, whom the Marquesse ci­teth, say, which amounts to this, that Ministers are to doe those things which belong unto Ministers, and that in those things which concern their Ministery, all, even Kings and Queens, are subject unto them. All this is nothing against Kings and Queens having a power over Ministers, so as to see them perform the Offices which belong unto them. And it may seeme strange that the Marquesse should now so lately with so much eagernesse inveigh against that Title, and Power, given to that Queen of happy memory, Q. Elizabeth, as most unmeet for her, when as See Doctor Rainolds his Conference with Hart in the end. Hart, a Papist, stiffe enough, living in the Queens time, by his Con­ference with Doctor Rainolds, and Doctor Nowels Book against Dorman, was so convinced, that he confessed himself satisfied in [Page 159] this point, and acknowledged that we ascribe no more unto Princes, then Austine doth in the words before cited.

We say, that Christ gave commission to his Disciples to forgive Pag. 63. Sinnes; you deny it, and say, that God onely can forgive sins, we have Scripture for it, Joh. 20. 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted: and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained. And Joh. 20. 21. As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And how was that? viz. with so great power as to forgive sins, Mat. 9. 3. 8. where note, that S. Matthew doth not set downe, how that the people glorified God the Father, who had given so great power unto God the Son; but that he had given so great power unto men, loc. cit. The Fathers are of this opinion, &c.

It is strange that the Marquesse should say, that we deny that Answ. Christ gave Commission to his Disciples to forgive Sinnes: We confesse that the Scripture is clear for it, that he did give them such a Commission; onely the question is, how the Commission is to be understood, and what power it is that the Disciples had, and so other Ministers have to forgive Sinnes? It's true, we hold that God only can forgive sins, and yet withall, that men may for­give sins. These are not contradictory, the one to the other, because (as all Logitians know) except the propositions be understood of one and the same thing, in one and the same respect; there is no contradiction. Now when we say, that onely God can forgive sins, it is meant in one respect; and when we say, that men may forgive sinnes, it is meant in another respect. As the sin is against God, so properly and authoritatively God alone can forgive it. And this God doth challenge unto himself as his prerogative, I, even I am he, that blotteth out thy transgressions, &c. Isai. 43. 25. And therefore the Scribes were right in this, Who can forgive sins, but God onely? Mar. 2. 7. They were right in the Doctrine, though wrong in the Application: their position was good, that God only can forgive Sins; but their supposition was naught, that Christ was but a meer Man, and had not power to forgive Sins, as he did. This (saith Movet Scri­bas remissū ab homine pecca­tum: hominē enim tantum in Jesu Christo contuebantur.—Verum enim, nemo potest dimittere peccata, nisi solus Deus: Ergo qui remittit Deus est, quia nemo remittit nisi Deus. Hilar. in Mat. Can. 8. Hilary) troubles the Scribes, that a man doth forgive sin; for they took Christ for a meer Man.—It is true none can forgive sinne but God only: and therefore he that forgiveth, is [Page 162] God, because none forgiveth but God. The same also is clearly and fully acknowledged by Gregory. whom amongst other Fa­thers the Marquesse alledgeth against us. He writing upon the second Penitentiall Tu qui solus parcis, qui solus peccata dimittis. Quis enim potest peccata di­mittere, nisi solus Deus? Greg. in 2 poenitent. Psal. Psalme, that is, the 32. Psalme, upon those words, Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin, he saith thus, Thou, who alone sparest, who alone doest forgive sinnes. For who can forgive sinnes, but God onely? And with these agreeth Irenaeus, whom also the Mar­quesse bringeth in as a witnesse on his side. He speaking of Christs forgiving of sinnes, saith, That thereby he did declare who he was: For if none Peccata igitur remittens, hominem qui­dem curavit, semetipsum autem mani­festè ostendit quis esset. Si enim ne­mo potest remittere peccata nisi solus Deus, remittebat autem haec Dominus, & curabat homines, manifestum est, quòd ipse erat Verbum Dei, filius ho­minis factus, &c. tanquam Deus mise­reatur nostri, & remittat nobis debita nostra, quae factori nostro debemus Deo. Iren. lib. 5. pag. 583. edict. in 80. can forgive sinnes but onely God, and the Lord (Christ) did forgive them, then it is manifest, that he was the Word of God, made the Son of Man, &c. and that as God he hath mercy on us, and doth forgive us our debts, which we owe unto God our Maker. Accordingly also Am­brose, (another of those Fathers, whom the Marquesse maketh to be of their opinion) Whereas (saith he) Iewes say that onely God can forgive sinnes, they doe indeed confesse Quae cum Judaei asserunt à solo Deo posse concedi, Deū utique confitentur, suóque judicio perfidiam suam pro­dunt, &c. Itaque testimonium non de­est divinitati, fides deest saluti.—Magna itaque infidae plebis amentia, ut cum confessa fuerit solius Dei esse donare peccata, non credat peccata do­nanti. Ambros. in Luc. 5. Christ to be God, and by their judgement be­wray their perfidiousnesse, &c. They have a testimony for Christs Divinity, they have no Faith for their owne Salvation: Therefore great is the madnesse of the unbelieving people, that when as they confesse that it belongs onely unto God to forgive sinnes, yet they doe not be­leeve God, when he forgiveth sins. So by this Deus enim ex eo cognoscitur, &c. quia peccata condonat.—Peccata nemo condonat, nisi unus Deus; quia scrip­tum est, Quis potest peccata donare, nisi solus Dens? Ambros. de Spiritu Sancto lib. 3. cap. 19. Argument the same Father proves the Holy Ghost to be God, because he forgiveth Sins. For that none can forgive sinnes but onely God, as it is written, Who can forgive sinnes, but only God? Thus Ambrose cites that say­ing of the Scribes as a most undoubted truth. To this purpose likewise is Austine, (another of the Marquesses Fathers) cited by Lombard, lib. 4. dist. 18. lit. c. How then have Ministers power to forgive Sins? In that the word of reconciliation is [Page 161] committed unto them, 2 Cor. 5. 19. in that they are to preach remis­sion of sinnes in Christs name, Luk. 24. 47. Be it known unto you, that through this man (viz. Christ) is preached unto you forgivenesse of sinnes, said Paul, Act. 13. 38. Ambrose observes, that Christ first said to his Apostles, Receive ye the holy Ghost, and then, Whose sins ye remit, they are remit­ted. Nunc videamus utrum peccata donet Spiritus. Sed hinc dubitari non potest, cum ipse Dominus dixerit, Accipite Spiritum S. quorum remiseritis pec­cata, remissa erunt. Ecce quia per Spi­ritum S. peccata donantur. Homines autem in remissionem peccatorum mi­nisteriū suum exhibent, non jus alicu­jas potestatis exercent. Neque enim in suo, sed in Patris, & Filii, & Spiritus S. nomine peccata dimittuntur. Ambr. de Spir. S. lib. 3. cap. 19. Whence he gathers, that it is the holy Ghost that doth indeed forgive Sins. Men (saith he) doe onely afford their Ministery for the forgivenesse of sinnes, they doe not exercise the authority of any power. Neither doe they forgive sins in their Name, but in the Name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the Holy Ghost. Lombard, called the Master of the Sentences, and of School-divinity, di­sputing Ecce quàm varia à doctoribus tradun­tur super his, & in hâc tantâ varietate quid erit tenendum? Hoc sanè dicere ac sentire possumus, quòd solus Deus dimittit peccata, & retinet; & tamen ecclesiae contulit potestatem ligandi, & solvendi. Sed aliter ipse solvit, & ligat, aliter ecclesia. Ipse enim per se tantùm ita dimittit peccatum, quòd & animam mundat ab interiori maculâ, & à de­bito aeternae mortis solvit. Non autem hoc sacerdotibus concessit, quibus ta­men tribuit potestatem solvendi, & ligandi, i. ostendendi homines liga­tos vel solutos. Unde Dominus lepro­sum sanitati priùs per se restituit; de­inde ad sacerdotes misit, quorum judi­cio ostenderetur mundatus. Lombard. lib. 4. dist. 18. lit. d. & e. this Question, and shewing diverse Opinions about it, determines thus, That God only doth remit, and retain sins, and that yet God hath given power to the Church to bind and loose. But that God himself doth bind and loose one way, and the Church another way. That God by himself alone doth forgive sinne, so as to clense the soul from staine, and to free it from the guilt of eternall death. That he hath not given this power to Priests, to whom yet he hath given power to loose and bind, that is, to declare men to be loosed, or bound. Whence our Lord first by himselfe made the Leper sound, and then sent him to the Priests, that they might declare him to be clean. And hence he inferres, that a Minister of the Gospell hath such In solvendis ergò culpis, vel retinendis ita operatur sa­cerdos Evange­licus, sicut olim legalis in illis, qui contaminati erant Leprâ, quae peccatum signat.—Et in remittendis, vel in retinendis culpis id juris atque officii habent Ecclesiastici sacerdotes, quod olim habebant sub lege legales in curan dis leprosis. Hi ergò peccata dimittunt, vel retinent, dum dimissa à Deo, vel retenta judicant & ostendunt. Lomb. Ibid. power in remitting or retaining sins, as the Priest in the Law had in clensing a Leper. The Priest was said to make the Leper clean, or unclean, (so the words are in the Originall, Levit. 13.) when he [Page 162] did pronounce and declare him to be clean or unclean. So Mini­sters remit, or retain sinnes, when they pronounce and declare that sins are remitted, or retained of God. And in this Lombard followed Hierome, who (as his words cited by Lombard doe shew) by this very similitude of the Leviticall Priest, dealing with a Leper, illu­strates and sets forth the manner how a Minister doth now re­mit, or retain sins. Thus then I hope it may sufficiently appear, that in this point both Scriptures and Fathers are for us, and not against us, as the Marquesse would have it.

We hold, that we ought to confesse our sins unto our ghostly Father; Marq: pag. 63. & 64. this ye deny, saying, that ye ought not to confesse your sins but unto God alone. This we prove by Scripture, Mat. 3. 5, 6. Then went out Je­rusalem, and all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan, con­fessing their sinnes. This confession was no generall confession, but in particular, as appeares, Acts 19. 18, 19. And many that beleeved, came and confessed, and shewed their deeds. The Fathers af­firme the same, &c.

For Confession of Sinnes, Protestants doe not say, that they Answ. ought not to confesse to any but God onely, though they hold that ordinarily it sufficeth to confesse onely unto God, and that there is no necessity of confessing to any other; whereas they of the Church of Rome will have it necessary for every one man to confesse unto a Priest all his deadly sinnes, (and such indeed are all sinnes whatsoever without the mercy of God in Christ, Rom. 6. 23. Gal. 3. 10.) which by diligent examination he can find out, toge­ther with all the severall circumstances, whereby they are aggra­vated. Concil. Trident. Sess. 14 cap. 5. Et can. 6, 7, 8. Bell. de Poenit. l. 3. c. 20. Thus hath the Councell of Trent decreed it. And nothing will suffice to procure one, that is Baptized, remission of Sins, without this Confession either in Re, actually performed, or in Voto, in desire, as Bellarmine doth expound it. Who also stickes not to say, that in all Promissio de remittendis peccatis, iis qui confitentur Deo peccata sua, non videtur ulla extare in divinis literis. Bell. de poenit. lib. 3. cap. 4. Sect. At Selutio. the Scripture there seems not to be any pro­mise of for givenesse of sinnes, made to those that confesse their sins unto God. Which is a most impudent Assertion. For David having said, I acknowledged my sinne unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid: I said I will confesse my transgressions unto the Lord, and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sinne: he addes immediately, [Page 163] for this shall every one that is godly make his prayer unto thee, &c. Psal. 32. 5, 6. Besides Aquin. in suppl. quaest. 6. art. 2 ad. 3. Bonav. lib. 4. dist. 17. art. 1. qu. 2.. Aquinas and Bonaventure, two prime Schoolemen, hold that under the Law it was not (ordinarily) required of people to confesse in particular unto a Priest. Bo­naventure also cites Austine, saying, Oblatio sacrificiorum fuit con­fessio peccatorum, The offering of sacrifices, was the confes­sion Ergò videtur quòd non fuerit ibi alia confes­sio, quàm obla­tio. Bonav. ibid. of sinnes; whence hee inferreth, that therefore it seemes there was no other confessing of sinnes, but the offering of Sacrifices.

For those two places of Scripture cited by the Marquesse, nei­ther they, nor any other doe speake of such a confession as they of the Church of Rome doe contend for. Bellarmine holds that their Sacramentall confession (as they call it, viz. that Bell. de Poeuitent. lib. 3. cap. 20. confession which they make a part of the Sacrament of pe­nance) was not instituted till after Christs Resurrection; and therefore he sayes, it is no marvell, if (as Ambrose observes) we reade of Peters teares, but not of his confession. That the Jewes therefore, when they were baptized of Iohn, confessed their sinnes, Mat. 3. 5, 6. is not enough to prove that confes­sion, which we now dispute of, although it did appeare that the confession there spoken of, was a particular confession, which yet appeares not. Cardinall Cajetane saith it was but a gene­rall confession. Neither indeed in probability could it be any Cajet. in Act. 19. 18. more; for how should Iohn have been able to heare such mul­titudes, as came unto him to be baptized (Ierusalem, and all Iudea, and all the region round about Iordan, Mat. 3. 5.) confesse all their sinnes in particular? That it was no generall confes­sion, but in particular, the Marquesse saith appeares by Acts 19. 18, 19. But if this confession spoken of Acts 19. were in par­ticular, doth it follow, that therefore the other mentioned, Mat. 3. was so also? I see no force at all in this consequence, the confessions being made by severall persons, at severall times, and upon severall occasions. Quemadmo­dum ad Bap­tismum Jo­annis concur­rebant confitentes peccata sua, ita modò describuntur confitentes factasua, procul dubio in genere, aut publica; neutra enim fuit confessio Sacramentalis, sed professio poenitentiae vitae praeteritae. Cajet. in Act. 19. Cajetan indeed doth parallell these two places together, but so as that he maketh them both [Page 164] to speake of a generall confession, or a confession onely of such sinnes as were publick and notorious. Neither of them (hee saith) was a sacramentall confession, but onely a pro­fession that they did repent of their life past. However, these places of Scripture can make nothing for Popish confes­sion, which is injoyned, and forced, as without which (they say) salvation is not to be expected; but this which the Scriptures here speake of, was voluntary and free, the persons that confessed, did it of their own accord. The Popish con­fession is auricular (as it is called) secret, in the eare of a Priest; this appeares to have been open and publick. The Popish con­fession is a particular enumeration of all known sinnes; this if it were of any particular sinnes at all (as that mentioned Acts 19. may seeme to have been) yet onely of such as more espe­cially did trouble their conscience, as may be collected from Acts 19. 20. and in such a case to confesse not onely unto God, but also unto men, and especially unto Ministers, Protestants doe not condemne, but hold requisite; onely they condemne that manner of confession, which in the Church of Rome is maintained and practised. And no marvell, seeing some of the Roman Church themselves have shewed a great dislike of it. Beatus Rhenanus, a man Caeterùm Thomas ab Aquino, & Sco­tus, homines nimium arguti, con­fessionem hodie talem reddiderunt, ut Joannes ille Grilerius gravis ac sanctus theologus, qui tot annis Argentorati concionatus est, apud amicos suos saepè testatus sit, juxta illorum deuteroses impossibile esse confiteri.—Pro­inde motus fuit ut libellum ederet in linguâ Germanicâ, cui titulum fecit, De morbo confessionis, quo negabant esse tristiorem, qui eo tenebantur: B. Rhen. in Tertull. de Poenitent. of great learning, and never (that I know) withdrawing from the communion of the Church of Rome, speakes of the Romish confession as a thing but of late devised, and by himselfe little observed. Hee cites also one Grilerius, whom he calles a grave and holy Divine, that was a long time Preacher at Strasburg, who (hee saith) did often testifie among his friends, that according to the late Roman dictates, it is impossible to confesse, and thereupon did write a Booke in the German tongue, which he intituled, Of the disease of confession, then which disease (saith Rhenanus) they that are troubled with it, deny that any is more grievous.

For the Fathers cited by the Marquesse, the supposed Clemens, whatsoever he say, need not much trouble us; the Epistles go­ing [Page 165] under his name, are suspected, and scrupled at by Bellarmine himselfe in his Booke of Ecclesiasticall Writers: and therefore (it seemes) he thought it not meete to alledge his authority in this point, as the Marquesse doth. Origen also is cited li. 3. a strange citation; I suppose it should be in Levit. Hom. 3. for Bell. de Poen. lib. 3. cap. 7. thence Bellarmine doth fetch a testimony to prove their con­fession. But when as Chemnitius alledged something out of those Homilies upon Leviticus against Popish Traditions, as­cribing them unto Cyrill (as also the Rhemists doe, adding that some say they are Origens) Bellarmine answers with dis­daine, Rhem. in Iob. 20. 23. that those Homilies are not Cyrils, but Origens, or some others hee could not Respondeo, Homilias illas in Leviti­cum non esse B. Cyrilli, sed Origenis, vel nesciocujus alterius, qui passim literam destruit, ut mysticos sensus è capite suo statuat. Proinde Homilias istas non esse magnae authoritatis. Bell. de verb. Dei lib. 4. cap. 11. tell whose, who did destroy the Letter of the Scripture, that he might establish my­sticall senses out of his own head: and that therefore those Homilies are of no great authority. But were the authority of those Homilies never so great, and unquestion­able, I see not how they make any thing for that confession, which our adversaries maintaine, and wee impugne. Hom. 3. Si ergo in vitâ praeveniamus eis, & ipsi nostri accusatores simus, nequi­tiam diaboli inimici nostri, & accusa­toris effugiemus. Sic enim & alibi Pro­pheta dicit, Dic tu iniquitates tuas prior, ut justificeris. Orig. in Levit. Hom. 3. Origen (or who ever was the author) saith that if wee prevent Satan, and accuse our selves, we shall escape the malice of Satan, who is our adversary, and our accuser. But to whom we should accuse our selves, by confes­sing our sins, this Author shews not. Bellarmin indeed saith, that hee speakes of confessing unto a Priest; but in the words (as Bellarmine himselfe doth cite them) there is neither Priest, nor any other, to whom confession of sinne should be made, expressed. And farre more congruous it is to understand it so, that as Satan doth accuse us unto God (as he accused Iob, though falsly, Iob 1. and 2. And see Revel. 12. 10.) So we should prevent him by accusing our selves, and confessing our sinnes unto God also. Indeed Hom. 2. that author doth speake of confessing sinne unto a Priest, but that is onely in some speciall case, when sinne doth lie so sore upon the conscience, That Cum lavat peccator in la­chrymis stratum suum, & fiunt ei lachrymae suae panes die ac nocte, &c. Orig. Hom. 2. in Levit. a sinner doth wash his bed with his [Page 166] teares, and his teares are his meat day & night. In which case, no Pro­testants (that I know) but hold it good and requisite to lay open the malady to such as are most likely to apply a remedy. Thus also seemes that to be understood, which the Marquesse bringeth out of Paulinus writing the life of Ambrose, (for that is meant by the quotation, which Erat enim gaudens cum gaudentibus, & flens cum flentibus. Siquidem quotiescunque illi aliquis ob perci­piendam poenitentiam lapsus suos con­fessus esset, ita flebat, ut & illum flere compelleret., Paul in. in vitâ Ambros. is mis-printed, Amb. Ex Paulsino) viz. that Ambrose sat to heare confession. Paulinus saith of Ambrose, that he would rejoyce with those that did rejoyce, and weep with those that wept. And that when­soever any came to confesse their sinnes unto him, hee would so weepe, as to constraine the party confessing to weepe also. The Marquesse further citeth Ambr. Orat. in muliere peccatrice; it should be, I presume, in mulierem peccdtricem; but I finde no such peece among Ambrose his workes. However, if Ambrose any where doth say (as hee is cited) confesse freely to the Priest the hidden sinnes of thy soule, yet it doth not appeare that hee doth require this otherwise then in the case before mentioned. Irenaeus also is cited lib. 1. cap. 9. and Tertull. lib. de Poenitent. Now these speak of publike confession, and so speake not to our Ad­versaries purpose: the very word which they use for confes­sion, viz. Exomologesis, is commonly so used for that confes­sion, Agit de poeni­tentiâ publicâ, quam exomo­logesin vocat. Pamel. in Ter­tull. de Poen. which is publike. Irenaeus speakes of some Women, who had followed Marcus an Heretick, but when they were con­verted to the Church, they confessed their wickednesse; their sinne being open and scandalous, they made open and publike confession of it. It's true, Irenaeus saith that those women con­fessed how they had beene defiled by Marcus, and how much they had loved him, which was more then any could have known but by their own confession. Yet this hinders not, but that the confession was publike; they first confessing publikely that which was publikely known, to shew the sincerity of their Re­pentance the more, might proceede to confesse also that which was secret, yet was a concomitant of that which was publike, viz. their adhering unto the Heretick. Tertullian also clearly Tertull. de Poen. cap. 10. speakes of publike confession, that which was made inter Patres atque conservos, amongst Brethren and fellow-servants, so that [Page 167] the whole body would grieve for the paine of one member. Non potest corpus de unius membri vexatione laetum agere. Condoleat universum, & ad remedium conlabo­ret necesse est. Tertull Ibid. The body (saith he) cannot rejoyce at the paine of one member. It must needs, all sorrow with it, and labour together for a remedy. Tertullian makes no mention of secret confession of sins, as Non aliam ob causam compluriū hic testimoniis usi sumus, quàm ne quis admiretur Tertullianum de clancu­lariâ istâ admissorum confessione nihil locutū; quae quantum conjicimus, nata est existâ exomologesi per ultroneam hominum pietatem, ut occultorum cri­minum esset & exomologesis occulta. Rhen. in Tert. de Poenit. Ubi addit, Nec enim usquam praeceptam esse legimus. Rhenanus ob­serves, who conceiveth that secret confes­sion did arise from publick confession, people of their owne accord confessing se­cret sinnes secretly, as they used to confesse open sins openly. For (saith he) We no where read that this (secret confession) was injoyned; he means by the Ancients.

One Father more there is, whom the Marquesse here citeth, namely Chrysostome, lib. 3. de Sacerdot. So Bellarmine having al­ledged Bell. de Poenit. l. 3. c. 9. Vide etiam lib. 3. de Sacerdotio. something out of the former book of Chrysostome, bids see also the third book. But (no doubt) if there had been any thing more for Bellarmines purpose in the third book then in the second, he would have been so good, as to have set it before us. Now the very words of Chrysostome, as Bellarm: cites out of lib. 2. de sacerd. do shew that he speaks not of a necessity lying upon all to confesse all their sinnes to a Minister, but onely that Christiani qui laborant, Christians that are in a perplexed estate have need of this remedy. Having thus shewed that the Fathers testifie no­thing for Popish confession, I shall shew how they testifie a­gainst it.

And to begin with him that was last mentioned, Chrysostome is most copious in this kind. Why art thou ashamed (saith he) and Chrysost. con. 4. de Lazar. doest blush to confesse thy sinnes? Doest thou speak to a man, that he may upbraid thee? Doest thou confesse to thy fellow servant, that he may Or traduce thee [...]. Chrysost. in Psal 50. insult over thee? To thy Lord, to him that hath a care of thee: to him that is kind, to the Physitian thou doest shew thy wound. Here he takes it for granted, that there is (ordinarily) no necessity of confessing to any but to God onely. So againe, Art thou ashamed (saith he) to say that thou hast sinned? Confesse then daily in thy [...]: some read [...], in thy soul. prayr. For doe I say, confesse to thy fellow ser­vant, who may reproach thee? No, confesse unto God, who doth cure thee. Diverse such sayings hath this Father, most plain and preg­nant [Page 168] for our purpose; Bellarmine with all his art and all his indu­stry Bell de Poen. l. 3. c. 15. was not able to give a satisfactory answer to them. He saith that Chrysostome spake onely of publick Confession, not of pri­vate; onely of that which is made in the open Congregation, not of that which is made to a Priest in secret. But it is evident that Chrysostome speaks against the necessity of confessing to any but onely unto God. He bids Confesse Dicito quotidiè in animâ tuâ. Chrysost. in Psal. 50. uti legit Bellarminus. in thy soul. Make confession in thy thought. Let God onely see thee confessing. Such con­fession Cogitatione fiat delictorum exquisi­tio—Solus te Deus confitentem videat. Chrysost. hom. de Poen. & Confess. as this, man hath nothing to do with either in publick or in private. Bellarmine answers, that in these places Chrysostome doth speak of confession, not as it hath reference to the Priests absolution, but as it hath reference to shame and confusion: and in this latter respect he saith Chrysostome doth well admonish, that it is not necessary to confesse unto man either in publique or in private, but that it sufficeth to confesse with sorrow and tears unto God onely. But here Bellarmine (a thing not unusuall with him) doth contradict himself. For here he granteth that to confess only unto God is enough to work shame; yet in another place he saith, That Confusio timeri non solet in confes­sione, quae soli Deo fit. Bell. de Poen. lib. 3. cap. 3. shame useth not to be feared in that confession, which is made onely unto God. And againe, Shamefac'dnesse hath no place in that confession which is made onely unto God. These asserti­tions, Verecundia non habet locum in con­fessione, quae soli Deo fit. Bell. de Poen. lib. 3. cap. 6. as they agree not with the truth, see Ezr. 9. 6. so neither do they agree with the answer that here Bel­larmine giveth unto Chrysost: Where as Bellarm: saith, that Chry­sost: speaketh not of confession, as having reference to the Priests absolution, it is easily granted, there being (ordinarily) no neces­sity of any such absolution. Chrysostme willeth a man to confesse, though but in his heart, unto God, assuring him that thereby he shall obtain Gods absolution: and what need then of any others absolution? Except in some speciall case, viz. for the quieting of a troubled conscience, and that one may the better enjoy the com­fort of Gods absolution. Thus for Chrysostme: Austine also doth shew the no-necessity of confessing unto men, which still must be understood excepting some particular case, wherein it may be re­quisite. [Page 169] What have I to doe (saith he) with Quid mihi ergo est cum hominibus, ut audiant confessiones meas, quasi ipsi sanaturi sint omnes languores meos? Aug. Confess. lib. 10. cap. 3. men, that they should hear my confessions, as if they could heal all my diseases? Bellarmine takes it in disdaine, that these words of Au­stine should be alledged against their confes­sion. This (he saith) is nothing else but to Hoc nihil est aliud nisi simplicibus im­ponere. Nemo enim libros illos legit, qui nesciat, Confessionem, de quâ lo­quitur Augustinus, non esse Sacra­mentalem, sed confessionum peccato­rum praeteritorum, & per baptismum dimissorum, &c. Bellarm. de Poenit. lib. 3. cap. 20. delude the simple: For that whosoever reads Austines Confessions cannot but know, that he speakes not of Sacramentall Confession, but of the Confession of sinnes past, and forgiven by Baptisme; which Confession was made to that end, that thereby the mercy of God might be seen, and praised. But Austines words are of more force then thus to be evaded. We willingly grant that Austine speaks not of Sacramentall Confession, there being indeed no such Confession to be spoken of, as they call Sacra­mentall; no such, I say, truly so called; and so much these very words of Austine doe sufficiently testifie. For Sacramentall Con­fession (as they call it) is a Confession necessarily to be made un­to a Priest, or else no remission of sin (they say) committed after Baptisme can be obtained, but Austine shewes that ordinarily Confessing unto men is not necessary. Neither is it so, that Au­stine in his book of Confessions doth only speak of his sins which he had committed before he was Baptized. For in that tenth Book, where he hath the words before cited, he speaketh of sinnes, which he was guilty of long after his Baptisme, yea even then when he was writing his Confessions. As namely, Adhuc vivunt in memoriâ meâ talium re­rum imagines, & occursant mihi vigilanti quidem caren­tes viribus, in somnis autem non solùm usque ad delectationem, sed etiam usque ad consensionem, factumque simillimum. Et tantum valet imaginis illusio in animâ meâ, & in carne meâ, ut dormienti falsa visa persuadeant, quod vigilanti vera non possunt.—Quid adhuc sim in hoc genere mali mei, dixi bono Domino meo, &c. Aug. Confess lib. 10. cap. 30. Crapula non nunquam surrepit servo tuo, &c. Ibid. c. 31. Et talibus vita mea plena est, & una spes mea in magnâ valdè misericordiâ tuâ. Ibid. c 35. impure Dreames, and nocturnall pollutions; as also excesse in Eating. Diverse other particulars doth he also confesse, saying that his life was full of such failings, and that all his hope was onely in Gods exceeding great mercy. To this purpose also, Non invenio quid dixerit, invenio quòd fleverit.—Lavant lachrymae delictum, quod voce pudor est confiteri. Ambr. in Luc. 22. Ambrose, who speaking of Peter, saith, I find not what he spake, I find that he [Page 170] wept. And hence he infers, that tears may procure pardon of sin, though no verball Confession be made of it.

To this testimony of Ambrose, Bellarmine answers, that as Bell. de Poenit. l. 3. c. 20. then Sacramentall Confession was not instituted, and therefore 'tis no marvell, if we doe not read of Peters confession. And 'tis very true that Sacramentall Confession neither then had, nor at all hath any divine institution. Again Bellarmine sayes, that Tears (of which Ambrose speaketh) containe a kind of Confession in them. This indeed is true in respect of God, who knowes the heart and affection from whence Tears proceed: and therefore David saith that the Lord had heard the voice of his weeping, Psal. 6. 8. which shewes, that as the Tongue by speaking, so the Eyes by weeping have a voice, which God doth hear. But what is this unto men, who by tears alone, without words, can under­stand little? Bellarmine grants that Tears are sufficient in that Bell. Ibid. Confession, which is made unto God, who knoweth all things. Well, and Ambrose saith that Tears may suffice to procure par­don; and therefore no necessity of any other Confession then what is made unto God only.

Thus also Hilary is clear for the suffici­ency Confessionis autem causam addidit, di­cens quia fecisti: autorem sc: hujus universitatis Dominum esse confessus, nulli alii docens confitendum, quàm qui fecit olivam fructiferam, &c. Hilar. in Psal. 51. v. ult. of Confession made onely unto God, saying that David teacheth us to confesse only unto him, who hath made the Olive fruitfull. It's true, the Confession that David there (viz. Psal. 52. 9.) speaks of, is the Confession of Praise and of Thanksgiving; but Hilary In seculum, & in seculum seculi mi­sericordiaespes est, sed confessio tantùm in seculum, non etiam in seculum se­culi. Non enim confessio peccatorum nisi in hujus seculi tempore est. Hilar. Ibid. understands it of the confession of sins, say­ing, that David does not say, I will confesse unto thee for ever and ever, as immediately before he said, I trust in the mercy of God for ever and ever; but I will confesse unto thee for ever, or whiles he lived, in seculum, because onely in the time of this life here are sinnes to be confessed. So that however Hilary did mistake Davids meaning, through the Ambiguity of the word Confitebor, i. e. I will confesse, or I will give thanks, yet he clearly expresseth his own opinion, that it is sufficient to con­fesse unto God only.

And this opinion was maintained by some in the Roman [Page 171] Church above a thousand years after Christ. For Peter Lombard (who was above 1100 years after Christ) disputing this point touching Confession, confesseth, That Quibusdam visum est sufficere, si soli Deo fiat confessio. Lomb. lib. 4. dist. 17. lit. d. some thought it sufficient to confesse onely unto God. This Opinion was not accounted a Heresie by the Church of Rome it self untill the time of Pope Innocent the third, about 1200 years after Christ, when in the Councell of Lateran it was decreed necessary to confesse unto a Priest, and not unto God only. And there­fore Bonaventure, who lived a little after Si quis esset modò hujus opinionis, esset haereticus judicandus, quoniam in concilio generasi hoc determinatum est sub Innocentio tertio; sed ante hanc determinationem hoc non erat haeresis. Bonav. in Sent. lib. 4. dist. 17. num. 50. that Councell, speaking of those who held it sufficient to confesse only unto God, saith, that if any now were of that opinion, he were an Heretick, because the contrary was determined in a Generall Councell, but be­fore that determination that Opinion was no Heresie. Thus then we see by the acknowledgment of the Romish Doctors them­selves, that the necessity of Sacramentall Confession (as they call it) is not fetched either from Scriptures, or Fathers, but from Pope Innocent the Third, and the Councell that was in his time.

To conclude this point touching Confession, I will only adde one Argument for Confutation of the Romish Doctrine in this particular. Such Confession as they of the Church of Rome require, viz. a particular enumeration of all mortall sins, with all their se­verall aggravating circumstances, is not possible. And therefore neither is it of divine institution. Bellarmine answers, that by this Bell. de Poenit. lib. 3. cap. 16. reason it is impossible to confesse unto God; for that we hold, that Confession made unto God must be intire, not of some sins onely, but of all. And if we say, that it is sufficient to confesse unto God all, so farre forth as we can come to the knowledge of them, adding that of David, Psal. 19. 13. Who can understand his errours? Lord cleanse me from my secret faults: Bellarmine saith, that to confesse thus to a Priest doth suffice also. But, I say, this answer will not satisfie; for there is not the same reason of con­fessing unto God, and of confessing to a Priest, as they require it. God knoweth all our sinnes before we confesse, farre better then we our selves doe; onely we are to confesse unto him, to shew our selves humble and penitent. But our Adversaries say, that [Page 172] particular Confession must be made unto a Priest, because other­wise Bell. de Poenit. lib. 3. cap. 2. he cannot tell how to judge, so as either to remit sinnes, or to retain them. Now to this end it is not enough to confesse un­to a Priest all that one can find out, but it is necessary to confesse absolutely all that one is guilty of. For otherwise how shall the Priest be able to judge of those sinnes which he knoweth not? If he cannot judge of those sins which are confessed, except they be confessed; then neither can he judge of those sins which are not confessed, because they are not confessed: there is the same rea­son for the one as for the other. If the Priest can judge of those sins, that are not confessed, by those that are confessed, then may he also, by hearing the confession of one or two sins, judge of all the rest, though no Confession be made of them. Thus the Con­fession which our Adversaries contend for, is either not possible, or at least not necessary.

After Confession the Marquesse comes to workes of Superero­gation, Pag. 64. which they say a man may doe, viz. good works, more excellent then those, which the Law of God doth require. And that a man may doe such workes, the Marquesse proves, by Mat. 19. 12. There be eunuches, that have made themselves eunuches for the Kingdome of Heaven: he that is able to receive it, let him re­ceive it.

This (the Marquesse saith) is more then a Commandement, as S. Aug. observes upon the place, Ser. lib. de temp. (it should be Serm. 61. de temp.) for of precepts it is not said, Keep them who is able, but keep them absolutely. I answer, it is true of generall pre­cepts, such as concern all, they are to be kept absolutely by all; but for speciall precepts, which concern only some, they are only to be kept by those whom they do concern. And so those words, He that is able to receive it, let him receive it, are a precept, but limited and restrained, viz. unto some certain persons, who o­therwise can, without inconvenience, live a single life; they are required to doe it, not as a thing simply necessary, but as neces­sary for them; not as a thing wherein perfection doth consist, but as a means whereby the better to draw towards perfection, viz. To serve the Lord without distraction, 1 Cor. 7. 35. Neither doe the Fathers (whom the Marquesse citeth) hold any such works of Supererogation, as the Romanists plead for, viz. works [Page 173] more excellent and perfect then those which the Law of God prescribeth. Qui praeceptum impleverint, dicere possunt, Servi inutiles sumus, quod debuimus facere, fecimus. Hoc virgo non dicit; non dicit ille, qui bona sua vendidit. Ambr. de viduis. Ambrose seemes to speake more then the rest, and therefore it may be hee is put in the first place, though some that are cited, are more ancient then hee. They that have fulfilled the precept (hee saith) may say, Wee are unprofitable servants, wee have done what our duty was to doe. This the Vir­gin saith not, nor hee that sold his Goods, viz. to give to the poore.

Thus Ambrose; but have not these words need of a favour­able interpretation? For will our adversaries themselves say, that there are any absolutely so perfect, as that they need not confesse unto God, that they are unprofitable servants? what they will say I cannot tell, but sure I am that Christs Disciples, who were as perfect as any others, were not so perfect. For even to them did Christ speake those words, When yee shall have done all these things, which are commanded you, say, Wee are un­profitable servants, wee have done but what was our duty to doe. Luke 17. 10. It may be our Adversaries will say, true, when they had done all things commanded them, they were to say, we are unprofitable servants, &c. but not when they had done more then was commanded them. But did they so? They left all indeed, and followed Christ; but did not Christ call them to it, and command them to doe it? In this therefore they did no more then their duty was to doe. We must distinguish therefore betwixt generall duties, and speciall duties. All were not bound to forsake all actually, as the Apostles did, and to follow Christ, because there was no generall precept for it; but the Apostles were bound to do it, because they had a spe­ciall call and command from Christ, that did oblige them to it. Thus then Ambroses words must be understood, that in respect of a generall precept obliging all to the thing done, some may be said to doe more then their duty was to doe, though simply and absolutely they did not more. For if it were more for Gods glory to doe what they did, then not to doe it, they were bound to doe it. For else how did they love God with all their heart, and with all their soule, and with all their might? as all [Page 174] are commanded to doe, Deut. 5. 6. Virginitas non ex debito solviour: neque enim per praeceptum expetitur, sed supra debitum offertur. Origen. in cap. 15. ad Rom. Origon is next cited, who saith that such as live in virginity, doe not that which is comman­ded, but above what is due. But the meaning is, that virginity is not a thing ge­nerally commanded, not a duty required of all; yet to some, who have the gift, and are called of God to improve it to the greater advancement of his glory, it is a duty; every one is bound to doe that, which doth make most for Gods glory, that being the end for which wee ought doe whatsoever wee doe. 1 Cor. 10. 31.

After Origen followes Eusebius, who saith, that in the Euseb. demonstr. Evang. l. 1. c. 8. Church of God two kindes of life are instituted; one exceed­ing our nature, and the common course of life, not seeking mar­riage, nor off-spring, nor substance, but addicted wholly to Gods worship. And this is the manner of a perfect life in Christianity. The other kinde of life is more remisse, and humane, which is in­tangled in modest wedlock, and procreation of children, &c. To such belongeth the second degree of piety. Thus Eusebius, who yet is far from asserting such workes of supererogation as are now disputed of. We grant, that to live unmarried so as thereby the better and the more freely to serve God, is a life of more per­fection then to live married, and so to be entangled with the af­faires of the world. But we deny, that they who so live unmarried, doe supererogate, i. e. that they not only do all that is comman­ded, but also over and above what is commanded. This neither doth Eusebius say, neither can it be proved.

Next comes Chrysostome, who may seeme to speake much, but indeed it is not much to the purpose. Hee saith that many Multi & ipsa superant man-data. Chrys. hom. 8. de poenit. doe exceede the Commandements. But how is that? Not in re­spect of the whole latitude of the Commandements; for (as David testifies) they are exceeding broad. Psal. 119. 96. It is therefore onely in respect of some outward act, which is not directly and precisely commanded. And thus, Chrysostome sayes that the Heathens, many of them, did exceede the Commande­ments; and yet (I presume) our Adversaries will not ascribe Nonue prae­cepta Dei adeò levia sunt, ut multi philosophicâ tantùm ratione illa excesserint? Chrys. Hom. 3 dn 1. ad Corinth. [Page 175] any extraordinary perfection to the Heathens. The testimony then of Chrysostome makes but little for their works of supereto­gation, except they will acknowledge such workes to have been done by Heathens, many of which might forbear marriage; so the vestall Virgins did; and this was according to Chrysostomes manner of speech, to exceede the Commandements, namely to go beyond that, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But consider this (and so any other) Commandement in the full extent of it, as forbidding all wanton lookes, and all unchast thoughts, Mat. 5. 28. Iob. 31. 1. and so neither the Vestall nor the Popall Virgins will finde any great cause of boasting.

The last Father here cited, is Gregory (Nicen. in the Mar­quesses paper is to be blotted out, as superfluous, this here cited being not Gregory Nissen. but Gregory sirnamed the great, Bishop of Rome) who saith, The elect sometimes doe more then God hath vouchsafed to command. For bodi­ly virginity is not commanded, but onely com­mended; Greg Moral. lib. 15. cap. 9. Electi nonnunquam plus student agere quàm eis dignatus est Dominus jube­re. Carnis enim Virginitas nequaquam jussa est, sed laudata; nam si illa ju­beretur, conjugium jam culpa cre­deretur, & tamen multi virtute virgi­nitatis pollent, ut plus impendant ob­sequio, quàm acceperunt praecepto. for if it were commanded, then mar­riage would be a fault. And yet many live in virginity, and so performe more then the Commandement doth require of them. It is true, there is no precept directly command­ing virginity, and in that respect they that live in virginity may be said to doe more then the Commandement doth require of them. Yet if any have the speciall gift given of God, and see it a meanes where­by the more to glorifie God, then by consequence the precept of loving God with all our heart, and with all our soule, and with all our might, Deut. 6. 5. and of doing all to the glory of God, 1 Cor. 10. 31. these precepts (I say) in such a case doe require virginity. But (alas!) what is all this that hath beene alledged both from Scriptures and Fathers, to prove workes of supererogation? to prove that men may not onely doe all that is commanded, but also more then is commanded? How will this consist with the Scriptures, which tell us, There is not a just man upon earth that doth good, and sinneth not. Eccles. 7. 20. In many things we offend all. Jam. 3. 2. If God shall contend with us, wee cannot answer him one of a thousand, Job 9. 3. And doe [Page 176] not the Fathers concurre with the Scriptures in this? Then are wee righteous (saith Tunc justi sumus, quando nos pec­catores fatemur. Hierou dial. advers. Pelag. lib. 1. Hierome) when wee confesse our selves to be sinners. And againe, Haec hominibus sola perfectio, si imperfectos esse se noverint. Hieron. advers. Pelag. ad Ctesiphont. So Haec est perfectorum vera justitia, ut nunquam praesumant se esse perfectos. Leo ser. 2. de Quadrag. Leo, This is the true righteousnesse of those that are perfect, that they never presume them­selves to be perfect. Thus also Si de his divinitùs districtè discu­timur, quis inter haec remanet salutis locus? quando & mala nostra pura mala sunt, & bona, quae nos habere credimus, pura bona esse nequaquam possunt. Greg Moral. lib. 35. cap. 16. Gregory the great, If God shall strictly examine us, what hope of salvation is there for us? when as our evill deeds, are simply evill, but the good deeds, which we suppose wee have, cannot be simply good. And againe, Sciunt quippe (Sancti) quia omnis humana justitia injustitia esse depre­henditur, si divinitùs districtè judicetur. Greg. Moral. l. 21. c. 15. The Saints know that all mans righteousnesse is found to be unrighteousnesse, if God doe strictly judge it.

After workes of Supererogation, the Marquesse passeth to Page 64. Free-will, saying that they hold that wee have Free-will, and that we deny it. But a question should be stated, before it be disputed; we doe not deny, that we have Free-will, though wee deny that our will is so free, now in the estate of corrupt nature, as that wee have of our selves, any ability to that which is truly good. Ego verò quantum ad vocempertinet, adhuc profite­or, quòd in meâ institut ōe testatus sum, non adeò me superstitiosum esse in verbis, ut ejus causâ velim contetionem aliquam movere, modò rei intelligentia sana maneat. Si coactioni opponitur libertas, liberum esse arbitrium, & fateor, & constanter assevero; ac pro haeretico habeo, quisquis secùs sentiat.—Sed cum aliud prorsus vulgò concipiant, dum hoc epithetō hominis voluntati attributum vel legunt, vel audiunt, haec causa est, cur mihi displiceat. Siquidem ad facultatem viresque referunt, nec impedire possis, quin simulac libera suerit vo­luntas dicta, haec pluribus imaginatio protinus in mentem veniat, habere igitur sub potestate suâ bonum & malum, ut alterutrum eligere suapte virtute queat. Calv. contra Pigh. de lib. arbit. pag. 215. Semper autem testatus sum, me de nomine pugnare nolle, si hoc semel constitueretur, libertatem non ad potentiam, vel facultatem boni aequè ac mali eligendi, sed ad spontaneum motum & consensum referri debere. Ibid. p. 229. Causam mihi justam habere videor, cur vocu­lam op ē sublatam è medio, ad quā major propè mundi pars tanto periculo impingit. Ibid. p. 215. Calvin allowes both the name of Free-will, and also the thing it selfe, so it be rightly understood, viz. that the will of man is free, as freedome is opposed to coaction, the will is so free, as that it cannot be compelled or constrained. But that the will is free as to be able of it selfe to chuse either good or [Page 177] evill, this is it that he contends against; and because many when they heare or read of Free-will, understand it in this sense, this made him wish that the very word were abandoned, many being so apt to stumble at it.

Quia vix aliâ notione nominabatur lib. arbitrium, hinc nostrorum pluri­mae contrariae disputationes, visae ne­gare funditùs lib. arbitrium. Cum ta­men certum sit omninò non negari nisi hoc sensu. Quod satis apparet ex earum disputationum serie, quibus hic scopus propositus est, ut hanc unam in bonum malumque aequam propensi­onem sive indifferentiam perpetuò im­pugnent. Cham. tom. 3. lib. 3. ca. 1. Sect. 7. Nostra nulla quaestio est, utrùm sua sit arbitrio libertas, quod saepè testatum saepiùs repetendum est propter adver­sariorum importunitatem. Quid ergò è Nempe quid quantumque ea valeat ad bonum voluntas, anquirimus. Ibib. c. 14. Sect. 6. Nos protestati sumus tenere liberum arbitrium, & si non quale statuerunt Pelagiaui; non etiam quale statuunt Papistae. Ibid. cap. 17. Sect. 5. Chamier a famous Protestant Writer, shewes that our Divines disputing against Free-will, doe not simply deny it, but in this sense, that the will is equally propense and indifferent to good and evill.

This is that, which they deny, and against which they bend their disputations. Wee doe not make a question (saith hee also) whether the will be free; this wee have often testi­fied, and must still repeate it, because of the importunity of our adversaries. This then is that which we question, what and how much that liberty of the will can availe in respect of that which is good. And againe, Wee have protested (saith hee) that wee hold Free-will, though not such as the Pelagians held, nor as the Papists hold.

Thus then wee hold, that since the fall of Adam, mans will is free to that which is evill, but to that which is good, it is not free, untill by the grace of Christ it be made free. If the Sonne shall make you free (saith our Saviour) then yee shall be free indeed. Joh. 8. 36. But not till then. How should they be free to that which is good, who are dead in trespasses and sinnes? as by nature all are. Eph. 2. 1. who are sold unto sinne; as the Apostle confesseth hee was so farre forth as hee was unregenerate, Rom. 7. 14. and that in him, that is, in his flesh (his corrupt nature) no good dwelled. vers. 18. who are the servants of sinne, as all are before their conversion, Romans 6. 17. In this respect Luther might well intitle his booke (as hee did) of servile will, rather then De servo arbi­trio. Indicans dis­putari in eo, illud Libe­rum arbitrium verè esse peccati servum. Cham. tom. 3. lib. 2. cap. 8. Sect. 9. of Free-will, to shew that this Free-will is by nature the ser­vant of sinne.

[Page 178] S. Augustine in many places is as cleare, Quid enim boni operari potest perdi­tus, nisi quantum fuerit à perditione liberatus? Nunquid libero voluntatis arbitrio? Et hoc absit. Nam libero arbitrio malè utens homo & se perdi­dit, & ipsum. Sicut enim qui se occidit, utique vivendo se occidit, sed se occi­dendo non vivit, nec seipsum resu­scitare potest cum occiderit: ita cum libero peccaretur arbitrio, victore peccato amissum est liberum arbitri­um. A quo enim quis devictus est, huic & servus addictus est.—Qualis, quaeque potest servi addicti esse liber­tas, nisi quando peccare eum delectat? Ac per hoc ad-peceandum liber est, qui peccati servus est. Unde ad justè faciendum liber non erit, nisi à pec­cato liberatus esse justitiae coeperit ser­vus. Aug. Enchir. cap. 30. and expresse for this which wee hold, as can be imagined. For what good (saith he) can lost man worke, but so farre forth as hee is freed from that lost condition? can hee by Free-will? No such matter. For man u­sing Free-will amisse, lost both himselfe and it. For as hee that killes himselfe, doth by living kill himselfe, but by killing himselfe hee cea­seth to live: So when by Free-will man did sinne, sinne getting the victory, Free-will was lost. For of whom a man is overcome, of the same hee is brought in bondage. (2 Pet. 2. 19.) What, I pray, can be the freedome of one that is brought into bondage, except when it doth delight him to sinne? And by this hee is free to sinne, who is the servant of sinne. Wherefore hee shall not be free to doe righteously, unlesse being made free from sinne hee shall become the servant of righteousnesse. And presently after, But that freedome, which is to doe well, how shall man being in bondage, Sed ista libertas ad benefaciendum un­de erit homini addicto, & vendito, nisi redimat ille, cujus illa vox est; Si vos Filius liberaverit, tunc verè liberi eri­tis? Quod antequam fieri in homine incipiat, quomodo quisquam de li­bero arbitrio in bono gloriatur opere, qui nondum liber est ad operandum benè? Ibid. and sold under sinne have, except hee redeeme him, who hath said, If the Sonne shall make you free, then you shall be free indeed? Be­fore this begin to be done in man, how can any glory of Free-will in a good worke, seeing hee is not yet free to doe well?

Bellarmine brings in the first peece of this Amittitur liberum arbitrium, non cum perit, quod fieri non potest, sed cum à diabolo captivatur; quomodo di­cuntur amissa, quae tempore belli in potestatem hostium venerunt. Bell. de grat. & lib. arb. l. 5. c. 30. saying of Austine, and answers, that Free-will is lost, not in that it is quite abolished, but in that it is held captive by the Devill; as things are said to be lost, which in time of war are in the power of the enemy. But what is this but even to yeeld us that which wee contend for? For if Free-will bee so lost, as to bee held captive by Satan, then surely the will, untill it be set free by Christ, is not free in respect of that which is truly good, and accompanying sal­vation.

[Page 179] This will (saith Austine) which is free in Sed haec voluntas, quae libera est in malis, quia delectatur malis, ideò libe­ra in bonis non est, quia liberata non est. Aug. ad Bonifac. contra duas epist. Pelagian. cap. 3. things that are evill, because it is delighted in things that are evill, is therefore not free in things that are good, because it is not made free.

And againe, Without the Grace of God the will cannot be free, seeing it is subject to lusts Sine gratia Dei non potest esse libera voluntas, cum cupiditatibus vincenti­bus & vincientibus subdita sit. Aug. epist. 144. that doe overcome it, and bring it into bon­dage.

And again, How dare miserable men be proud of Free-will, before they are made free? Ut quid miseri homines audent super­bire de libero arbitrio, antequam libe­rentur? Aug. de Spir. & lit. c. 30. Hinc illa, quam uni Augustino, prae aliis tribuo, verae sanaeque doctrinae perspicua, certa, exactaque explicatio: hinc & ille consensus, quem illi nobis­cum esse glorior. Calv. contra Pigh. pag. 225. These, and many other Sentences of this Fa­ther, are so full for our purpose, that our Divines might well professe (as they doe) that in this point they fully accord with Austine. But I will adde the testimonies of some other Fathers besides him. Augustinum asservi prorsus esse no­strum. Ibid. pag. 227. Totam de libero arbitrio doctrinam Augustini Calvinus probavit, nos etiam probamus, dummodo aestimetur ex ejus disputationibus contra Pelagianos. Cham. Tom. 3. lib. 3. cap. 18. sect. 5.

While sin reignes (saith Fulgentius) a man Regnante peccato habet liberum arbi­trium, sed liberum sine Deo, non libe­rum sub Deo, i e. liberum justitiae, non liberum sub gratiâ, & ab hoc pessimè atque serviliter liberum, quia non gra­tuito miserentis Dei munere liberatū. (Probat ex Rom. 6. 22. atque addit) Ser­vire igitur justitiae non potest, quia ju­stitiae liber est; quia quamdiu est pec­cati servus, non nisi ad serviendum peccato reperitur idoneus. Fulgent. ad Pet. Diacon. cap. 19. hath Free-will, but free without God, not free under God, that is, free from Righteousnesse, not free under Grace, and so most ill, and sla­vishly free, because not made free by the free gift of God shewing mercy. This he proves by Rom. 6. 22. and addes, Therefore he cannot serve Righteousnesse, who is free from Righte­ousnesse; because so long as he is the servant of sinne, he is onely able to serve him. To the same effect also speaks Bernard, By I know Nescio quo pravo & mito modo ipsa sibi voluntas peccato quidem in deteri­us mutata, necessitatem facit, ut nec necessitas, cum sit voluntaria, excusare valeat voluntatem, nec voluntas, cum sit illecta, excludere necessitatem. Est n [...] necessitas haec quodammodo voluntaria.—Vo­luntas enim est, quae se cum esset libera, servam fecit peccati, peccato assentiendo: volun­tas nihilominus est, quae se sub peccato tenet voluntariè serviendo. Bernard. Serm. 81. in Cant. not what evill and wonderfull means (saith he) the will being changed by sinne, and made worse, doth bring a necessity upon it selfe, so that nei­ther [Page 180] necessity, being voluntary, can excuse the will, nor the will, being inticed, can exclude necessity. For it is after a sort a voluntary neces­sity.—For it is the will, which when it was free, made it self the ser­vant of sinne, by consenting unto sinne; neverthelesse it is the will, which keeps it self under sin, by serving it willingly. He shewes how the will is free, being captivated by sin, so free as that it sinneth willingly, yet not so free, as that it can refrain from sin, seeing it hath made it selfe the servant of sinne, and hath brought upon it self a necessity of sinning. Thus (saith he) the Ita anima miro quodam & malo modo sub hâc voluntariâ quâdam ac malè liberâ necessitate & ancilla tenetur, & libera; ancilla propter necessitatem, li­bera propter voluntatem: & quod ma­gis mirum magisque miserum est, eo rea quo libera, eoque ancilla quo rea, ac per hoc eo ancilla quo libera. Bern. Ibid. soul, after a wonderfull, and evill manner, un­der this voluntary and ill free necessity is both held in bondage, and also is free: in bondage, because of necessity, free, because of will. And which is more wonderfull, and more miserable, it is therefore guilty, because it is free, and therefore in bondage, because guilty, and so con­sequently therefore in bondage because free. He addes a little after, Now there is no escape Nunc verò nusquam exitus misero pa­tet, quem & voluntas (ut dixi) inex­cusabilem, & incorrigibilem necessi­tas facit Bern. Ibid. for miserable man, (by his own free-will, or any power in himself) whom (as I have said) both the will doth make inexcusable, and also necessity doth make incorrigible. Elsewhere in­deed Bernard seems to make the wil perpetu­ally, Est verò quam magis ei congruere ar­bitror libertatem, quam dicere possu­mus à necessitate, eò quòd necessa­rium voluntario contrarium esse vide­atur. Bern. de grat. & lib. arb. and of its own nature free from neces­sity, for that necessary and voluntary seeme to be contrary one to the other. But by ne­cessity he means co-action and compulsion: For speaking of consent, he saith, It is not Siquidem non cogitur, non extor­quetur. Est quippe voluntatis, non necessitatis. Nec negat se, nec prae­bet cuiquam nisi ex voluntate. Alio­qui si compelli valet invitus, violen­tus est, non voluntarius. Ubi autem voluntas non est, nec consensus. Non est enim consensus nisi volun­tarius. Ubi ergo consensus, ibi vo­luntas. Porrò ubi voluntas, ibi li­bertas. Et hoc est quod dici puto li­berum arbitrium. Bern. Ibid. compelled, it is not extorted; for it is of will, not of necessity. It neither denies it selfe, nor affords it selfe to any, but willingly. For if it could be compelled against its will, it were vio­lent, and not voluntary. But where there is no will, there is no consent. For there is no con­sent, but voluntary. Therefore where there is consent, there is will: and where there is will, there is freedom: and this is that which I think is called Free-will.

[Page 181] And againe, Freedome from necessity Verùm libertas à necessitate aequè & indifferenter Deo universaeque tàm malae quàm bonae rationali convenit creaturae. Nec peccato nec miseriâ a­mittitur, vel minuitur, nec major in justo est quàm in peccatore, nec pleni­or in angelo quàm in homin. Quo­modò namque ad bonum conversus per gratiam humanae voluntatis con­sensus, eò liberè bonum, & in bono liberum hominem facit, quò volunta­rius efficitur, non invitus pertrahitur: sic sponte devolutus in malum, in ma­lo nihilominus tam liberum quàm spontaneum constituit suâ utique vo­luntate ductum, non aliundè coactum ut malus sit. Bern. Ibid. (saith he) doth equally belong unto God, and to every reasonable creature, as well bad as good. It is not lost, nor diminished, either by sinne, or misery, it is not greater in the Righteous, then in the Sinner; not more full in an Angell, then in Man. For as the consent of mans will, being by Grace turned unto good, therefore makes a man freely good, and free in that which is good, because he is made volunta­ry, and not drawn against his will: So being freely devolved into evill, it makes a man ne­verthelesse free, and spontaneous in evill, be­ing led by his own will, and not compelled and enforced by any other to be evill.

Thus we see how Bernard doth agree with Calvin in making the freedome of mans will to consist in a spontaneity, and a free­dome from coaction; and in holding that otherwise the will of man (untill it be made free by Grace) is not free to that which is good, but necessitated unto sin, and enslaved by it. The free­dome of the will then doth not consist in this, that it is free and indifferent to chuse either good or evil. For so God and the good Angels should not be free, seeing they cannot will any thing but that which is good: neither should the devils, and damned souls be free, seeing they cannot will any thing but that which is evill.

It is not therefore called Free-will (saith Bradwardine) because it can freely will, and Non ideò dicitur liberum arbitrium quia liberè potest velle & nolle quod­cunque; sed quia liberè potest velle quodcunque objectum suum volubile, & nolle quodcunque objectum suum nolubile. Bradw. de Caus. Dei l. 2. c. 2. nill any thing whatsoever; but because it can freely will any thing that is its object to be willed, and nill any thing that is its object to be nilled. In vain therefore doth Bellarmine pretend that our Divines make man altoge­ther Affirmant praesente auxilio gratiae non posse hominem malè facere, eo verò absente non posse benè facere, ac per hoc nunquam habere liberum volun­tatis arbitrium. Bell. de grat. & lib. arbit. lib. 5. cap. 28. voide of Free-will, for that they hold, that if he have the help of Grace he cannot doe ill; and if he want it, he cannot doe well. But it doth not follow, that therefore they wholly deny Free-will, it being rightly understood. For though man having the help of Grace cannot doe ill, and want­ing [Page 182] it cannot doe well; yet both, in doing well, by the help of Grace, and in doing ill, for want of it, his will is free, so as that he is not constrained, and forced either the one way or the other: even as both the good Angels and the bad are free in that which they do, though the one cannot do ill, nor the other well. Our Ad­versaries make the will of man so free, as being incited by Grace, to be able to act, or not to act, as he pleaseth. But how doth Bell. de grat. & lib. art. l. 6. c. 9. this agree with Scripture? Who maketh thee to differ, and what hast thou, that thou hast not received? 1 Cor. 4. 7. If a man could of himself, by the power of his free-will, embrace a good motion, and consent unto it, as well as refuse and reject it, then he may make himself to differ from another, and may have something that he hath not received. No man commeth unto me, except my Father draw him, saith our Saviour, Ioh. 6. 44. Magna gratiae commendatio, nemo venit nisi tractus; quem trahat, & quem non trahat, quarè illum trahat, & illum non trahat, noli velle judi­care, si non vis errare. Aug. homil. 26. citat. à Bradw. de Caus. Dei l. 1. c. 35. Here is a great commendation of Grace, (saith Austine) none comes except he be drawn; whom he drawes, and whom he drawes not, why he drawes this man, and drawes not that, doe not judge if thou wouldest not erre.

The Apostle tells us, That we are not sufficient of our selves to think any thing as of our selves, but all our sufficiency is of God, 2 Cor. 3. 5. By which words of the Apostle Bernard proves that it is not in the power Non equidem quòd vel ipse consensus, in quo omne meritum consistit, ab ipso sit, cum nec cogitare (quod minus est quàm consentire) aliquid à nobis qua­si ex nobis sufficientes simus. Bern. de grat. & lib. arbit. of mans free will without the Grace of God to consent unto a good motion, seeing he cannot of himself so much as think a good thought, which yet is lesse then to consent unto it. So by the same words Bradwardine con­futes those who hold, that if God prevent a Sunt qui dicunt Deum semper praeve­nire pulsando, & excitando, &c. & ho­minem subsequi aperiendo, & consen­tiendo, idque ex propriis viribus, &c. man by knocking and inciting, then man of himself doth follow, by opening and con­senting. But (saith he, having cited the words of the Apostle) it is lesse to think, then —Minus est cogitare, quàm cre­dere. Bradward. de Caus. lib. 1. cap. 38. to believe. And he doth well observe, That this doctrine ascribes that which is the better, Haec positio tribuit nobis quod melius est, & majus; Deo verò quod dete­rius, & minus. Quis enim dubitave­rit aperire melius, & utilius nobis esse quàm pulsare? cum pulsare sine apertione non profit, sed obsit. Bradward: Ibid. and the greater unto man, and that which is [Page 183] the worse and the lesse unto God. For that without doubt it is better and more for our profit to open, then to knock, seeing that knocking without opening availes nothing, but is rather hurtfull. And citing a saying of Aug. de bono perseverantiae cap. 9. Tutiores vivimus, si totum Deo da­mus, non nos illi ex parte, & nobis ex parte committimus. Ipsi ergo me totum totâ devotione committo, ac ejus gratissimae gratiae totaliter me submitto. Bradw. Ibid. S. Austine. viz. Wee live more safe if wee give all to God, and doe not commit our selves in part to him, and in part to our selves; hee addes, Therefore to him doe I wholly commit my selfe with my whole devoti­on, and to his most acceptable grace doe I wholly submit my selfe. Surely David, when hee prayed, Vnite my heart to feare thy Name, Psal. 85. 11. was farre So when the Church prayeth Lam. 5. 21. Turn thou us unto thee O Lord, and wee shall be turned, were it not ri­diculous to ex­pound it, wee shall be turned, if we will? from meaning thus, that God should so move him to obedience as that hee might either obey, or not obey, as hee pleased. So when hee prayed, Let mee not wander from thy Commandements. Psal. 119. 10. And, make mee to goe in the path of thy Commande­ments. v. 35. were it not most absurd to understand it thus, Let me not wander, except I will; and make mee to goe, if I will? So when God promiseth, I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walke in my statutes, &c. Ezek. 36. 27. And, I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from mee. Ier. 32. 40. it were most ridiculous to interpret it thus, I will cause you to walk in my statutes, if you will, and that you shall not depart from me, ex­cept you will.

God promiseth Ezek. 36. 26. to take away the stony heart, that is, the contumacy, stubbornesse and disobedience of the heart; and to give a heart of flesh, that is, to make the heart soft, pliable and obedient. By this and other places of Scripture Bradwardine confutes those, who say, that God by his Grace will convert a man, if he doe not put a barre in the way. Quicquid obex dicitur; nullus potest hunc obicem tollere nisi Deus: & si ipse eum voluerit tollere, irresistibili­ter tollitur. Unde & ipsemet Domi­nus, Miserebor cui voluero, &c. Exod. 33. Et iterum, Auferam cor lapideum, &c. Exod. 36. Et Apostolus, Cujus vult, miseretur, &c. Rom. 9. Bradw. de caus Dei lib. 2. cap. 32. Whatso­ever (saith hee) this barre is said to be, none can take it away, but God; and if hee will take it away, it is irresistibly taken away. Whence the Lord himselfe saith, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. Exodus 33. And againe, I will take away the stony Heart. Ezek. 36. So the Apostle, He hath mercy on whom hee will have mer­cy, &c. Rom. 9. After these Scriptures hee brings in that of [Page 184] Austine, worthy to be written in Letters of Et Aug. de Praedest. SS c. 9. Haec gratia, quae occultè humanis cordibus divinâ largitate tribuitur, à nullo duro corde respuitur: ideò quippe tribuitur, ut cordis duritia primitùs auferatur. Bradw. Ibid. gold, This grace (saith hee) which by the bounty of God is secretly infused into the hearts of men, is refused by no hard heart. For there­fore it is infused, that in the first place the hard­nesse of the heart may bee taken away. I'le onely adde one Scripture more, with Austines glosse upon it, to shew that man being stirred up by preventing grace, hath not by his own Free will power to consent unto, and to doe that which is good, but it is God, who by his grace doth worke this in him. So the Apostle plainly tells us. It is God, (saith hee) that worketh in you, both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Phil. 2. 13. Therefore (saith Nos ergo volumus, sed Deus in no­bis operatur & velle: nos ergo ope­ramur, sed Deus in nobis operatur & operari pro bonâ voluntate. Hoc nobis expedit & credere, & dicere: hoc est pium, hoc verum, ut sit humilis & submissa confessio, & totum Deo de­tur. Aug. de bono persever. cap. 13. Austine) we will, but God doth worke this will in us: therefore wee worke, but God doth worke this worke in us of his good pleasure. This is expedient for us both to believe, and to speake: this is pi­ous, this is true; that so confession may bee humble, and submisse, and that all may be as­cribed unto God. And thus I hope it may sufficiently appeare, that we have no cause to decline either the authority of the Scriptures, or the testimonies of Fathers, in this point concerning Free-will.

I come now to those Scriptures, and Fathers, which the Mar­quesse doth alledge against us. Three places of Scripture are cited for proofe of Free-will, such as our Adversaries maintaine, and wee impugne. First, that 1 Cor. 7. 37. (it is misprinted, 1 Cor. 17.) Hee that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no ne­cessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart, that hee will keepe his virgin, doth well. But what is there here to prove Free-will? Perhaps those words, hath power over his own will. But the Apostle there speakes of a man, that hath a daughter marriageable, yet determines to keepe her unmar­ried: which the Apostle approves, so that the man have no ne­cessity, that is, no necessary cause of giving his daughter in mar­riage, but hath power over his owne will, that is, hath power to effect and accomplish that which hee willeth, so as no inconvenience to ensue upon it. After this manner doth [Page 185] Potestatem habens voluntatis suae perficiendae, h. c. quòd virgo consen­tiat abstinentiae à conjugio. Si enim virgo dissentiret, non haberet pater potestatem voluntatis propriae perfici­endae. Cajetan: ad loc. Cajetan himselfe in his Commenta­ries upon the place expound these wordes but hath power over his own will, viz. to ac­complish it, in that the Virgin doth consent to abstaine from marriage. For if shee should dissent, then the Father should not have power of accomplishing his own will. Thus Cajetan; now what is this to the controversie about free will? though (I know) Bellarmine Bell de grat. & lib. arb. l. 5. c. 23. also brings it in, as also another place as little to the purpose, namely that, 2 Cor. 9. 7. Every man according as hee purposeth in his heart, so let him give, not grudgingly, or of necessity; for God lo­veth a chearfull giver. Men must give almes willingly and chear­fully, therefore men have free will. It doth not follow; no more then that because men must serve God with a perfect heart, and with a willing minde, 1 Chron. 28. 9. therefore of themselves by the power of Free-will they are able to do it. The Rhemists tacite­ly confesse these places to be impertinent to the point in hand, passing them over in their Annotations, and making no use of them, as they are ready enough to doe, when they meet with any thing, which they thinke doth make for them. The next place is Deut. 30. 19. (not as it is printed 11.) I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; chuse life, that thou and thy seed may live. This place Bellarmine presumes much upon, saying that Non video quid ad hunc locum respon­deri possit. Bell. de grat. et lib. arb. lib. 5. ca. 23. hee sees not what can bee answered to it. And so the English Papists, who translated the old Testament at Doway, in their notes upon the place say, what Doctor can more plainly teach Free-will in man, then this Text of holy Scripture? But what is the reason of all this confidence? because man is bidden to chuse life, doth it therefore follow, that of himselfe hee is free and able to doe it? why? So man is bidden to worke out his own salvation, Phil. 2. 12. yet (as the Apostle addes immediately v. 13.) it is God that doth worke in him both the Will and the Deed. Man is bidden to come unto Christ, Isai. 53. 3. yet can hee not come, except the Father draw him. Ioh. 6. 44. Man is bidden to arise from the dead, Ephes. 5. 14. Can he therefore being dead quicken himself? Surely the same Apostle tells us in the same Epistle, that it is God that doth quicken those that are dead in trespasses and sinnes. Ephes. 2. 5. There is no more force in that place of Deuteronomie, [Page 186] for proofe of Free-will, then in any other place of Scripture, which containeth in it precept, or exhortation. And indeed our adversaries doe pretend, that all such places are for them. And Bell. de grat. & lib. arbit. lib. 5. cap. 18. & lib. 6. cap. 10. so did the Pelagians of old object such places: but Austine an­swers them, that though it's true, God doth not command man to doe that which cannot bee done by him, yet hee commandeth us to doe what wee are not able to Magnum aliquid Pelagiani se scire pu­tant, quan do dicunt, non juberet Deus, quod sciret non posse ab homine fieri. Quis hoc nesciat? Sed ideò jubet aliqua, quae non possumus, ut nove­rimus quid ab illo petere debeamus. Aug. de grat. & lib. arb. cap. 16. doe (viz. of our selves,) that wee may seeke unto him to make us able. Thus the people of God do; Turne unto me, saith God, Ioel 2. 12. Turne thou us unto thee, say the people of God, Lam. 5. 21. And by comparing places of Scripture together we may finde, that what God doth require of his people, the same hee doth promise unto them. Wash yee, make yee cleane, saith he, Isai. 1. 16. But Ezek. 36. 25. I will sprinkle cleane water upon you (saith hee) and you shall be cleane. So Ezek. 18. 31. God commands saying, Make you a new heart, and a new spirit: But Ezek. 36. 26. hee promiseth this very thing, A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put with in you. And accordingly David prayed unto God to worke this in him, Create in me a clean heart O Lord, and renew a right spirit within me. Psal. 51. 10. And that of Austine is well known, Give Da Domine quod jubes, & jube quod vis. O Lord what thou doest command, and then command what thou wil­lest. Besides, as Bradwardine observed long agoe, impotency and inability to performe Quis nesciat secundum omnia jura, Divina pariter & humana, impotenti­am descendentem ex culpâ nullatenus excusare, sed forsan potius aggravare, &c. Bradw. de Causâ Dei lib. 1. cap. 43. a duty, proceeding from a mans own fault, doth nothing excuse him either by the Law of God, or man. A bankrupt may justly be required to pay his debt, though hee be not able to pay it. Againe, Gods Precepts and Exhortations are not in vaine, though man by the power of his own Free-will be not able to doe what is required; because God doth make those very Precepts and Exhortations meanes whereby to worke that in his elect, which hee doth require of them. When Christ spake to Lazarus being dead and buried, saying, Lazarus come forth, Joh. 11. this was not in vaine, though its certaine, a man that's dead, and laid in the grave, hath no power of himselfe to come forth; yet (I say) it was not in vaine, that Christ spake [Page 187] so unto Lazarus; for together with his word hee sent forth his Divine power, and so inabled Lazarus to come forth, as hee re­quired. So neither is it in vaine, that God doth command men to doe things, which of themselves they cannot doe, because he accompanying his word with his spirit, inables them to do what hee commands. Verily, verily, I say unto you (saith Christ) the houre is comming, and now is, when the dead shall heare the voyce of the Son of God; and they that heare, shall live. Joh. 5. 25. Our Sa­viour there speakes of such as are spiritually dead, as appeares those words and now is, and he shewes, that his word is a power­full and effectuall meanes (viz. by the concurrence of his spirit) to work the life of grace in them.

The third and last place of Scripture, which the Marquesse citeth for Free-will, is that Mat. 23. 37. O Ierusalem, Ierusalem; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a Hen gathereth her Chickens under her wings, and yee would not. But what doth this place prove? That men have Free-will so farre forth, as of themselves to resist and reject the offers of grace; which wee nothing doubt of. But the question is, whether men have such a Free-will, as that of themselves they can receive grace when it is offered. This is that which wee deny, neither doth the place alledged, make any thing for proofe of it.

The Marquesse saith, There might have been a willingnesse, as well as an unwillingnesse, (so it should be, though it be printed, as well as a willing) or else Christ had wept in vaine: and to thinke that he did so, were to make him an impostor. I grant that there might have been a willingnesse, but not by the power of Free-will, except made free by grace, it being God that doth worke both the will and the deed. Phil. 2. 13. So the Jewes, of whom Christ complained, that they would not come unto him, Ioh. 5. 40. might have come; but yet of themselves they could not come, not except it were given unto them of God, Ioh. 6. 65. not except hee did draw them. Ioh. 6. 44. Whereas the Marquesse speakes of Christs weeping, his minde was (it seemes) upon a­nother place, viz. that Luk. 19. 41, 42. where it is said, that Christ drawing nigh to Ierusalem, beheld it, and wept over it, saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things that belong unto thy peace: but now they are hid from thine eyes. [Page 188] But that Christ wept, when he said, O Ierusalem, Ierusalem, how often would I have gathered thy children, &c. this we do not find, though the words be recorded both Mat. 27. 37. and also Luke 13. 34.

But suppose that Christ had wept, when he said, O Ierusalem, Ierusalem, &c. yet had not his weeping been in vaine, though Ierusalem had no power of her selfe to doe that which there Christ speaks of. For yet neverthelesse Christ shewed his affecti­on towards Ierusalem, even as he did towards Lazarus, when he wept over him as he lay over the grave. Behold how he loved him, said the Jewes, Iohn 11. 36. yet it is without all question, that Lazarus of himself could not have come out of the grave, except Christ by his Almighty power had raised him up. Some perhaps may say, But why did Christ complain of Ierusalem for her un­willingnesse, if it were not in her power to be willing? I answer, because both her unwillingnesse, and also her want of power to be willing was from her self; it was her own fault, and there­fore she was justly complained of, and reproved for it.

But againe, some may say, Ierusalem had sufficient grace whereby she might have been willing, or else Christ would not have complained that she was unwilling. I answer, Ierusalem had a sufficiency of the means of Grace, which she ought to have made use of, and to have been wrought upon by, but would not, and therefore did Christ complain of her. But Ierusalem had not a sufficiency of the Spirit of Grace, without which she could not improve the means, as she should have done; and yet neverthe­lesse, the complaint made of her was just: For God having given unto man, at first, Grace sufficient to doe whatsoever he should require, and this Grace being lost by mans own fault, Eccles. 7. 29. God is not bound to restore it but when, and where he pleaseth; and yet may justly require the obedience that is due unto him, and complain for want of it, as a man may justly demand his debt of a bankrupt, and complain of him for not paying it, though he be not able to pay it. Homo non potest solvere, nec reddere Deo, quod de­bet Deo: quia non potest Deo reddere totum amorem suum, nec timorem, nec honorem, nec obedientiam, nec voluntatem Dei facere, quia corruptus est, & mutatus in contrarium suae naturae; & ipsemet fecit se talem, ut non possit Deo facere quod debet: & tamen semper debet: & si debitum semper manet, nec excusatur, quia tenetur: & si non potest, ipsemet est in causa, & in culpâ quare non potest, Raimund, de Sabund. Theo­log. Natur. tit. 250. Raimundus de Sabunde, a Popish [Page 189] Author, is large in his expressions to this purpose, That man being now corrupt, and made quite contrary to what he was at first, cannot pay that which he oweth unto God; cannot love, fear, honour, and obey God as he ought: and that yet neverthelesse the debt still remaines, this is still due unto God, and man is not excused, because though he be not able, yet he himselfe is the cause of his inability, and it is his owne fault that he is not able.

After the allegation of these places of Scriptures, the Mar­quesse addes, that the Ancient Fathers are of their Opinion, viz. in point of Free-will, and he cites Euseb. Caesar. de praep. l. 1. c. 7. Hil. de Trinit. Aug. l. 1. ad Simpl. q. 4. Ambr. in Luk. 12. Chrys. hom. 19. in Gen. Irenaeus, l. 4. c. 72. Cyrill. in Ioh. l. 4. c. 7.

Now for diverse of the Antient Fathers, and namely for Au­stine, (whom the Marquesse alledgeth against us, and who in­deed is chiefly to be looked at in this Controversie, as having most occasion to declare himself in it, by reason of the Pelagian Heresie which arose in his time) I have sufficiently shewed be­fore how far they are from compliance with our Adversaries.

But to come to a particular examination of the Authors and places that are cited. First Eusebius, in the place mentioned, hath nothing at all (that I can find) about Free-will, the whole Chapter being de Phoenicum Theologiâ, about the Divinity of the Phoenicians.

Hilary is so cited, that there is no looking after him; for he wrote twelve books of the Trinity, and here he is onely cited, de Trin. 1. of the Trinity, but in which of the twelve Books he saith any thing to this purpose, is not mentioned.

As for Austine, that which the Marquesse (I presume) inten­ded, is, lib. 1. ad Simplic. quaest. 2. not q. 4. for there are but two Questions answered in the first Book; in the second Book indeed there are more then four Questions, but nothing about Free-will. In the first Book, and second Question, there is something that may seeme to make for the Opinion of the Marquesse, but much more is there, which doth indeed make against it; indeed, so much, that though Bellarmine cite diverse passages out of Au­stine for proof of Free-will, yet he was more cautious (it seemes) then to cite any thing out of that which Austine wrote about it to Simplicianus.

[Page 190] Let us hear what Austine himself, in his Retractations (where­in he did review all his Works) saith concerning his books writ­ten to Simplicianus, and concerning that very Question; in answer whereunto he hath much about Free-will: In the solution of which question (saith In cujus quaestionis solutione labora­tum est quidem pro libero arbitrio vo­luntatis humanae, sed vicit Dei gratia. Aug. Retract. lib. 2. cap. 1. he) mans Free-will was much laboured for, but the Grace of God did overcome. And this will clearly appear by perusing the Book it selfe, and the question handled in it. The question is about the meaning of those words, Iacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated, and the rest that follow, Rom. 9.

Now among other things that Austine saith, there is this, which (as I conceive) the Mar­quesse Noluit ergo Esau, & non cucurrrit, sed & si voluisset, & cucurrisset, Dei adjutorio perveniflet, qui ei etiam velle, & currere praestaret, nisi vocatione contemptâ reprobus fieret. Aliter enim Deus praestat ut velimus, aliter quod voluerimus. Ut velimus enim, & suum esse voluit, & nostrum; suum vocan­do, nostrum sequendo. Quod autem voluerimus, solus praestat, id est, posse benè agere, & semper beatè vivere. Aug. ad Simplic. lib. 1. quaest. 2. aimed at, Esau was not willing, and did not run; but if he had been willing, and had run, by the help of God he had obtained; God would have given him both to will, and to run, except by contemning Gods Call he would be a Reprobate. For God doth otherwise give us, that we may will, then he doth give us that which we have willed. For that we may will, God would have both to be his work, and ours: his by Calling, ours by Following when we are called. But that which we have willed, God alone doth give, that is, to be able to do well, and for ever to live happily.

Here, I confesse, Austine doth seeme to shew himself a patron of Free-will, and we could not easily judge otherwise of him, if we should look meerly upon these words, and take them as his positive sentence. But if we consider what Austine saith both before, and after, we shall see that he spake thus rather by way of objection, then by way of determination. Before these words he saith thus, A wheel doth not therefore run Non ideò benè currit rota ut rotunda sit, sed quia rotunda est: sic nemo proptereà benè operatur, ut accipiat gratiam, sed quia accepit. Ang. Ibid. well, that it may be round, but because it is round. So no man doth therefore work well, that he may receive grace, but because he hath received it. Austine therefore was not of that minde, that Esau of himself, by his free-will, could have been willing, and have run; or that any, when he is called, and incited by Grace, can [Page 191] by the power of Free-will follow, and obey, but it is grace that must work this in him.

To this purpose againe before the words objected, If (saith Austine) Iacob did there­fore Si ergò Jacob ideò crededit, quia vo­luit, non ei Deus donavit fidem, sed eam sibi ipse volendo praestitit, & ha­buit aliquid, quod non accepit. Aug. Ibid. believe, because he would, then God did not bestow faith on him, but he by willing did afford it unto himself, and so he had something which he received not. Which is contrary to the words of the Apostle, What hast thou, that thou hast not received? 1 Cor. 4. 7. But a little after those words that seeme to make for Free-will, Austine expresseth himself more fully: For having cited that of the Apostle, Phil. 2. 12, 13. Work out your own salva­tion with fear and trembling; for it is God that worketh in you, both to will, and to doe of his good pleasure, he addes, The Apostle there sufficiently shewes, that a Ubi satis ostendit etiam ipsam bonam voluntatem in nobis operante Deo fi­eri. Nam si proptereà solùm dictum est, Non volentis, neque currentis, sed miserentis est Dei, quia voluntas ho­minis sola non sufficit, ut justè recté (que) vivatur, nisi adjuvetur misericordiâ Dei; potest & hoc modo dici, Igitur non miserentis est Dei, sed volentis est hominis, quia misericordia Dei sola non sufficit, nisi consensus nostrae volunta­tis addatur. At illud manifestum est, frustrà nos velle, nisi Deus misereatur. Illud nescio quomodo dicatur, frustrà Deum misereri, nisi nos velimus. Si enim Deus misereatur, etiam volu­mus: ad eandem quippe misericordi­am pertinet, ut velimus. Deus enim est, qui operatur in nobis & velle, & operari pro bonâ voluntate. Aug. Ibid. good will it self is wrought in us by God. For if therefore only it be said, (Rom. 9.) It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy, because the will of man alone is not sufficient, that he may justly, and rightly, except it be helped by the mercy of God; then by this reason it may be said. It is not of God that sheweth mercy, but of man that willeth, because the mercy of God alone is not sufficient, unlesse the consent of our will be ad ded. But that is manifest, that we will in vain, except God shew mercy. This I know not how it can be said, that God doth shew mercy in vain, except we be willing. For if God shew mercy, then we are willing; seeing it belongs to that same mercy to make us willing. For it is God that worketh in us both to will, and to doe of his good pleasure.

Again a little after, having said by way of objection, Free-will availeth much; he Liberum voluntatis arbitrium pluri­mum valet: imò verò, est quidem, sed in venundatis sub peccato quid valet? Aug Ibid. answers, Nay, it is indeed, but in those, that are sold under sinne (as all are till they be fred by Grace) what doth it avail?

[Page 192] And againe, when those things delight us, Cum ergo nos ea delectant, quibus proficiamus ad Deum, inspiratur hoc, & praebetur gratiâ Dei, non nutu no­stro, & industriâ, aut operum meritis comparatur; quia ut sit nutus volun­tatis, ut sit industria studii, ut sint opera charitate ferventia, ille tribuit, ille largitur. Aug. Ibid. whereby wee profit towards God, this is in­spired, and given unto us by the grace of God, it is not gotten by our consent, industry, or the merits of our workes: because the consent of the will, the industry of indeavour, and workes fer­vent with charity, are all the gift of God. Thus then it is most manifest, that in the place pointed at by the Marquesse, Austine was most farre from main­taining such a Free-will, as we oppose. There is also a passage in Austines * Quamvis sit in cujusque potestate quid velit, non est tamen in cujusquam po­testate quid possit. Aug. lib. 2 ad Simpli, quaest. 1.second book to Simplicianus, quaest. 1. which may seeme to make against us, viz. That to will any thing, is in the power of every one, but to be able to doe any thing, is not in the power of any. But let Austine explain himself, and shew his own meaning; and that he doth Quod ideò dictum est, quia non di­cimus esse in potestate nostrâ, nisi quod cum volumus, fit, ubi priùs, & maximè est ipsum velle. Sine ullo quippe intervallo temporis praesto est voluntas ipsa cum volumus: sed hanc quoque ad benè vivendum desuper accipimus potestatem, cum praepara­tur voluntas à Domino. Aug. Retract. lib. 2. cap. 1. in his Retractations; That (saith hee) was spoken, because we doe not say, that any thing is in our power, but that which is done when wee will. Where first, and chiefly is to will it selfe. For immediately without any distance of time the will it selfe is present, when wee will. But this power also to live well, wee receive from above, when the will is prepared of the Lord. Thus carefull was that good Father to prevent the mis­taking of his words, lest any should thinke that hee did ascribe any thing to the power of Free-will, in that which is good.

So much for Austine; the next Father alledged is Ambrose, who in the place cited, viz. in Luk. 12. hath nothing above Free-will, that I can finde. After him followes Chrysostome, who in­deed in the place, that is alledged, goes far in his expressions concerning Free-will, as Quia ergo liberi arbitrii esse nostram naturam fecit omnium Dominus, ipse quidem, quae sua sunt, omnia pro suâ misericordiâ semper exhibet.—Et necessitatem utique non imponit, sed congruis remediis appositis totum jacere in aegrotantis sententiâ dimittit. Chrysost. Hom. 19. in Gen. if God onely did afford meanes, and so leave it in the power of man to use them, or not, as hee pleaseth.

If therefore I except against his testi­mony in this point, I have no meane men of the Church of Rome to beare mee out. [Page 193] I know Hunc patrem nobis Calvinus libenter concedit, quòd ei iminus visus sit in li­beri arbitrii viribus praedicandis. At imperitiam suam opertè prodit, &c. Bell. de grat. et lib. arb. l. 5. c. 25. Bellarmine seemes to take it as a matter of great advantage, that Calvin stands not here so much upon Chrysostome, as one that did too much extoll the power of Free-will. But was this onely Calvines judgement of Chrysostome? Did not some of the Romanists themselves also think thus of him? S. Chrysostomus nonnunquam vires nostri liberi arbitrii mirum in mo­dum extollit, loquendo quasi iper hy­perbolen ex contentione impugnandi Manicheorum, & gentilium errores &c. Alvar. de auxil. disp. 22. Sect. 33. S. Chrysostom (saith Alvarez a Romish Archbishop, and a great Schoole-man) sometimes doth wonderfully extoll the power of our Free-will, speaking as it were hyperbolically, whiles hee strives to impugne the errors of the Mani­chees, and of the Gentiles, who held that Man is still by nature (as hee was first created of God) or that by the violence of fate he is compelled to sinne. So also Iansenius (a Romish Bishop, to whom also Alvarez doth referre us) have­ing mentioned something of Euthymius, and Quae dicta à Chrysostomi locutione in variis locis ferè desumpta, nisi cautè legantur, & intelligantur, praebere possunt occasionem erroris Pelagii, qui asseruit initium fidei, & justifica­tionis esse ex nobis, consummationem verò ex Deo, &c. Chrysostomus sanè optim è sentiens de Dei gratiâ, &c. ta­men multa scripsit contra Manichaeum in commendationem liberi arbitrii, pleraque illi tribuens sine commemo­ratione gratiae Divinae, quae non sic scripsisset, si praevidere potuisset exo­rituram Pelagii haeresin, quae tum ad­huc non erat exorta, vel illi cognita. Iansen. Concord. cap. 59. Theophylact, hee saith, that those passages were taken from Chrysostome, and that ex­cept they be warily read, and understood, they may give occasion of falling into the error of Pelagius, who held that the beginning of faith, and justification is from our selves, and the consummation from God, &c. Chrysostome (he saith) meant well concerning the grace of God, yet he wrote many things against the Mani­chees in commendation of Free-will, attribu­ting most things unto it without making any mention of Gods Grace; which things he would not have written in that manner, if hee could have foreseene that Pelagius his heresie would arise, which as then was not risen, or not known unto men. Thus were see how these Authors, though they excuse Chrysostomes meaning, yet dislike his expression. But some amongst those of the Roman Church have gone further in their censure of Chrysostome, as Quid am res­pondent, &c. Chrysostomum, cum intelligere non valeret, quanam ratione libertas arbitrii nostri salva posset consistere, si Deus suâ gratiâ nostram praeveniret electionem, credidisse, electionem, quâ primò acceptamus bona, eáque facere decernimus, esse priorem ipsâ Dei gratiâ, posteà verò subsequi gratiam, quâ adjuvamur, & nobis coaperatur Deus. Alvar. loc. citat. Alvarez [Page 194] relates, viz. that he held, that election, whereby we first accept those things, that are good, and resolve to doe them, is before the grace of God, and that then grace doth follow after, whereby we are helped, and God doth co-operate with us. To this pur-pose I finde Tolet, a Jesuite first, and after­wards Toletus in Joh. 6. agnoscit Chrysostomi hanc esse sententiam, hominem per liberum arbitrium seipsum facere dig­num gratiâ; eandem esse Cyrilli, alio­rum etiam doctorum, maximè Graecorum. Cbam. tom. 3. l. 3. c. 16. Sect. 11. a Cardinall, cited by Chamier, though I have not his Booke now at hand to per­use. And this may suffice for answer to Chrysostome, yea and to those other two Fathers also, that follow, viz. Irenaeus and Cyrill, the latter of these being by name, and both of them im­plicitly excepted against by some of the Romanists themselves, as appeares by what is cited in the margent, as also by the rea­sons alledged by Alvarez, and Iansenius, why Chrysostome did exceede at least in his expressions, viz. because he was so earnest against the Manichees and others, and knew nothing of the con­trary errour of the Pelagians, which reasons might transport the other Fathers also. It is true (saith Alvarez) that S. Chry­sostome, and other Fathers, that wrote before the Heresie of Pelagius was risen up, did speake Verum est, quòd S. Chrysostomus, & alii Patres qui ante exortam haeresin Pelagii scripserunt, pauca de gratiâ Christi, & plurima pro confirmandâ arbitrii libertate contra haeresin Mani­chaeorum docuerunt, quod & S. Au­gustinus advertit, &c. Alvar. disp. 22. Sect. 22. little of the grace of Christ, and much for the confirming of the liberty of the will against the heresie of the Manichees. He addes that Austine also in his writings against the Pe­lagians did observe this, and hee cites his words to this purpose. Yea, hee shewes that Austine in his Re­tractations was faine to answer in like manner for himself, when as the Pelagians did make use of his former writings against the Manichees, thereby to maintaine their opinion concerning the power of Free-will in opposition to the necessity and efficacy of Gods Grace. Thus likewise Iansenius saith, that after the Pelagian heresie was ri­sen, Itaque Augustinus exortâ jam haeresi Pelagianâ, exactiùs & expressiùs lo­cutus est de Dei gratiâ, &c. Jansen. concord. cap. 59. then Austine spake more exactly, and more expresly of the Grace of God. The Jesuit Ammonius, Cyrillus, Theophylactus, & Euthymius, respondent non omnes trahi, quia non omnes digni sunt. Quod nimis affine est Pelagianorum errori. Quasi verò homo antequam per gratiam ad gratiam trahatur, mereri possit gratiā, quod est dignum fieri, qui trahatur. Maldon. in Iob. 6. 44. Maldonate doth tell us, that Ammonius, and Cyrill, Theophylact, [Page 195] and Euthymius so expound that, No man commeth unto me except the Father draw him, that they come too nigh the error of Pe­lagius, viz. that all are not drawn, because all are not worthy, as if (saith he) before a man be drawn by grace unto grace, hee could deserve grace, which is to be worthy to be drawn.

But though Irenaeus, and Cyrill be liable to these exceptions, yet I see nothing in the Si igitur non in nobis esset facere haec, aut non facere, quam causam habebat Apostolus, & multo priùs ipse Domi­nus consilium dare, quaedam quidem facere, à quibusdam verò abstinere? Iren. lib. 4. cap. 72. places cited by the Marquesse, wherein they make against us. Irenaeus saith thus, If it were not in us to doe these things, or not to do them, why did the Apostle, and before him the Lord himself counsell us to doe some things, and to abstaine from other things? Here Irenaeus indeed sheweth that it is in us to doe, or not to doe, but hee doth not say that it is in nobis ex nobis, in us of our selves, by the power of our Free-will to doe things truly good. He addes immediately, that man from the beginning is free, as God, after whose likenesse hee was made, is free. Now this Sed quoniam liberae sententiae ab ini­tio est homo, & liberae sententiae est Deus, ad cujus similitudinem factus est, semper consilium datur ei con­tinere bonum, &c. Ibid. doth rather make against our adversaries then for them; for it shewes, that the freedome of mans will doth not consist in this, that hee is free either to doe good, or to doe evill, seeing that God is not free in that manner, hee being onely free to doe good, but altogether uncapable of do­ing evill. So man being determined by grace to that, which is good, yet is free, because not constrained nor forced against his will, in the doing of it: and so on the other side hee is free in doing evill, though of himselfe without grace he can doe no­thing but evill. As for the other Fathers, viz. Cyrill, that which hee saith in the place alledged, is this, wee cannot according to the doctrine of the Church, Non possumus secundum Ecclesiae veritatisque dogmata, liberam potesta­tem hominis, quod liberum arbitrium appellatur, ullo modo negare. Cyr. in Iob. l. 4. c. 7. and of the truth, by any meanes deny the free power of man, wich is called Free-will. This is nothing against us, who doe not (as hath beene shewed before) simply deny Free-will, but onely so as our adversaries of the Church of Rome doe maintaine it. To that which is in controversie betwixt us, and our adversaries, Cyrill here saith nothing, and therefore his [Page 196] testimony is not to the purpose. And so much for Free-will.

In the next place, we hold it possible (saith the Marquesse) to Page 65. keepe the Commandements; you say it is impossible. Wee have Scripture for it. Luke 1. 6. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the Commandements, and Ordinances of the Lord, blamelesse. And 1 Joh. 5. 3. His Commandements are not grievous.

For keeping the Commandements we hold, not that it is sim­ply impossible, but that according to that measure of grace, which God doth ordinarily bestow upon men here in this life, it is not possible to keep them, viz. so as not to be guilty of the breach of them. If a man could fully and perfectly keep the Commandements, then he should be without sin; for sinne is nothing else but a transgression of the Law, as Saint Iohn defines it, 1 Iohn 3. 4. But the Scripture shewes that no man in this life is so perfect as to be without sinne. There is not a just man upon earth that doth good, and sinneth not, saith Solomon, Eccles. 7. 20. If we say that we have no sinne, we deceive our selves, and the truth is not in us, saith Saint Iohn, 1 John 1. 8. In many things we offend all, saith Saint Iames, Iam. 3. 2. And Christ hath taught all to pray for forgivenesse of sinnes, Mat. 6. 12. which supposeth that all, even the best that live upon earth, have need of it, that they are guilty of sinnes, and so consequently come short of the full, and perfect keeping of Gods Commande­ments. Bellarmine thinks to elude these Solida responsio est, peccata venialia, sine quibus non vivimus, non esle pec­cata simpliciter, sed imperfectè, & secundum quid, neque esse contra le­gem, sed praeter legem, &c. Bell. de Iu­stif. lib. 4 cap. 14. places, by saying, That we cannot indeed live without Veniall sinnes, but that Veniall sinnes are not sinnes simply, but onely imperfectly, and in some respect; and that they are not against the Law, but only besides it.

But first, Veniall sinnes are against the Law, as being transgres­sions of it; for else they are no sinnes at all, that being the very na­ture of sinne, to be a transgression of the Law, 1 Iohn 3. 4.

2. There are no sins so veniall, but that without the mercy of God in Christ they are damnable. It being written, Cursed is e­very one that continueth not in all things, that are written in the book of the Law to doe them, Gal. 3. 10.

And thirdly, no man living upon earth is free from such sinnes, [Page 197] as that he is able to stand, if God shall enter into judgement with him. If thou Lord shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord who shall stand? Psal. 130. 3. Enter not into judgement with thy servant; for in thy fight shall no man living be justified, Psal. 143. 2.

The Fathers here are on our side; Hierome having cited that of our Saviour, Out of the hearts of men proceed evill thoughts, adul­teries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetous­nesse, &c. addes, Let him come forth, that Procedat, quî in corde suo haec non esse testetur, & plenam in corpore isto mortali justitiam confitebor. Hier. dial. advers. Pelag. l. 2. can testifie that these things are not in his heart, and I will confesse that full and perfect righte­ousnesse may be in this mortall body. Who is there (saith Leo) so free from fault, that there Quis invenitur ita immunis à culpâ, ut in co non habeat vel justitia quod arguat, vel misericordia quod remittat? Leo Ser. 7. de solen. Epiphan. Nihil peccare, solius est Dei.—Qui carnem gerit, culpae obnoxius est. Ambros. lib. 1. Epist. 3. is not in him that, which either justice may con­demne, or mercy may pardon? In no thing to sinne, is proper unto God, saith Ambrose. He means that no man in this life can attain un­to that perfection; for so he addes present­ly after, He that bears about him flesh (a mortall body) is subject unto sinne.

Thus also Austine, Who is there (saith he) Quis est in hâc vitâ sic mundus, ut non sit magis magisque mundandus? Aug. tract. 80. in Ioh. in this life so clean, but that he hath need to be made yet more and more clean? And a­gain, The Church (saith he) in this life is so cleansed, not that they that are justified have no mainders of sinne in them, but that they Sic mundatur Ecclesia in hâc vitâ, non ut justificati nullas in se habeant pec­cati reliquias, sed ut maculam criminis, & rugam non habeant falsitatis. Aug. contra Iul. l. 4. c. 3. have not any spot of criminall offence, nor any wrinkle of falshood. Accordingly speaks Gregory, In this life (saith hee) many are without criminall offences, but none In hâc vitâ multi sine crimine, nullus verò esse sine peccato valet.—Nonnulla peccata animam polluunt, quam crimina extinguunt. Greg iu Iob. lib. 21. cap. 10. can bee without sinne. And presently after hee sayes, that these sinnes, which none can be without, doe pollute the soule, though they doe not destroy it. Bernard interprets that of Saint Iohn, He that is born of God Non peccat, id est, non permanet in peccato.—Sive non peccat, id est, tantundem est, ac si non peccet, pro eo scilicet quod non imputatur ei pec­catum. Bern. in Septuag [...]s. Ser. 1. sinneth not, 1 Iohn 3. 9. thus, He sinneth not, that is, he doth not continue in sinne. Or thus, He sinneth not, that is, it is as much as if he did not sinne, because sinne is not imputed unto [Page 198] him. And elsewhere he expressely yeeldeth Nec latuit praeceptorem, praecepti pondus hominum excedere vires, sed judicavit utile ex hoc ipso suae illos in­sufficientiae admoneri, & ut scirent sanè ad quem justitiae finem niti pro viribus oporteret. Ergo mandando impossibilia non praevaricatores ho­mines fecit, sed humiles, ut omne os obstruatur, & subditus fiat omnis mundus Deo, quia ex operibus legis non justificabitur omnis caro coram illo. Accipientes quippe mandatum, & sentientes defectum clamabimus in coelum, & miserebitur nostri Deus; & sciemus in illo die, quia non ex ope­ribus justitiae quae fecimus nos, sed secundum suam misericordiam salvos nos fecit. Bern. in Cant. Ser. 50. that Gods Commandements are more then any can fully and perfectly observe. The Commander (saith he) was not ignorant, that the command did exceede mens strength, but he iudged it profitable, that they should be ad­monished of their insufficiency, and that they should know, to what perfection of righteous­nesse they ought to endeavour as they are able; Therefore by commanding things impossible, he did not make men prevaricatours, but humble, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be subject unto God: because by the workes of the Law shall no flesh be justi­fied before him. For receiving the Comman­ment, and feeling a defect, wee shall cry to­wards Heaven, and God will have mercy on us; and we shall know in that day, that not by the workes of righteousnesse that we have done, but according to his mercy he hath saved us.

Thus also some of the Church of Rome, that have written since Luthers time, have acknowledged, that none in this life are free from sinne, nor able to abide the judgement of God by their own righteousnesse, which is in effect to acknowledge that none doe perfectly keepe Gods Commandements. Thus Multum quidem peccatorum habent adhuc, sed nihil damnationis, quia apud Deum mundi reputantur propter fidem in Christum. Ferus in Ioh. 13 10. Ferus speaking of such as are justified, saith that they have indeed yet many sinnes, but no condemnation, because they are reputed clean for their faith in Christ. Nemo enim quantumvis sanctus, immunis est à peccato, quamdiù vivit in hoc seculo.—Opus igitur ha­bent quotidianâ purgatione. Ferus in Ioh. 5. 2. And againe, No man (saith hee) how holy soever, is free from sin, so long as hee lives in this World. Therefore all have need to be purged daily. So also Quare cum nemo sit perfectè justus apud Deum, justi & puri judicii me­tus omnes terrere debet. Genebr. in Psa. 142. (vel. 143) 2. Genebrard, Seeing (saith hee) that none is perfectly righteous before God, the fear of his just and pure judgement ought to affright all. That is his comment upon the words of David, Enter not into judgement with thy ser­vant O Lord, &c. Psal. 143. 2. Now for those two places of Scripture, which the Mar­quesse [Page 199] alledgeth, they come farre short of proving that possibi­lity of keeping Gods Commandements, which wee deny. As for that Luk. 1. 6. it shewes indeed that Zacharias and Elizabeth had respect unto all Gods Commandements as all ought to have, Psal. 119. 6. but it doth not shew, that they did perfectly keepe all Gods Commandements. Hierome long agoe answered the Pelagians objecting Justi appellantur, non quòd omni vi­tio careant, sed quòd majori patte virtutum commendentur. Hieron. adv. Pelagiau. ad Ctesiphont. these very persons, and others spoken of in Scripture as righteous, that they are called righteous, not that they were without fault, but because they were for most part vertuous. And I marvell how any can alledge the example of Zacharias, as one that did per­fectly keep the Commandements, (though I know Bellarmine Bell. de Iustific. lib. 4. cap. 11. to this purpose doth alledge it) when as in that very Chapter, viz. Luk. 1. is related how hee sinned in not believing the mes­sage, which by an Angell God sent unto him, and how hee was punished, and became dumbe a long time for it. The other place, viz. 1 Ioh. 5. 3. only shews that the Children of God do willingly and chearfully obey the will of God, not that they doe fully and perfectly obey it. I have rejoyced in the way of thy testimonies, saith David, Psal. 119. 14. I will delight my selfe in thy statutes. v. 1. 6. The Law of thy mouth is better unto me then thousands of gold and silver. v. 72. How sweet are thy words unto my taste? yea sweet­er then hony to my mouth. v. 103. More to be desired are they then gold, yea then much fine gold; sweeter also then Hony, and the Hony combe, Psal. 19. 10. yet presently hee addes, who can under­stand his errours? cleanse thou me from secret faults. vers. 12. And elsewhere hee complaines, saying, Mine iniquities have taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to looke up: they are more then the haires of my head. Psal. 40. 12. And againe, Iniquities prevaile against me. Psal. 65. 3. And (as before noted) hee cryes out, Enter not into judgement with thy servant, &c. Psal. 143. 2. The History of his life recorded in Scriptures evidently shewes, that though Gods Commandements were as little grievous unto him, as to any, yet hee came short of a full and perfect obser­vance of them.

The Marquesse addes, The Fathers are for us. Orig. Hom. 9. in Ios. S. Cyrill lib. 4. contra Iulian. S. Hil. in Psal. 1 18. S. Hieron. [Page 200] lib. 3. contra Pelag. S. Basil. But I have shewed already what little cause our adversaries have in this point to boast of the Fa­thers, and that both Hierome, whom the Marquesse here citeth, and also diverse others assert the same that wee doe. To those before mentioned I may adde another of these here alledged against us, viz. Propheta in corpore positus loquitur, & neminem viventium scit sine peccato esse posse. Unum meminisle, qui peccatum non fecit, neque dolus in­ventus est in ore ejus. Hil. in Ps. 118. vel 119. v. 39. Hilarie, who in Psal. 118. saith that none living is without sinne, onely one (viz. Christ) did no sinne, neither was guile found in his mouth.

Therefore when as Latum igitur mandatum Dei est, &c. ut non difficile sit, si voluntas ad­sit, praecepto Dei obtemperare, Hil. in Psal. 118. (vel. 119.) 96. Hilarie saith upon those words Psalme 119. 96. thy Com­mandement is exceeding broad, that it is no hard matter, if will be present, to obey Gods Commandement: hee speakes of such an obedience, not which is every way compleat and perfect, (for then it should be easie to live without sinne) but which God will accept, as hee will that which is sincere, though it be imperfect. Otherwise even upon those very words Latum planè est (mandatum) quòd in infinitum cognitionem humanae ig­norantiae excedit. Hil. Ibid. Hilarie sheweth that man cannot perfectly obey Gods Comman­ments, saying, that they are so broad, that they infinitely exceede the shallownesse of mans knowledge. If mans knowledge cannot reach to the full extent of Gods Commandements, much lesse can his practice doe it. So that which Hierome saith, though it may seeme to be against us, yet indeed it is not. God (saith he) hath commanded things possible. (So the Pelagian Deus possibilia mandavit; hoc nulli dubium est. Hier. advers. Pelag. l. 3. objected, hee answers) this none doubts of. Hee grants it; but how? No otherwise, for any thing I can see, then as wee doe grant it, viz. that God, if he please can give such a measure of grace unto men, as to inable them perfectly to doe all that is commanded.

But Sed quia ho­mines possibi­lia non faci­unt, iccircò omnis mundus subditus est Deo, & indiget misericordiâ ejus; aut certè si ostendere potueris, qui universa compleverit, tunc poteris demonstrare esse hominem, qui non indiget misericordiâ Dei.—Monstra factum esse de praeterito, aut certè nunc fieri. Hier. Ibid. Hierome immediately after shewes, that none either doth, or ever did so, and that therefore all are guilty before God, and stand in neede of his mercy. If (saith hee) thou canst [Page 201] shew any, that hath fulfilled all things required then thou canst shew one that doth not needs Gods merey, shew that this hath been, or that it now is. So when Cyrill saith that even that precept, Thou shalt not covet, may be fulfilled by grace, hee doth not oppose us, nor wee him. For wee doubt not but God is able to give grace whereby to fulfill it; but wee deny that any (onely Christ ex­cepted) ever had such grace as whereby to fulfill it. Basil is ci­ted at large, no place being noted where he saith any thing about this point; onely in Bellarmine I finde that upon those words Bell. de Justifi. lib. 4. cap. 12. Take heed to thy selfe hee saith, that it is a wicked thing to say that the precepts of the Spirit are impossible. Which wee yeeld; so farre forth as any have the Spirit, they may performe them: but none have the Spirit in such full measure as to be able fully to performe whatsoever is commanded. Origen in the place cited, compares them to Women, who say that they cannot keepe Gods Commandements. Which must be understood of keeping them so as to have respect unto them, and to study and indeavour to keepe them. For otherwise if we speake of an ex­act and perfect keeping of the Commandements, both men and women, even the best upon Earth, are farre from it. For the flesh lusteth against the spirit, (saith the Apostle) and the spirit against the flesh, and these are contrary the one to the other, so that you cannot do the things that you would. Gal. 5. 17.

Wee hold (saith the Marquesse) faith cannot justifie without Page 65. workes. Yee say, good workes are not absolutely necessary unto salva­tion. Wee have Scripture for what wee say. 1 Cor. 13. 2. Though I have all Faith, and have no Charity, I am nothing. And James 2. 24. By Workes a Man is justified, and not by Faith onely.

Answ. Protestants in opposition to them of the Church of Rome hold that Faith alone doth justifie, and that Workes doe not concurre with Faith unto justification. Yet withall they hold that Faith which doth justifie, is not alone without workes. Jo. Calvinus in Antidoto Concilii ad can. 11. Sess 6. Sola, inquit, sides est quae justificat, sed sides tamen quae justificat, non est sola. Sicut ca­lor solis solus est, qui terram calefacit, ipse tamen calor non est solus in sole, sed cum splen­dore. Idem docent Philippus tum in locis, tum in Apologiâ confess. Brentius in Catechismo, Chemnitius in Exam. Concilii, & alii. Bell de justif. lib. 1. cap. 14. Bellarmine confesseth that Calvin hath these very words, [Page 202] It is Faith alone that doth justifie, but yet Faith which doth justifie, is not alone. As the heate of the Sun alone is that which doth heate the Earth, yet heate is not alone in the Sun, but there is light also joyned with it. And hee addes that Melancthon, Brentius, Chem­nitius, and other Protestants teach the same thing.

Therefore by Bellarmines owne confession Protestants are no enemies unto good workes. Neither are they any whit injurious unto them in excluding them from having a share in justificati­on, as the Romanists are injurious unto Faith in making workes copartners with it in that respect. We conclude (saith S. Paul) That a Man is justified by Faith, without the deeds of the Law. Rom. 3. 28. And in the next Chapter the Apostle proves by the example of Abraham that justification is by Faith without Workes. For what saith the Scripture, Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousnesse. Rom. 4. 3. He confirmes it also by the words of David; Even as David also describes the blessednesse of the man, to whom God imputeth righteousnesse with­out Workes, saying, blessed are they, whose iniquities are forgiven, &c. Rom. 4. 6, 7, 8. Mens workes are imperfect, and so is all that righteousnesse of man, that is inherent in him, as hath been shewed before: and therefore by his own workes, and his own righteousnesse can none be justified. By the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be justified. Rom. 3. 20. Bellarmine would have the Bell. de Iustif. lib. 1. cap. 19. Apostle, when hee excludes Workes from justification, onely to understand such workes as are done by the meere knowledge of the Law without grace. But this cannot be his meaning.

For, 1. when David cried out, Enter not into judgement with thy servant, O Lord, for in thy sight shall no man living be justi­fied, Psal. 143. 2. hee shewes that workes, whatsoever they be, are unable to justifie a man in the sight of God. For it were most absurd and irrationall to imagine that David then doth onely deprecate Gods entring into judgement with him in re­spect of the Works, which hee did without the assistance of Gods grace.

2. The Apostle proves that justification is by Faith without Workes, by that of David, Blessed is the man whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sinnes are covered: Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sinne. Rom. 4. 6, 7, 8. Now the best man [Page 203] that is upon Earth, hath need of this; that his iniquities may be forgiven, his sinnes covered, and his transgressions not imputed unto him, seeing there is no man (as I have shewed before) but iniquities, sinnes and transgressions are found in him. There­fore though a man be regenerate and sanctified, yet his workes are not such, as that he can be justified by them.

3. The Apostle Gal. 3. 10. proves that none can be justified by the deeds of the Law, because it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the Law to doe them. Now no man though indued with grace, and that in great measure, doth continue in all things that the Law requireth, as hath also been shewed before. Therefore Workes as well with grace, as without grace are unable to justifie. But when our adversaries speake of justification, they equivocate, making it indeed the same with sanctificati­on. Nova haec, Whitakere, theologia est, nos per gratiam infusam, vitae novi­tatem, ac sanctitatem adipisci, mini­mè tamen justificari. At quae te, ob­secro, Scriptura docuit justificatio­nem à sanctificatione distinguere▪ Dur. coutra Whitak. Dureus the Jesuite calles this new Divinity, to say, that by grace infused into us, wee get newnesse of life, and sanctifica­tion, but yet are not thereby justified. And hee askes what Scripture doth teach us to distinguish justification from sanctification. Truly, I thinke that these two, viz, justification and sanctifica­tion, are sufficiently distinguished, 1 Cor. 6. 11. But you are wash­ed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified, in the Name of the Lord Iesus, and by the Spirit of our God. There the Apostle shews that they were washed, viz. both from the staine of sinne by sanctification, which was wrought in them by the Spirit of God infusing grace into them, and also from the guilt of sinne by ju­stification, which they obtained by faith in the Lord Jesus.

Besides, the Scripture opposeth justification to condemnati­on, and sheweth that to justifie is as much as to absolve and ac­quit from guilt, to account and pronounce righteous. Prov. 17. 15. He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just; even they both are an abomination to the Lord. There to justifie and to condemne are opposed-one to the other; and to justifie is to repute just, not to make just; for so it should be no abomi­nation to justifie the wicked, but a very good worke. For hee which converteth a sinner from the errour of his way, shall save a [Page 204] soule from death, &c. Iames 5. 20. So Isai. 5. 23. They are taxed, who justifie the wicked for a reward. Thus also God is said to ju­stifie, Isai. 50. 8. Hee is neare that iustifieth mee, who will contend with me? And Rom. 8. 33, 34. who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect? it is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? it is Christ that died, &c. But (saith Quando Deus justificat impium, declarando justum, facit etiam ju­stum, quoniam judicium Dei secundum veritatem est. Bell. de Iustif. l. 2. c. 3. Bel­larmine) when God doth justifie the wick­ed, by declaring him just, he doth also make him just: because the judgement of God is according to truth. I answer, true it is, whom God doth justifie them also hee doth sanctifie, yet it doth not follow that these two, viz. to justifie, and to sanctifie are one and the same. David was a man truly sanctified, yet hee knew and acknowledged that his righteousnesse, whereby hee was sanctified, was not such, as that he could be justified by it, and therefore cried, Enter not into judgement with thy servant, &c. Psal. 143. 2. And, Blessed is the man whose iniquity is forgiven, &c. Psal. 32. 1, 2. yet is Gods judgement neverthelesse according to truth, when hee accounteth those righteous, and imputeth no sinne unto them, who still have sinne in them, and so cannot be justified by their owne righteousnesse, because they whom God justifieth, by faith are united unto Christ, as members of his Bo­dy, and so Christs righteousnesse is their righteousnesse, and though not in themselves, yet in Christ they are compleatly righteous. He is called The Lord our righteousnesse. Ier. 23. 6. And sayes the Apostle, In him yee are complete. Col. 2. 10. wherefore hee desired to be found in him, not having his own righteousnesse, which is of the Law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousnesse, which is of God by faith. Phil. 3. 9. And thus we hold that faith doth justifie, not formally, but instrumen­tally, not because of it selfe, but because of its object, viz. Christ and his righteousnesse, which faith apprehendeth and applieth. For by faith wee receive Christ. Ioh. 1. 12. And Christ doth dwell in our hearts by faith. Ephes. 3. 17. Diverse of the Church of Rome since the beginning of Reformation, in this great point touching justification have inclined to us. Ferus I cited before, say­ing Page 136. that Believers have yet much sinne, but no condemnation, because thorough faith in Christ they are reputed cleane. Cardinall Con­tarenus [Page 205] his workes I have not, neither can I alledge him of mine own knowledge, but his words as I finde them cited by Amesius a­gainst Bellar­mine lib. 6. de Iustif. cap. 1. Thess. 1. ano­ther, are very full for our purpose. Because (saith hee) wee come unto a twofold righteousnesse by faith, a righteousnesse inherent in us, &c. and the righteousnesse of Christ given, and imputed to us, in that wee are ingraffed into Christ, and put on Christ, it re­maines to inquire, whether of these we must rely upon, that wee may be justified before God, that is accounted holy and just. I doe altoge­ther hold, that it is piously and Christianly said, that wee ought to reply, as on a thing that is stable, and doth surely support us, on the righteousnesse of Christ given unto us, and not on that holinesse and grace, which is inherent in us. For this righteousnesse of ours is but inchoated and imperfect; which cannot preserve us so, but that in many things we offend, and sinne continually. Therefore for this righteousnesse of ours wee cannot be accounted righteous and good in the sight of God, so as it should become the sonnes of God to be good and holy. But the righteousness of Christ given unto us is true and perfect righteousnesse, which doth altogether please the eyes of God, in which there is nothing that may offend God, nothing which cannot fully please him. On this therefore alone, as sure and stable, must we rely, and for it alone must wee believe that wee are justi­fied before God, that is, accounted and called iust. I see not why we should desire more in point of justification then this amounts to. Pighius also a stout Champion of the Church of Rome, is as full and expresse for that, which wee make the formall cause of justification, as any can Constat planè quae de nobis omnibus foret sententia, si Deus voluisset di­stricto nobiscum judicio agere: si non misericordissimè nobis succurrisset in filio, & nostrâ justitiâ vacuos ejus in­volvisset justitiâ. Pigh. de fide & justifi. controv. 2. be. It is cleare (saith hee) what sentence we should all have, if God would have dealt with us in strict judgement: if hee had not most mercifully succoured us in his Son, and had not involved and wrapped us in his righteous­nesse, wee having none of our own that will serve our turne. And againe, In him there­fore are wee justified, not in our selves; not In illo ergo justificamur coram Deo, non in nobis; non nostrâ, sed illius justitiâ, quae nobis cum illo communi­cantibus imputatur. Propriae justitiae inopes, extra nos in illo docemur ju­stitiam quaerere. Pigh. Ibid. with our own, but with his righteousnesse, which by reason of our communion with Him is imputed unto us. Being empty of our owne righteousnesse wee are taught to seeke righte­ousnesse [Page 206] out of our selves in him. In Christi autem obedi­entiâ, quòd nostra colloca­tur justitia, in­de est, quòd nobis illi in­corporatis, ac si nostra esset, accepta ea fer­tur, ita ut câ ipsâ etiam nos justi habeamur. Et velut ille quondam Iacob, quum nativitate primogenitus non esset, sub habitu fratris occultatus, atque ejus veste indutus, quae odorem optimum spirabat, seipsum insinuavit patri, ut sub alienâ personâ benedictionem primò geniturae ac­ciperet: Ita & nos sub Christi primo geniti fratris nostri pretiosâ puritate delitescere, bono ejus odore fragrare, ejus perfectione vitia nostra sepeliri, & obtegi, atque ita nos piissimo patri ingerere, ut justitiae benedictionem ab eodem assequamur necesse est. Pigh. ibid. And againe, That our righte­ousnesse is placed in Christs obedience, it is from hence, that wee be­ing incorporated into Him, it is reckoned as if it were ours, so that because of it we are accounted righteous. And immediately he adds, that as Iacob being cloathed with the robes of his elder brother, obtained the blessing of his Father: so we must be clothed with the righteousnesse of Christ our elder brother, that God may be­stow the blessing of justification upon us.

Justificat ergo nos Deus pa­ter bonitate suâ gratuitâ, quâ nos in Christo complectitur, dum eidem in­sertos innocentiâ & justitiâ Christi nos induit: quae una ut vera, & perfecta est, quae Dei sustinere conspectum potest, ita unam pro nobis sisti oportet tribunali Divini judicii, &c. Pigh. Ibid. And againe, God doth justifie us (saith he) of his free-goodnes, whereby he doth embrace us in Christ, whiles that he clothes us being ingraffed into him with Christs innocency and righteousnesse; which as it is alone true and perfect, able to indure the sight of God, so it a­lone must be presented for us at the tribunall of Gods Iudgement.

This, and much more to this purpose hath Quoniam dissimulare non possumus, hanc primam Doctrinae Christianae partem, obscuratam, quàm illustratam magis, à scholasticis, spinosis plerisque quaestionibus, & definitionibus, secun­dum quas nonnulli primam in omni­bus authoritatem sibi arrogantes, & de omnibus facilè pronuntiantes, fortassis etiam nostram hanc damnarent senten­tiam, quâ propriam, & quae ex suis o­peribus esset, coram Deo justitiam, derogamus omnibus Adae filiis, & do­cuimus unâ Dei in Christo niti nos posse justitiâ, unâ illâ justos esse coram Deo, destitutos propriâ, nisi hoc ip­sum astruxissemus aliquantò diligen­tiùs, Pigh. Ibid. Pighius, and hee saith that hee could not dissemble that this prime part of Christian Doctrine was rather obscured, then illu­strated by the Schoolemen, with thorny questions and definitions, and therefore he was the more diligent in the handling of this point, shewing that none of the sons of Adam can be justified before God by their own righteousnesse, and their own workes, but that all must rely onely on the righte­ousnesse of God in Christ, and that by it alone they being destitute of a righteous­nesse of their owne, are righteous before [Page 207] God. Pighius is so plaine, and home in this point, that Bellar­mine Bell. de Iustif. l. 2. c. 1. doth censure him as erroneous in it. And yet so powerfull and prevalent it truth, that it extorted even from Bellarmine himselfe this confession, That because of the uncertainty of a mans owne righteousnesse, and Propter incertitudinem propriae justi­tiae, & periculum inanis gloriae tutis­simum est fiduciam totam in solâ Dei misericordiâ & benignitate reponere. Bell. de Iustif, lib. 5. cap. 7. the danger of vaine glory it is most safe to repose all confidence only in Gods Mercy and Good­nesse. By his own confession then it is most safe in matter of justification to renounce Workes, and to flie onely to Faith in the Lord Jesus. The an­cient Fathers also give testimony to this truth. Hilarie hath these Hil. in Mat. can. 8. very words, Fides sola iustificat, i. e. Faith alone doth iustifie. Tanta est justitia nostra in hâc vitâ, ut potius remissione peccatorum constet, quàm perfectione virtutum. Aug. de Civit. Dei lib. 19. cap. 22. Vae etiam laudabili vitae hominum, si remotâ misericordiâ discutias eam. Aug. Confess. lib. 9. cap. 13. Quantumlibet rectus mihi videar, producis tu de thesauro tuo regulam, & coaptas me ad eam, & pravus inve­nior. Aug in Psal. 142. (vel 143.) 2. Austine in effect sayes the same, when hee saith, Our righteousnesse in this life is so great, that it consists rather in forgivenesse of sinnes, then in perfection of vertues. And so when hee saith, Woe even to the landable life of men, if thou (O Lord) laying aside mercy shall enter into the examination of it. To this purpose also is that which hee saith upon those words of David, Enter not into judge­ment with thy servant O Lord, &c. How right soever (saith hee) I thinke my selfe, thou bringest forth a rule out of thy treasure, and triest me by it, and I am found crooked. Thus also Domine memorabor justitiae tuae so­lius; ipsa enim est & mea. Nempe factus es mihi tu justitia à Deo. Num­quid mihi verendum, ne non una am­bobus sufficiat? Non est pallium bre­ve, quod non possit operire duos. Bern. in Cant. Serm. 61. Bernard, Lord (saith he) I will make mention of thy righteousnesse onely; for it also is mine, seeing that thou of God art made un­to me righteousnesse. Must I feare lest this one righteousnesse will not suffice us both? No, it is not a short cloake, that cannot cover two. And againe, It is sufficient for mee unto all righteousnesse, to have him onely propitious, Sufficit mihi ad omnem justitiam sol­um habere propitium, cui soli pecca­vi, Non peccare Dei justitia est, ho­minis justitia, indulgentia Dei. Ber. in Cant. Ser. 23. against whom onely I have sinned. Not to sinne is Gods righteousnesse, mans righteous­nesse is Gods indulgence. Thus then in the point of justification wee have both Scrip­tures and Fathers: yea and divers Papists [Page 208] also concurring with us. As for the two places of Scripture al­ledged by the Marquesse; the former, viz. that 1 Corin. 13. 2. speaketh not of justifying Faith, but of a Faith of working mi­racles, as is cleare by the words themselves being fully cited. which run thus, Though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountaines, and have not charity, I am nothing. [...], &c. Oecumen. 1 Cor. 13. Oecumenius upon the place notes that by Faith there is not meant that Faith, which is common to all Believers, but a Faith pe­culiar to such as had the gift of working miracles. And though Rectè Graeci eam intelligunt fidem, de quâ cap. 13. Si habuere omnem fi­dem, &c. Graeci fidem signorum, & miraculorum appellant. Et haec fides secundum se, tantùm est gratia gratis data, hoc est, ad aliorum utilitatem propriè concessa, &c. Estius ad 1 Cor. 12. 9. Estius (a learned Romanist) in his Commentary upon the place seeke to draw it another way, yet commenting upon 1 Cor. 12. 9. hee saith that the Greeke Expositors doe rightly un­derstand it of that Faith, which is spoken of Chap. 13. If I have all Faith, &c. that is, of the Faith of signes, and miracles, as they call it, which Faith (hee saith) is not pro­perly a sanctifying grace, but onely such a grace as is given for the benefit of others.

The other place, viz. Jam. 2. 24. doth seeme to make against us, but indeed it doth not. For S. Iames saying that a man is ju­stified by Workes, and not by Faith onely, meanes onely thus, as Non fide sterili, sed faecundâ operibus justificamur. Cajetan: in Iac. 2. Cajetan himselfe doth expound it, that we are not justified by a barren Faith, but by a Faith, which is fruitfull in good Workes.

This appeares to be his meaning by his whole discourse from vers. 14. to the end of the Chapter, where­in hee bends himselfe against those, who presume of such a faith as is without workes: and more specially, it may appeare by the verses immediately preceding, wherein hee saith, that Abraham was justified by workes, when hee offered up Isaac; and that Faith wrought with his workes, and by workes was Faith made perfect: and the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was accounted unto him for righteousnesse. Now this clearly shewes that Abraham was justified by Faith, and not by workes, onely his workes did shew, that his Faith was a [Page 209] true justifying Faith indeed, and not, as it is in many that pre­tend and professe Faith, a vaine shew of Faith, and a meere shadow of it. For that, which S. Iames citeth, Abraham be­lieved God, and it was accounted unto him for righteousnesse, was, as appeares by the story in the booke of Genesis, long before that Abraham offered up Isaac; and by those very words Saint Paul proveth, Rom. 4. that wee are justified by Faith, and not by Workes. Therefore when S. Iames saith that by Abrahams of­fering up of Isaac that Scripture was fulfilled, the meaning is, that thereby it did appeare that it was truly said of Abraham, that hee believed God, and it was counted unto him For righte­ousnesse, his readinesse in that worke to obey God, did demon­strate that hee believed God indeed, and that his faith was of a right stampe. Thus also is it said, that by workes faith was made perfect, viz. even as the Lord said unto Paul, My strength is made perfect in weakenesse, 2 Cor. 12. 9. that is, Gods strength doth exercise it selfe, and shew how great it is, in mans weak­nesse. So Abrahams workes did shew how great his faith was; in this sense his workes did make his faith perfect, not that they did adde any thing unto it, no more then mans weaknesse doth adde unto Gods strength.

This opinion of yours (saith the Marquesse) S. Aug. de fide & oper. cap. 14. saith was an old heresie, in the Apostles time: and in the Preface of his comment upon the 32. Psal. he calles it the right way to hell, and damnation. See Origan 5. to the Rom. S. Hilar. chap. 7. in Mat. S. Ambr. 4. ad Heb.

Answ. Quarè jam illud videamus, quod excutiendum est à cordibus religio­sis, ne malâ securitate salutem suam perdant, si ad eam obtinendam suffi­cere solam fidem putaverint, benè autem vivere, & bonis operibus viam Dei tenere neglexerint. Aug. de fid. & oper. c. 14. Austine de fid. & oper. c. 14. speakes nothing against our Opinion, but something for it. That which hee speaketh by way of reproofe is against those, who so thinke that Faith alone will suffice, as that they heede not to doe good workes, nor to order their life and conversation aright. But this is nothing to us, who are farre from holding such a Faith as that sufficient. But in the same place Austine hath this for our purpose, that when the Apostle saith that a Man is justified by Faith without the Workes of the Law, hee did not intend that the Workes [Page 210] of Righteousnesse should be contemned, but Cum ergò dicit Apostolus, arbitrari se justificari hominem per fidem sine operibus legis, non hoc agit, ut prae­ceptâ & professâ fide opera justitiae contemnantur, sed ut sciat se quisque per fidem posse justificari, etiamsi le­gis opera non praecesserint. Sequuntur enim justificatum, non praecedunt justificandum, Aug. Ibid. that every one should know, that hee may be justified by faith, though the workes of the Law did not goe before. For (saith hee) they follow a man being justified, they doe not goe before a man being to be justified. If (as this Father affirmeth) a man must first be justified, before hee can doe good workes; then good workes are no cause of justification, but an effect of it. For the other place of Austine, which the Mar­quesse alledgeth, there is none such, that I can finde, viz. no pre­face of his comment upon Psal. 32. but in the comment it selfe I finde this, which makes for us. Doest thou not heare the Apostle, The just shall live Non audisti Apostolum, Justus ex fide vivet? Fides tua, justitia tua. Aug. in Psal. 32. by Faith? Thy faith is thy righteousnesse. What Origen saith on Rom. 5. having not his workes now at hand, I cannot tell; but I see what Bellarmine cites out of him on Rom. 4. and perhaps so it should have been in the Marquesse his writing. However there is no doubt but Bellarmine would have made use of it, if there had been any thing more for his purpose on Rom. 5. Now on Rom. 4. Origen saith, that whose believe Christ, but doe not put off the old man with his deeds, their faith Credentibus quidem Christo, nec ta­men deponentibus veterem hominem cum actibus suis, fides reputari non potest ad justitiam. Ori. in Rom. 4. citat. à Bell. de Iustif. lib. 1. cap. 25. cannot be imputed unto them for righteous­nesse. This wee doe easily assent unto, it being our professed opinion (as hath beene shewed before by Bellarmines owne con­fession) that though faith alone doe justifie, yet if it be such a faith as is alone, and is not accompanied with good workes, it is not that faith, which doth justifie. As little is that of Hilarie against us, The safety of the Nations is all in faith; and the life of all is in Gods Precepts. Salus gentium omnis in fide est, & in praeceptis Domini vita est univer­sorum. Hil. cap. 7. in Mat. That faith, which alone doth justifie, is not so alone, but that there is joyned with it a care and indeavour to observe all Gods Precepts. Of the same nature is that of Sola fides non sufficit, operari per dilectionē fidem necessarium est, & conversari dignè Deo.—Non sufficit fides, sed debet addi & vita condigna, & multum studium debet adhiberi, ne fides sit otiosa. Ambros. in. Heb. 4. Ambrose (if Ambrose were the Author of [Page 211] those commentaries) Faith alone is not sufficient; it is necessary that faith worke by love, and that men walke worthy of God. Faith is not sufficient, but there must also be added a life answerable, and much care must be had, that faith be not idle. All this wee hold, that faith must not be idle, but operative, and working through love; and such is the nature of true justifying faith, as the A­postle teacheth, Gal. 5. 6. But all this is nothing against justifica­tion by faith alone without workes, viz. as concurring unto ju­stification.

In the next place the Marquesse pleades for the merit of good Page 65. workes; and that from Mat. 6. 27. (so it is printed, but it should be Mat. 16. 27.) Hee shall reward every man according to his workes. And Mat. 5. 12. Great is your reward in Heaven. Reward at the end (saith he) presupposes merit in the worke: the distincti­on of secun dum, and propter opera, is too nice to make such a divisi­on in the Church.

Answ. But that mens good workes doe not merit any reward at the hands of God, our Saviour hath sufficiently shewed, saying, When yee have done all things, that are commanded you, say, Wee are unprofitable servants, wee have done but what our du­ty was to do, Luke 17. 10. If (as [...]; Theophyl. ad Luc. 17. 10. Theophy­lact notes upon the place) when wee have done all things that are commanded us, we must take heede of thinking highly of our selves: how much more ought wee to be farre from such presumption, when as wee are so farre from obeying all Gods Com­mandements! Besides, if we doe any thing that is good, wee doe it not of our selves, by our own strength, but it is God that doth inable us, and make us to doe it: and therefore properly wee cannot merit by it; for wee are behold­ing unto God, and not God beholding unto us for it. I have laboured more abundantly then they all, yet not I, but the grace of God, that was with mee, saith the Apostle, 1 Cor. 15. 10. Againe, the reward which the godly receive in Heaven, doth infinitly exceede their workes, and therefore cannot bee merited by them. The most that wee can doe, is to suffer for the Name of Christ; yet the sufferings of this present life are not worthy to [Page 212] be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us. Rom. 8. 18. Both these reasons doth Bernard alledge against merits. The merits of men (saith hee) are not such as that because of them life eternall should be due unto them of right, or that God should doe them wrong if hee should Neque enim talia sunt hominum me­rita, ut propter ea vita aeterna debea­tur ex jure, aut Deus injuriam ali­quam faceret, nisi eam donaret. Nam ut taceam quòd merita omnia sunt dona Dei, & ita homo magis propter ipsa Deo debitor est, quàm Deus homini; quid sunt merita omnia ad tantam gloriam? Bern. in Annunt. B. Mariae Serm. 1. not give it. For to say nothing of this, that all merits are Gods gifts, and so man is rather indebted unto God for them, then God unto man; what are all merits unto so great glory? Here Bernard useth indeed the word me­rits, but so as that hee plainely denieth the thing, which our adversaries understand by it, and by a double argument confuteth their opinion. Both these arguments also to this purpose, before Bernard did Fulgen­tius Gratia autem etiam ipsa (sc vita ae­terna) non injustè dicitur, quia non solum donis suis Deus dona sua reddit, sed quia tantum etiam ibi gratia Di­vinae retributionis exuberat, ut in­comparabiliter, atque ineffabiliter omne meritum quamvis bonae, & ex Deo datae humanae voluntatis, atque operationis excedat. Fulgent. ad Monim. lib. 1. use, who speaking of eternall life, saith, It is not unjustly called grace, because not on­ly God doth recompence his gifts with his gifts, but because the grace of Gods retribution doth so abound, that it incomparably and ineffably exceedes all the merit of mans will and works, though it be good; and such as God hath given. To this purpose hee cites Rom. 8. 18. and 2 Cor. 4. 17. And Gregorius Magnus not onely useth these Quòd si illa sanctorum fae­licitas miseri­cordia est; & non meritis ac­quiritur, ubi erit quod scrip­tum est, Et tu reddes, uni­cuique secun­dumopera sua? Si secundum opera redditur, quomodo misericordia aestimabitur? Sed aliud est secundum opera reddere, & aliud propter ipsa opera reddere. In eo. n. quod secundum opera dicitur, ipsa operum qualitas intelligitur, ut cujus apparuerint bona opera, ejus sit & retributio glo­riosa. Illi namque, beatae vitae, in quâ cum Deo, & de Deo vivitur, nullus potest aequari la­bor, nulla opera comparari, praesertim cum Apostolus dicat, Non sunt condignae passiones hu­jus temporis ad futuram gloriam, quae revelabitur in nobis. Quanquam & ex hoc quoque mi­sericordia jure possit nominari, quia pro illis operibus datur, quae sine praeventu misericordiae Dei nemo assequitur. Greg. in 7. poenitem. Psal sive in Ps. 143. 8. same Arguments against the Merits of good workes, but also hath that very distinction of secundum opera, and propter opera, which the Marqnesse so much disdaineth. If (saith Gregorie) the happinesse of the Saints be mercy, and be not acquired by Me­rits, where is that which is written, Thou will render to every one according to his workes? If it be rendered according to workes, how shall it be accounted mercy? But it is one thing to render according [Page 213] to workes, and another thing to render, because of the workes them­selves. In that there is a rendring according to workes, the qua­lity of workes is considered, so as that whose workes are found to be good, his reward also shall be glorious. For unto that blessed life, in which wee live with God, and of God, no labour can be equall, no workes comparable, especially when as the Apostle saith, The sufferings of this present time are not worthy of that glory, which shall be revealed in us. Besides also in this respect it may be justly called mercy, because it is given for those workes, which none can attaine unto without the prevention of Gods mercy. Thus Gregorie, who above a thousand yeeres agoe was Bishop of Rome, both argues for us, and also by a distinction answers that which is objected against us, viz. that God doth render to all according to their workes. And for the word reward, which the Scripture often useth, it doth not presuppose merit; for a reward may proceede from the bounty of the giver, not from the merit of the receiver. They that wrought but one houre in the Vine­yard, though they received a penny, as much as they that la­boured all the day, though (I say) they received this as the re­ward of their labour, yet did they not merit it by their labour. This very parable doth Prosper (or who ever was the Author of the Booke de vocatione gentium,) apply in this manner; without doubt (saith hee) they that were sent into the Vineyard at the eleventh houre, and were Sine dubio horâ undecimâ intromis­si in vineam, & totius diei operariis exaequati, istorum praeferunt sortem, quos ad commendandam gratiae ex­cellentiam in defectu diei, & conclu­sione vitae divina indulgentia munera­tur, non labori pretium solvens, sed divitias bonitatis suae in eos, quos sine laboribus elegit, effundens; ut etiam hi, qui in multo labore sudarunt, nec ampliùs quàm novissimi, acceperunt, intelligant donum se gratiae, non ope­rum accepisse mercedem. De vocat. gent. lib. 1. 17. made equall with those that wrought the whole day, represent the condition of those whom to commend the excellency of grace Gods good­nesse doth reward in the end of the day, and in the conclusion of life, not paying the price of labour, but powring out the riches of his boun­ty upon them, whom hee hath chosen without labour; that so they also, who have indured much labour, and yet have received no more then they that were last, may understand, that they have received the gift of grace, not the reward (viz. the deserved reward) of their works. Thus both Scrip­tures and Fathers are against the opinion of the Church of Rome as touching Merits. I will adde to what hath beene already al­ledged, [Page 214] that of Meritum proinde meum miseratio Domini. Non planè sum meriti in­ops, quamdiu miserationum ille non fuerit. Bern. in Cant. Serm. 61. Bernard, Thy merit is Gods mercy. I am not altogether without merit, so long as hee is not without mercy. See what merit it is that hee builds upon, no merit of his own, but meerly Gods mercy. And this was it that Nehe­miah did flie unto, even when hee recorded the good that hee had done, Remember me O Lord (said hee) concerning this, and (what? reward mee according to the greatnesse of my merit? no, but) spare mee according to the greatnesse of thy mercy. Neh. 13. 22. Sufficit ad meritum scire quòd non sufficiant merita. Bern. in Cant. Serm. 68. Bernard to this purpose againe, It is enough unto merit, to know that merits are not sufficient. The Romish Doctrine of me­rits die not please Ferus, a late member of that Church, If thou wouldest keepe (saith Si Dei gratiam & favorem conservare cupis, nullam tuorum meritorum fac mentionem: ex misericordiâ enim cuncta donare vult. Ferus in Mat. 20. 1. hee) the grace and favour of God, make no mention of thy Merits: for God will give all things out of mercy.

Bellarmine also saith that Bernard, prudenter non confidebat in meritis suis, sed in solâ misericordiâ Domi­ni, did wisely not trust in his merits, but onely in Gods mercy. Bell. de Justif. lib. 5. cap. 6. Bellarmine himselfe, though hee dispu­ted eagerly for Merits, yet (it seemes) durst not rely on them, confessing (as was shew­ed before) that it is the safest course to put our whole trust meerely in Gods Mercy. But the Marquesse saith that the Fathers were of their opinion, citing Ambr. de apol. David. cap. 6. Hieron. lib. 3. contra Pelag. Aug. de Spir. & lit. cap. ult.

And first for Ambrose in the place cited, it's true, hee speakes merits; but here wee must remember what one of their owne writers doth tell us, namely Quam vis ip sa justitia, & peccatorum remissio non possint propriè merces vocari respectu fidei, poenitentiae, &c. attamen veteres theologi meriti no­men memoratis operibus respectu ju­stificationis, ac peccatorum remissio­nis passim ascribunt, extenso viz. me­riti nomen ad illud quod recentiores congruum vocant, id est, ad impetra­tionem Estius ad Hob. 11. 6. Estius, that the ancient Divines did often use the word Merit very largely, and not properly. And thus did Ambrose use the word, saying, Ha­bet quis bona Merita, one hath good Merits, that is, good workes, which hee calles Me­rits, because they doe impetrate or obtaine a reward, though not properly merit it, the ancients (as Estius observes) using merit for impetration. But that Ambrose there did not make good workes to be truly and [Page 215] properly meritorious, appeares by the words immediately fol­lowing, habet & vitia, atque peccata; hee hath also vices and sins. Now surely those good workes, which have vices and sinnes mixed with them, cannot be properly meritorious: in that case there is great need to crave mercy, but no cause to plead merit. For Hierome. lib. 3. contra Pelag. I finde nothing at all, that doth so much as seeme to assert merits, except perhaps those words, here (in this life) is labour, and striving; there (in the life to come) is the reward of labour, Ut hic labor sit, atque contentio, ibi laboris virtutisque praemium. Hieron. contra Pelag. lib. 3. cap. 5. and vertue. But reward doth not alwayes presuppose merit, as I have shewed before. Mercy, I am sure, and merit are inconsist­ent, and Quia homines possibilia non faciunt, idcircò omins mundus subditus est Deo, & indiget misericordiâ ejus. Aut cer­tè si ostendere potueris, qui univers [...] compleverit, tunc poteris demonstrare esse hominem, qui non indiget mise­ricordiâ Dei. Hieron. Ibid. cap. 1. Hierome in that very Book, which the Marquesse citeth, plainly testifieth that there is no man, whose workes are so good, and his obedience so perfect, but that still hee hath need of Gods mercy. And hee taxeth his adversarie (Pelagius I thinke) as proud and Pharisaicall for saying, that he doth worthily lift up his hands to God, and Ille, inquis, meritò ad Deum extollit manus, ille preces bonâ conscientiâ fundit, qui potest dicere, Tu enim nosti, Domine, quàm sanctae, quàm innocentes, quàm purae sint ab omni fraude, & injuriâ, & rapinâ, quas ad te expando, manus; quàm justa, quàm immaculata labia, & ab omni mendacio libera, quibus tibi, ut mihi miserearis, preces fundo. Christiani est haec, an Pharisaei superbientis ora­tio? Hieron. ibid. cap. 5. David loqui­tur, &c. Ibid. doth pray with a good conscience, who can say, Thou, O Lord, knowest, how holy, how innocent, how pure from all fraud, injury and rapine the hands are, that I spread forth unto thee; how just, immaculate, and free from all lying the lips are, with which I powre forth prayers unto thee, that thou mayest have mer­cy on mee. Hee tells him that David sung another Song, saying, My wounds stinke and are corrupt because of my foolishnesse, Psal. 38. 5. Enter not into judgement with thy servant, for in thy sight shall no man living be justified. Psal. 143. 2. Esaias plangit. &c. Ibid.

And that Esay lamented saying, Woe is mee, for I am undone; because I am a man of uncleane lips, &c. Isal. 6. 5. Et post tan­tū tumorem, o­rantisque jactantiam, & confidentiam sanctitatis, quasi stultus stultis persuadere conaris, ut in extremo dicas, quibus tibi, ut mihi miserearis, preces fundo. Si sanctus es, si innocens, si ab omni sorde purgatus, si nec sermone, nec opere peccasti, discente Iacobo, Qui in verbo non pec­cat, iste perfectus est vir; & nemo potest refraenare linguam suam; quomodo misericordiam deprecaris, &c. Ibid. And hee askes [Page 216] him, how after all this swelling and boasting of himselfe, after all this confidence of his holinesse, hee could pretend to desire Gods mercy? For if hee were so holy, and innocent, so pure and perfect, then he had no neede to pray in that manner, viz. that God should have mercy on him. This and more to this purpose hath Hierome in the place alledged, but whether this be for Merits, or against them, is easie to judge.

Neither hath Consequens esse video, ut omni homi­ni fit necessarium dare, ut detur illi, di­mittere, ut dimittatur illi; & si quid habet justitiae, non de suo sibi esse prae­sumere, sed de gratiâ justificantis Dei; & adhuc tamen ab illo esurire & siti­re justitiam, qui est panis v vus, & a­pud quem fons vitae, qui sic operatur justificationem in sanctis suis, in hujus vitae tentatione laborantibus, ut tamen sit, & quod petentibus largiter adjiciat, & quod confitentibus clemen­ter ignoscat. Sed inveniant isti, si pos­sunt, aliquem sub onere corruptionis hujus viventem, cui jam non habeat Deus quod ignoscat. Aug. de Spir. & lit. cap. ult. Austine in the place, which the Marquesse citeth, any thing (that I can see) to prove good workes meritorious, but something to prove the contrary. For having cited many places of Scripture, which shew that none is so righteous as to be with­out sinne, hee saith, Hence it followeth, that it is necessary for every one to forgive, that hee may bee forgiven: and if hee have any righteousnesse, not to presume that he hath it of his own, but to ascribe it to Gods grace; and still to hunger and thirst for righteousness from God, who doth so work in his Saints, whiles they are in this life, as that hee hath still some­thing to adde to them that aske, and to pardon them that confesse. For that none living in this mortall body can be found so holy, but that still hee hath neede of pardon. And elsewhere he Dona sua coronat Deus, non merita tua. Aug. de grat. & lib. arb. c. 6. saith, God doth crowne his own gifts, not thy merits.

The Marquesse goes on, saying, we hold that Faith once had may Page 66. be lost, if wee have not care to preserve it, you say it cannot, we have Scripture for it, viz. Luke 8. 13. They on the Rock are they, which when they heare, receive the Word with joy, which for a while be­lieve, and in time of temptation fall away. So 1 Tim. 1. 18, 19. which some having put away have made shipwracks of their Faith.

Answ. We doe not hold that Faith cannot be lost, though a man have no care to preserve it; but that God will worke such a care in those, in whom hee hath wrought true justifying Faith, that they shall never lose it. I will put my feare (saith hee) in [Page 217] their hearts, that they shall not depart from me. Jer. 32. 40. Christ prayed for Peter, that his faith might not faile, Luke 22. 32. And so he prayed both for him and others, even for all that belong unto him. I pray for them (saith he) I pray not for the World, but for them, which thou hast given me: for they are thine. Joh. 17. 9. And vers. 11. Holy Father, keepe through thine own name, those whom thou hast given mee. So the Apostle telleth us, that whom God did predestinate, them hee also called (viz. according to his purpose, vers. 28.) and whom hee called, them hee also justified; and whom hee justified, them hee also glorified. Rom. 8. 30. This clearly shewes, that all that are once justified, shall certainly be glorified, and consequently that justifying faith once had can­not be quite lost. Againe, They that truly believe, are the sons of God. Gal. 3. 26. Now the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the son abideth ever. Joh. 8. 35. Therefore true Faith cannot be lost; the children of God cannot fall away. And to this doe the Fathers accord. Cyprian is much to this purpose; The strength of such as are Manet verè fidelium robur immobile, & apud timentes ac diligentes toto cordet Deum stabilis, & fortis per­severar integritas. Cypr. Epist. 52. truly faithfull, doth remaine unmoveable, and the integrity of those that feare God, and love him with the whole heart, doth continue stable and strong. And again, The Lord, who is the pro­tectour Non patitur Dominus populi sui pro­tector & tutor, triticum de areâ suâ di­ripi, sed solae possunt paleae de ecclesiâ separari. Cypr. Epist. 69. and defender of his people, doth not suffer wheat to be taken away out of his floore: onely chaffe can be separated from the Church.

And againe, Let none thinke that the good Nemo existimet bonos de ecclesia posse discedere. Triticum non rapit ventus; nec arborem solidâ radice fundatam procella subvertit. Inanes paleae tempestate jactantur; invalidae arbores turbinis incursione evertun­tur. Hoc execratur & percutit Joannes Apostolus dicens, Ex nobis exierunt, &c. Cypr. de unit. Eccles. can depart out of the Church. The winde doth not carry away the wheat; neither doth the storme overthrow the Tree, that hath taken solid roote. The empty chaffe is tossed with the tempest: the weake Trees are throwne down with the whirlewinde. This the Apostle John doth curse, and smite, saying, They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest, that they were not all of us, 1 Joh. 2. 19. And to adde one testimony of his more, Peter (saith hee) speaking for all, and answering in the name of the Church, [Page 218] saith, Lord to whom shall we goe? Thou hast Petrus cum pro omnibus loquens, & Ec­clesiae voce respondens, ait, Domine, ad quem ibimus? verba vitae, &c. sig­nifians scil. qui à Christo recesserint, culpâ suâ perire: Ecclesiam tamen, quae in Christum credit, & quae semel id, quod cognoverit, teneat, nunquam omninò ab eo discedere: & eos esse Ecclesiam, qui in domo Dei perma­nent, plantationem verò à Deo Patre non esse, quos videmus non frumenti stabilitate solidari, sed tanquam pa­leas dissipandas inimici spiritu venti­lari. De quibus ait Joannes in Episto­lâ, Ex nobis exierunt, &c. Cypr. Epist. 55. the words of eternall life, (Joh. 6. 68.) signi­fying that they who depart from Christ, perish through their own fault: but that the Church, which believeth in Christ, and once holdeth that, which it hath knowne, doth never alto­gether depart from him; and that they are the Church, who doe abide in the house of God: but that they are not the planting of God the Father, whom wee see not to be strengthened with the stability of wheat, but to be blowne away with the breath of the enemy like chaffe, that is to be dissipated. Of whom John saith They went out from us, but they were not of us, &c. Non ait quòd excundo alieni facti sunt, sed quòd alieni erant, propter hoc eos exiisse declaravit. Aug. de baptiss. contra Donatist. lib. 3. cap. 19. Austine also citing those words of S. Iohn, saith, Hee doth not say, that by going out they were made Aliens, but that therefore they went out because they were A­liens. Againe, In that (saith he) thou de­partest, Eo ipso quòd discedis, & volas, pa­leam te esse indicas: qui triticum sunt, ferunt trituram. Aug. in Ps. 140. and fliest away, thou shewest thy selfe to be chaffe: they that are wheate, endure threshing. And upon those words of our Saviour, If yee continue in my word, then you are my Disciples indeed; Joh. 8. 31. hee saith thus, Then they are indeed that which they Tunc verè sunt quod appellantur, si manserint in eo, propter quod lic ap­pellantur. Aug. are called, if they continue in that, for which they are so called.

So againe, That is not indeed the Body of Non est revera Domini corpus, quod cum illo non erit in aeternum. Aug. de doctr. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 32. Christ (saith hee) which shall not be with him for ever.

So Neque fideles, quos haereses potue­rint demutare.—Nemo Christia­nus, nisi qui ad finem usque perseve­raverit. Tu ut homo extrinsecus unumquenque nosti; putas quod vides; vides autem quousque oculos habes. Sed oculi Domini alti. Homo in faciem, Deus in praecordia contem­platur. Et ideò cognoscit Dominus qui sunt ejus: & plantam, quam non plantavit Pater eradicat.—Avolent quantum volent paleae levis fidei quo cunque afflatu tentationum, eo purior massa frumenti in horrea Domini reponetur. Nonne ab ipso Domino quidam discentium scandalizati diver­terunt? Noc tamen proptereà caeteri quoque discedendum à vestigiis ejus putaverunt: sed qui scierunt illum vitae esse verbum, & à Deo venisse, perseveraverunt in comitatu ejus usque ad finem.—Minus est si A­postolum ejus aliqui, Phygellus, & Hermogenes, & Philetus, & Hymenaeus reliquer unt.—Ex nobis, inquit, prodierunt, sed non fuerunt ex nobis, &c. Tertull. de Praescript. cap. 3. Tertullian saith that such as fall a­way were never true Believers, and true Christians. Hee saith, man sees the outside of every one, and thinkes what hee sees; but God sees into the heart, and therefore knowes who are his; and roots out every Plant, that hee hath not planted. And let the chaffe of light faith (saith hee) flie away [Page 219] as much as it will with every blast of tempta­tions, by so much will the heape of Corne be the more cleane to be laid up in the Lords Gar­ners. Did not some of Christs Disciples, being offended, turne away? yet the rest would not therefore leave him: but they that knew him to be the word of life, and sent of God, did continue with him to the end.—It is a lesse matter, if some did forsake his Apostle, as Phygellus, and Hermogenes, and Philetus, and Hymenaeus. Then hee cites that of S. Iohn, They went out from us, but they were not of us, &c.

Thus also In sanctorum quippe cordibus juxta quasdam virtutes semper permanent, juxta quasdam verò recess [...]rus venit. & venturus recedit. In fide etenim, spe, atque charitate, & in bonis alils, sine quibus ad caelestem patriam non potest veniri, sicut est humilitas, casti­tas, justitia atque misericordia, per­fectorum corda non deserit. In pro­phetiae verò virtute, doctrinae facundiâ, miraculorum exhibitione, electis suis aliquando adest, aliquando se sub­trahit. Greg. hom. 5 in Ezech. Gregory speaking of the holy Ghost saith, that in respect of some vertues he alwayes abides in the hearts of the Saints, but in respect of some hee comes so as to goe away, and goes away so as to come againe. For in respect of Faith, Hope and Charity, and other good things, without which there is no comming to Heaven, as Humility, Chastity, Iustice and Mercy, in respect of these hee never forsaketh the hearts of the upright. But in respect of Prophecy, Eloquence, and working of miracles sometimes hee is with the Elect, sometimes hee withdrawes himselfe from them. This testi­mony of Gregory is also cited by Gratian, Ex praemissis itaque apparet quòd Charitas semel habita ulteriùs non amittitur. Grat. de poenit. dist 2. who from thence, and other testimonies of the Fathers inferrs thus much, that Charity once had (and it is as true of Faith; for Charity cannot be without it, but doth proceede from it, 1 Tim. 1. 5.) cannot be lost. Thus wee have not onely the Scriptures, and Fathers, but also the Canon-law it selfe for us. Those places, which the Marquesse alledgeth to prove that faith may be lost, doe not speake of justifying Faith, whereby one is in­graffed into Christ, and made a member of his Body, but either [Page 220] of an outward profession of the Faith, that is, of the Doctrine of Faith, as that 1 Tim. 1. 19. where the Apostle bids Timothy hold faith (i. e. the Doctrine of Faith) and a good conscience; and addes that some having put away a good conscience, concerning Faith did make shipwrack that is, did forsake the Doctrine of Faith, and fall into Heresie. Such were Hymenaeus and Alexan­der, whom hee mentioneth vers. 20. and saith that he delivered them unto Satan, that they might learne not to blaspheme. And that which hee there calleth Faith, hee calleth Truth, 2 Tim. 2. 18. where speaking of Hymenaeus and Philetus, hee saith, who concerning the truth have erred, saying, that the Resurrection is past already. He addes that hereby they did overthrow the Faith of some, that is, they did draw them from the Faith, making them to embrace Heresie. But that these seducers or seduced ones, were ever such believers, as that they were indued with justify­ing Faith, the Apostle doth not say, neither can it be proved; Tertullian was of another minde, as appeares by his words be­fore cited. Yea, so was S. Iohn, whose words to this purpose both Tertullian and other Fathers (as I have shewed) have made use of, when hee saith, speaking of such as those, They went out from us, but they were not of us, &c. 1 Joh. 2. 19. Or they speak of an Historicall Faith, whereby one doth assent unto the truth of the Gospell, and is somewhat affected with it, but it doth not take roote in the heart, as it is said Mat. 13. 21. yet hath hee not roote in himselfe: and therefore this is not such a Faith, as wee speake of, when wee say, that Faith cannot be lost, viz. a Faith, whereby Christ is received, and doth dwell in the heart. Ioh. 1. 12. Ephes. 3. 17. For all that Faith, which is spoken of Luke 8. 13. a man is but chaffe still, and not true wheat whatsoever hee seeme either to himselfe or others. They compared to the thorny ground, who for a while believe, are distinguished from such as have a good and honest heart, Luke 8. 13. 15. Therefore those temporary believers are no sound and sincere Believers: their heart is not right with God, and therefore they are not stedfast in his Covenant. Psal. 78. 37.

The Marquesse addes, This is frequently affirmed by the Fathers, viz. that Faith may be lost; but hee cites onely Austine de grat. & lib. arb. de corrept. & grat. & ad articulos. Now I have pro­duced [Page 221] many testimonies of Austine to the contrary, as also of diverse other Fathers, who speake very home to our purpose. As for these places of Austine alledged against us, the two first are justly to be waved. For onely the bookes are cited, but no Chapters, whereas in the one booke there are 24. and 16. in the other. For the third place, it's true that Austine doth often­times in answer to the Articles imposed upon him, deny that Gods predestination is the cause of mans non-perseverance, as some did charge him to hold; why any fall away hee, shewes the cause to be in themselves, not in God; that it is not from Gods worke, but from their owne will: that they are not thrust, that they may fall; nor cast out, that they may depart. But that true Quòd si per generalitatem vocationis, & per abundanti­am bonitatis Dei, eiam non perseveraturi perseveraturis admixti sunt, hi cum à pietate deficiunt, non ex Dei opere, sed ex suâ voluntate deficiunt, nec impelluntur ut cadant, nec eijciuntur ut deserant. Aug. ad art. 16. Similiter etiam ad alios articulos. justifying Faith once had may be lost, hee sayes not any thing that way, but much against it in other places, as before is shewed.

In the next place, Wee hold (saith the Marquesse) that God Page 66. did never inevitably damne any man before hee was borne, or as you say from all eternity. You say hee did: wee have Scripture for what wee say, Wisd. 1. 13. God made not death, neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living. 1 Tim. 2. 3, 4. God our Saviour, who will have all men to be saved, 2 Pet. 3. 9. The Lord is not wil­ling that any should die, but that all should come to repentance. And if you will not believe when hee saith so, believe him when hee sweares it, As I live, saith the Lord, I doe not delight in the death of a sinner.

Ans. I doe not know any Protestant, who saith that God did damne any man before hee was borne, or from all eternity. For how should that be? damning being taken (as usually it is) for inflicting eternall punishment. For how can a man before hee hath any being, have eternall punishment inflicted upon him? yet Secundum exteriorem hominem de parentibus illisvenio, qui me artè fece­runt damnatum, quàm natum. Bern. meditat. cap. 2. Bernard speaketh of his being damna­tus antequam natus, damned before hee was borne. I suppose hee meant that before he came out of the wombe hee was in the [Page 222] estate of damnation by reason of the guilt of Adams sinne impu­ted to him, and the corruption of nature inherent in him. How ever this is certaine, that (as Praedestinatio non duo ab ex­ortu Ecclesiae sed ne à mundi principio quidem principium habuit, non denique à tempore illo, vel illo; ante tempora est. Ber. in Cant. ser. 78. Bernard also saith) predestination is before all times, even from all eternity.

And Bellarmine observes, that though the use of the Schooles Bell de grat. & lib. arbit. lib. 2. cap. 16. hath so prevailed, that they onely are said to be predestinate; who are elected unto glory, and so in the Scriptures predestina­tion is not used but in that sense, yet Austine doth call repro­bation predestination to destruction. Neither is there any questi­on So say the Tran­slators of the old Testament at Doway after Exodus in, The continuance of the Church. betwixt us, and them of the Church of Rome, but that re­probation as well as election is from all eternity. And there­fore as wee doe not say any more then they, that God doth damne any man from eternity; so they as well as wee doe say, that God doth reprobate many from eternity, even as many as hee doth not elect; now the elect are but few in comparison, as our Saviour tells us, saying, Many are called, but few are chosen. Mat. 22. 14. But some may, and indeed doe say, Gods repro­bation is not the cause of any mans damnation, but mans own sinne is the proper cause both of reprobation and damnation. But though this be asserted by some of our adversaries, yet others of that party will not approve of it. For Repro­bation (saith Bellarmine) doth comprehend Dicimus deinde Reprobationem duos actus comprehendere, &c. Primum enim non habet Deus voluntatem illos salvandi. Deinde habet volun­tatem eos damnandi: & quidem quod attinet ad priorem actum, nulla datur ejus causa ex parte hominum, &c. Bell. de grat. & lib arb. lib. 2. cap. 16. two acts, & c. For first God hath not a will of saving them (viz. the Reprobate) And then he hath a will of damning them. And in respect of the former act there is no cause (of Repro­bation) on mans part. Therefore mans sinne in Bellarmines judgementi is not the cause of Reprobation in respect of that act. Now if God have not a will to save a man, it is not possible that hee should be saved: and if hee bee not saved, hee must bee being Viz. if ever he have any being. damned. And therefore from that act of Gods Reprobati­on, which Bellarmine confesseth to have no cause on mans part, there inevitable followes mans damnation, though dam­nation be neither inflicted on man, nor intended to be inflicted [Page 223] on him but for sinne. Yet Bellarmine in that which hee saith, is not so accurate as hee might be; For non habere voluntatem sal­vandi, not to have a will to save a man, or not to will a mans salvation, is properly no act, but rather a negation of an act, and therefore indeed Bellarmine calles it actum negativum a Bellar. Ibid. negative act; but that (as I said) is indeed no act at all, but a meere negation of it. And therefore Al­varez maketh the first act of Reprobation Reprobatio Dei aeterna includit actum positivum, quo voluit quosdam non admittere ad vitam aeternam—Deus n. verè non reprobavit homines vel angelos possibiles, qui nunquam erunt; & tamen circa illos se habuit negativè, non ordinando eos ad vitam aeternam. Ergo Reprobatio includit actum po­sitivum. Alvar, de Auxil. lib. 11. disput. 109. num. 5. to be a positive act, whereby Gods Will is not to admit some unto life eternall. It's one thing not to have a will to save; and another thing to have a will not to save; the former is meerly negative, but the lat­ter is positive. And hee proves that Repro­bation doth include a positive act, because the meere negative of not ordaining unto life eternall is even in respect of men and angells that onely may be, but never shall be. Those God doth not will to save, and to glorifie, yet properly they are not the objects of Gods Re­probation.

The same Actus posi­tivus, quo Deus ab aeterno volu­it non admit­tere quosdam in suum reg­num, non suit conditionatus, sed absolutus, antecedens in signo rationis praescientiam mali usus liberi arbitrii, &c.—Probatur conclusio; nam Apostolus ad Rom. 9. postquam intulit ex his, quae dixerat in eodem cap. de praedestinatione & Reprobatione, Ergo cujus vult miseretur, & quem vult indurat; statim proponit eorum querimoniam, quibus dura videtur Praedestinatio, & Reprobatio, antecedens praescentiam meritorum, & ait, Quid adhuc queritur? voluntari enim ejus quis resistit? Et huic objectioni occurit subdens, O homo tu quis es, &c. Annon habet potestatem figulus, &c. Haec autem responsio & objurgatio non haberet locum, si Deus antecedenter ad praescientiam mali usus liberi arbitrii neminem reprobasset absolutâ & effi­caci voluntate. Posset enim facilè respondere Apost. quod ex bono, vel malo usu liberi arbitrii creati, praecognito a Deo tanquam ex conditione sine quâ non, dependet quòd provi­dentia supernaturalis Dei circa unum habet formaliter rationem Reprobationis, & non circa alium. Alvar. disput. 109. num. 6. Alvarez saith that this positive act of Reproba­tion, whereby Gods Will and Pleasure from eternity was, not to admit some into his Kingdome, was not conditionall, but absolute, and in order of nature before the fore-knowledge of the ill use of free-will. And this hee proves from hence, that the Apostle Rom. 9. having inferred from what hee had said of Predestination and Reprobation, Therefore hee hath mercy on [Page 224] whom hee will have mercy, and whom hee will, hee hardeneth, pre­sently brings in the complaint of those, who thinke it hard, that God should predestinate, and reprobate without having respect to merits, Why then doth hee yet complaine? for who hath resisted his Will? And hee answers, O man who art thou that re­pliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made mee thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lumpe to make one vessell unto honour, and another unto dishonour? Now this answer and reproofe (saith hee) should have no place, if God did not before the fore-knowledge of the ill use of Free-will reprobate some by an ab­solute and efficacious will. For the Apostle might easily an­swer, that it depends upon the good or ill use of mans free-will, which God did fore-know, that some are reprobated, and not others. And hee cites Multi salvi non fiunt, non quia ipsi nolunt, sed quia Deus non vult; quod absque ullâ caligiue monstratur in parvulis. Aug. Epist. 107. citat. ab Al­var Ibid. Austine saying, Many are not saved, not because they will not, but because God will not, which most clearly appeares in young infants.

This same Author also againe layes down this conclusion, Reprobatio, quâ Deus statuit non dare aliquibus vitam aeternam, & per­mittere peccatú eorum, non est condi­tionata, sed absoluta, nec praesupponit in Deo praescientiam, vel praevisionem demeritorum ipsius reprobi, aut per­severantiae in peccato usque ad ulti­mum vitae Alvar. disp. 110. num. 8. Reprobation, whereby God determines, not to give eternall life to some, and to suffer them to sinne, is not condi­tionall, but absolute; neither doth it presup­pose in God the fore-knowledge, or fore-sight of the ill deserts of the Reprobate, or of his per­severance in sinne unto the end of his life.

Neque peccatum actuale, neque ori­ginale, neque utrumque simul praevi­sum à Deo, fuit de facto causa me­ritoria, vel motiva Reprobationis ali­cujus, quantum ad omnes illus effectus. Alv. ib. n. 11. And againe, Neither actuall sinne, nor originall, nor both together, fore-seene of God, were the meritorious cause, or motive of any ones Reprobation, in respect of all the effects of it.

Existimo S. Thomam re­solutoriè ean­dem docuisse sententiam; etenim art. 3. citat. in corp. ait, Sicut praedestinatlo includit voluntatem conferendi gratiam & gloriam; ita Reprobatio includit voluntatem permittendi aliquem cadere in culpam, & ferendi damnati­onis poenam pro culpâ. Alvar. Ibid. And hee takes Aquinas to be resolute in this point, and hee cites him, saying, As predestination doth include a will to conferre grace, and glory, so Reprobation doth include a will to suffer one to fall into sinne, and to inslict the punishment of damnation for sinne.

[Page 225] Hence Alvarez inferres, that according to Ergo secundum S. Thomam permissio primi peccati, propter quod reprobus damnatur, est effectus Reprobationis: sed illius permissionis nulla datur causa ex parte reprobi: nam ante permissi­onem primi peccati, & ante primum peccatum non datur aliud peccatum praecedens: aliàs illud non esset sim­pliciter primum, vel in homine prae­cederet aliud peccatum commissum, Deo non permittente, &c. Alvar. Ibib. Aquinas the permission of the first sinne for which a Reprobate is damned, is the effect of Reprobation. And hee addes that of this permission there is no cause in the Re­probate. Because before the permission of the first sinne, and before the first sinne, there is no other sinne; for if there were, then it were not simply the first sinne; or man should commit some other sinne before, which God did not permit, whereas no sinne can be committed but by Gods permission. He cites also Aquinas againe speaking thus, Quare hos eligat ad gloriam, & illos reprobet, non habet rationem nisi divinam voluntatem. Aquin. apud Alvar. Ibid. In quo testimonio, ut disp. 37. num. 9. ex doctrinâ S. Augustini, & S. Thomae ostendimus, apertè significatur in electione absolutâ, & reprobatione hominum Deum non respexisse ad merita, vel demerita praevisa, sed pro suo beneplacito istum elegisse, & prae­destinasse ad gloriam, illum non prae­destinasse, sed voluntate absolutâ sta­tuisse permittere peccatum illius, & ob­durationem, sive perseverantiam in eodem peccato usque ad ultimumvitae, & poenam aeternam infligere propter idem peccatum. &c. Ibid. num. 12. why God doth chuse some to glory, and repro­bate others, there is no reason but onely Gods Will. And having cited that of the Apostle Rom. 9. The children being not yet borne, nei­ther having done any good, or evill, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of workes, but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, The elder should serve the younger, As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated; having cited this (I say) hee addes that the Apostle here (both Austine and Aquinas avouching as much) plainly signifies, that in the absolute Election and Reprobation of Men, God did not looke at Mens merits, or demerits, but of his own pleasure did chuse, and predestinate one to glory, and not pre­destinate another, but by an absolute will did determine to suffer him to sinne, and to be hardened, or to persevere in sinne to the end of his life, and to inflict eternall punishment upon him for sin.

Hee brings in also Austine confuting Ideo, inquiunt, nondum natorum aliū oderat, alium diligebat, quia eorum futura opera previdebat. Quis istum acutissimum sensum defuisse Apostolo non miretur? Hoc quippe ille non vi­dit. &c. Aug. Epist. 105. apud. Alvar. Ibid. num. 13. those, who say, that Esau and Iacob being not yet borne, God did therefore hate the one, and love the other, because hee did foresee the workes that they would doe. Who (said Austine) can but wonder, that the [Page 226] Apostle should not finde out this acute reason; for hee did not see it, &c. No, but flies to this, hee saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, &c. So then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

And that none of our Romish adversaries may sleight Austine in this point, Alvarez about the beginning of his Worke hath Alvar. de Auxil. l. 1. disp. 5. a Disputation to shew what authority this Fathers judgement is of in the point of Grace, and Predestination. Hee shewes that not onely Prosper, but also many Bi­shops of Rome did approve of Austines Nec solus Prosper, sed plures etiam summi Pontifices Doctrinam ejusdem Augustini approbaverunt, & Catho­licam esse decreverunt. Alvar. Ibid. num. 3. Doctrine concerning these points, and did determine it to be sound and good.

And therefore in the testimony of Austine, wee have many testimonies, and such as are irrefragable with those, with whom now wee have to doe. But let us heare what some other late Writers of the Church of Rome doe say as to this point concerning Reprobation. God from eternity (saith Cardinall Deus ab aeterno verè quosdam eli­git, & quosdam reprobat, quos­dam diligit & quosdam odio habet, pro quá­to quibusdam ab aeterno vult conferre opem gratiae suae, & adjuvare illos usque ad gloriam aeternam; quosdam autem ab aeterno quoque vult permittere sibi ipsis, nec adjuvare eos gratuito auxilio, quod electis decrevit conferre, Et hoc est Deum illos odio habere, hoc est Deum illos reprobare non ex operibus. Cum quo tamen stat quòd nullus damnatur nisi ex propriis ope ibus, nec sententia siquidem, nec executio damnationis fit antequam hujusmodi reprobi peccent. Cajet. in Rom. 9. 13. Cajetan) doth truly chuse some, and reprobate others, doth love some, and hate others, in that from eter­nity his will is to vouchsafe some the helpe of his grace, whereby to bring them to eternall glory; and from eternity also his will is to leave some to themselves, and not to afford them that gracious help, which he hath decreed to afford the Elect. And this is for God to hate, and to reprobate them; with which yet it doth well stand, that none is damned but by his owne workes, because neither the Sen­tence, nor Execution of damnation is before that such Reprobates doe sinne.

So also † Estius saith that the Apostle Rom. 9. doth teach, that Jam hinc colligendum relinquit Apo­stolus argumento à figurâ ad rem significatam, neque electionem hominú, neque Reprobatio­nem esse ex ullis operum meritis, sed Deum ex solo voluntatis arbitrio alios eligere, alios autem reprobare. Est. ad Rom. 9. 13. neither mens Election nor their Reprobation is from the Merits of [Page 227] workes, but that God by the meere pleasure of his wil doth chuse some, and Reprobate others.

And againe upon those words, O man, who are thou that re­pliest Studium fuit Apostoli non tam ad directi­onem respon­dere, quàm ad causam objici­endi. Conclu­serat enim, Er­go cujus vult, miseretur, &c. unde nata erat illa objectio, Quid adhuc queritur, &c. Respondet itaque de voluntate Dei eligente, & re Probante, negans ejus rationem ab homine, qui creatura, & figmentum Dei est, scrutandam esse, imò ab exemplo figuli ostendens Deum hoc facere pro libertate suae voluntatis absque aliâ ratione, ut rect è locum hunc Thomas exposuit. Est. ad. Rom. 9. 20. against God, &c. hee saith that the Apostles intent was to answer not so much the objection, as the cause of objecting. And that therefore he answers concerning the Will of God Electing, and Re­probating, and denies that the reason of it is to be inquired by man, who is Gods creature, and made by him: yea that by the example of a potter the Apostle shewes, that God doth this out of the liberty of his Will without any other reason. And he addes that Thomas Aquinas did also thus rightly expound the words of the Apostle.

Verum est, quòd Deus aeternaliter nullum punit sine culpâ suâ tempora­liter praecedente, & aeternaliter per­manente; non tamen proprer culpam, tanquam propter causam antecedenter moventem voluntatem divinam, Deus quenquam aeternaliter reprobavit. Bradward. de Caus. Dei lib. 1. cap. ult. Bradwardine, who intituled the book which hee wrote, of the cause of God, is not to be omitted; Hee saith, It's true, God doth not eternally punish any without his fault going before temporally, and abiding eternally: yet God did not eternally reprobate any, because of sinne, as a cause antecedently moving Gods will. What doe our Divines say, even such as are of the more rigid sort, as concerning this high and abstruse point of Reproba­tion, what (I say) doe they lay more then is said by these great and eminent Doctours of the Church of Rome, and before them by Austine, and before both him and them (as both hee and they conceived) by the Apostle Paul himselfe? The Decree of Reprobation (saith Bishop Davenant) is not thus to be concei­ved, I will damne Judas, whether he believe, or not believe, re­pent B. Daven. Ani­madvers. p. 352. or not repent; for this were contrary to the truth of the Evan­gelicall promises: but thus, I am absolutely determined not to give unto Judas that speciall grace, which would cause him to believe, and repent: and I am absolutely purposed to permit him to incurre his own demnation by his voluntary obstinacy, and finall impenitency. And againe, It must here first of all be considered, that Reproba­tio aeterna nihil ponit in reprobato (that is, That eternall repro­bation Ibid. pag. 356. [Page 228] doth put nothing in the person that is reprobated) It putteth onely in God a firme Decree of permitting such persons to fall into finall sinne, and for it a firme decree of condemning them unto eternall punishment. So both hee and diverse other of our Eng. lish Divines that were at the Synod of Dort, being sent thither by King Iames, as they hold that Reprobatio, quae est electi­onis negatio, ponit immuta­bilem Dei vo­luntatem de non miserati­one talis per­sonaepraeteritae, quoad ipsam donationem vitae aeternae. Suffr. Britan. in 1. artic. Praevisam infi­delitatem esse causam non electionis fal-sum est. Ibid. Deus neminem damnat, aut damnationi destinat, nisi ex consideratione peccati. Ibid. Thesi. 5. Reprobation, which is the de­nying of election, doth put in God an immutable will not to have mer­cy on such a person as is passed by, in respect of giving eternall life. And that foreseene unbeliefe is not the cause of non election. So withall they lay down this position, God doth damne none, nor appoint unto Damnation, but in respect of sinne. So Doctor Cur simplex appellent hoc decretum, non intelligimus, nisi velint Deum (ex nostrâ sententiâ) immediate decrevisse damnationem hominum, sive peccatores fuerint, sive non; quod est nimis simpliciter calumniari. Ames. Animad. de Pradest. cap. 11. Sect. 6. Nostra sententia est, Deum quosdam homines non elegisse (sicut alios elegit) sed decrevisse permittere, ut in peccatis suis manerent, & propter illa peccata just ae damnati­onis poenam subirent hujusmodi decreti nullam causam in non electis reperiri, quae non simi­liter in electis reperitur. Ames. Ibid. Ames saith that it is too great a slander to say that according to our opinion God did immediately decree mens damnation, whe­ther they be sinners, or no. Our opinion (saith hee) is this, that God did not choose some (as he did chuse others) but did determine to let them abide in their sinnes, and for those sinnes to suffer the punishment of just damnation; and that of this decree there is no cause to be found in those that are not elected, which is not as much to be found in those that are elected.

Thus also Doctor Twisse, We say, and say Dicimus, & verè, destinatos esse dam­nationi non paucos antequam nascan­tur.—Veruntamen non dicimus quenquam ad mortem subeundam destinatum esse nisi propter peccatum, nec ullo momento dicimus destinati­onem ipsam quoad actum destinantis praecedere praevisionem peccati. D. Twiss. de Scient. med. lib. 1. digress. 5. truly (saith hee) that many are appointed un­to damnation before they are borne.—Yet we doe not say, that any is appointed to suffer death but for sinne, nor that the decree it selfe in respect of the act of him that decreeth, doth any one moment goe before the foresight of sinne. I see nothing in these Assertions of our Di­vines, that hath any thing more horrid in it, then that is, which they of the Church of Rome before cited, doe assert, and yet some of these goe as high in the point of [Page 229] Predestination (I thinke) as any others. Ergo si non possumus rati­onem assignare cur suos miseri-cordiâ digne­tur, nisi quo­niam ita illi placet: neque etiam in aliis reprobandis aliud habebi­mus quàm ejus voluntatem. Calv. Insti. lib. 3. c. 22. Sect. 11. Calvin himselfe, as hee saith, If wee cannot give a reason why God hath mercy on his own, but because so it pleaseth him: neither have we any cause why others are Reprobated, but his Will. Quod si ju­dicio mortis obnoxii sunt omnes naturali conditione, quos ad mortē Dominus prae­destinat, dequâ, obsecro, ejus iniquitate erga se conqueran­tur? Veniant omnes filii Adam, cum suo creatore contē ­dant, ac disce­ptent, quòd aeternâ illius providentiâ, ante suam generationem, perpetuae calamitati addicti fuerint; quid obstrepere adversus defensionem poterunt, ubi Deus illos ad sui recognitionem contra voca­bit [...]? Ex corruptâ massâ si desumpti sunt omnes, non mirum si damnationi subjacent. Ne ergo Deum iniquitatis insimulent, si aeterno ejus judicio morti destinati sint, ad quam à suâ ipsorum naturâ sponte se perduci, velint nolint, ipsi sentient. Calvin. Instit. lib. 3. cap. 23. Sect. 3. So he saith withall, If all by their condition be subject to condemnation, how can they, whom God doth predestinate unto destruction, complaine that he doth deale unjustly with them? Let all the sonnes of Adam come, let them contend and dispute with their Creator, because by his eternall pro­vidence, before they were borne, they were appointed to eternall mi­sery. What will they be able to object against this plea, when God shall on the other side call them to areview of themselves? If all be taken out of the corrupt Masse, it is no wonder if they be subject to damnation. Let them not therefore accuse God of iniquity, if by his Eternall judgement they be appointed unto death, to which, whe­ther they will or no, themselves doe see that they are led by their own nature of its own accord. Tametsi aeternâ Dei providentiâ ni eam, cui subjacet, calamitatem conditus est homo; à seipso tamen ejus materiam, non à Deo sumpsit, quando nullâ aliâ ratione sic perditus est, nisi quia à purâ Dei creatione in vitiosam & impuram perversitatem de­generavit. Calv. Instit. lib. 3. cap. 23. Sect. 9. & Sect. 12. And againe, Although by Gods eter­nall Providence man is cast into that calamity, which doth befall him, yet he takes the matter of it from himselfe, and not from God, seeing for no other reason is he so undone, but because he did degene­rate from that purity wherein God created him, and made himselfe vitious, impure and perverse. Asserimus nullos perire immerentes. Et de eter. Dei proedest. pag. 976. Damnationis nostrae culpa in nobis residet. And againe, we affirme that none do perish but by their own desert. e And againe, The cause of our damnation is in our selves. Thus Calvin being heard speake for himselfe, it plainly appeares that hee by the decree of Repro­bation makes God the author of mans damnation no otherwise then diverse Romanists themselves doe.

[Page 230] And thus also Beza, Caeterùm haec summa est responsionis Pauli, Quamvis Deus absque ullo qualitatum respectu, amori destinet, & odio destinet, quoscunque ipsi libuit, ta­men procul eum abesse ab omni injusti­tiâ, quoniam inter aeternum Dei decretum, & ejus decreti executionem sunt causae subordinatae, quibus electos ad salutem adducit, & reprobos justè damnat. Electos n. servat per misericordiam, reprobos damnat per indurationem, ut prorsus ineptè faciant, qui Reprobationis decretum cum damnatione confundunt; quum hujus causa manifesta sit, nempe peccatum, illius verò sola Dei voluntas. Neutris igitur facit injuriam, quoniam ut [...]ique digni sunt exitio. Misericordia enim miseros electos fuisse ostendit, ac proinde dig­nos, qui propter peccatum perderentu: induratio verò perversitatem praesupponit, in quâ justè indurantur reprobi. Beza ad Rom. 9. 15. Similia etiam habet ad v. 17. This (saith hee) is the sum of Pauls answer, although God appoint either to love, or to hatred whom he will, without any respect of their qualifications, yet he is free from all injustice, because betwixt Gods eternall decree, and the execu­tion of it, there are subordinate causes, whereby God doth bring the elect unto salvation, and doth justly damne the Reprobate. For he saves the elect by mercy, and damnes the Reprobate by induration; so that they doe most foolishly, who confouned the decree of Reproba­tion with damnation, seeing that the cause of damnation is manifest, to wit, sinne, but the Will of God is the onely cause of Reprobation. Therefore God doth wrong to neither, because both deserve destructi­on. For mercy shewes that the Elect were miserable, and there­fore worthy because of sinne to be destroyed; and induration pre­supposeth perversnesse, in which the Reprobate are justly hardened. The like he hath also againe a little after.

And whereas Qui massae nomine huma­num genus cor­ruptum intelli­gunt, mihi non satisfaciunt in hujus loci ex­plicatione. Pri­mùm enim mihi videtur nomen illud informis materiae, ne condito quidem humano gene­ri, nedum jam corrupto, satis convenire. Deinde si genus humanum ut corruptum consi­der asset Apostolus, non dixidet quaedam vasa ad decus, quaedam ad dedecus facta; sed potiùs quum omnia vasa ad dedecus esset comparata, aliâ in illo dedecore relicta, alia verò ab hoc dedecore ad decus translata. Postremò nisi Paulus ad ultimum usque gradum conscendat, non satisfecerit objectae quaestioni. Semper enim quaeritur, ista corruptio temeréne evenerit, an verò secundum Dei propositum, ac proinde difficultas eadem recurret. Dico igitur Pau­lum elegantissimâ istâ similitudine adhibitâ ad ipsius Adami creationem alludere, & aeternum usque propositum Dei conscendere, qui antequam humanum genus conderet, jam tum & in quibusdam, quos novit, per misericordiam servandis, & in quibusdam, quos etiam novit, justo judicio perdendis, gloriam suam illustrare, prosuo jure, & merâ voluntate decreverit. Beza. ad Rom. 3. 21. Beza saith that they doe not satisfie him, who by the lumpe which the Apostle speakes of Rom. 9. 12. doe understand mankinde being corrupt; because. 1. That terme he thinkes doth not well agree to man being created, much lesse to him being already corrupted. And againe, if the Apostle had [Page 231] some Vessells were made unto honour, and some unto dishonour; but seeing all Vessels were fitted for dishonour (all mankinde being corrupted) the Apostle would rather have said that some were left in that dishonour, and some translated from it unto honour. Finally, except Paul goe up to the highest step, the objection (hee thinkes) is not satisfied. For that still it will be deman­ded, whether that corruption came as it happened, or accord­ing to Gods purpose; and so the same difficulty will remaine still. Therefore Paul (hee saith) by that most elegant simili­tude did allude unto Adams Creation, and did ascend up even to Gods eternall purpose, who before he did create mankinde, did of his meere will and pleasure determine to shew forth his glory in saving some through his mercy, and in destroying some by his just judgement.

This is no more then Non igitur in hâc disputa­tione supponit Apostolus mas­sam corruptam, licet etiam de ea secundum Augustini sen­tentiam, habet veritatem A­postoli senten­tia. Nam Scriptura pas­sim adhibens comparationē luti, quod pro suo libitu for­mat figulus, de luto loquitur absolutè, nullum ejus vitium supponens, sed solam ejus naturam considerans, quâ formabile est ad omne opus figulinum. Unde nec ait Apostolus figulum ex eâdem massâ aliud vas facere in honorem, aliud in ignominiâ relinquere, sed ex eâdem massâ facere in ignominiam. Neque dixit, figmentum ei qui se finxit non dicere, Cur me reliquisti in massâ corruptâ? Sed, Cur me fecisti sic? id est, vas ignominiosum, & reprobum. Estius ad Rom. 9. 21. Estius on Rom. 9. doth subscribe un­to. In this disputation (saith hee) the Apostle doth not suppose the lumpe corrupt, although that which the Apostle saith is true also of it according to Austines opinion. For the Scriptures often using the comparison of a lumpe, which the Potter doth fasten as he pleaseth, speakes of the lumpe absolutely, not supposing any fault in it, but only considering the nature of it, whereby it is fit to be fastned into any worke of the Potter. And therefore the Apostle doth not say, that the Potter of the same lumpe doth make one Ves­sell unto honour, and leave another in dishonour: but that of the same lumpe he doth make unto dishonour. Neither doth he say, that the thing formed doth not say to him that formed it, Why hast thou left me in the corrupt lumpe? but, Why hast thou made me so? that is, a dishonorable, and reprobate vessell.

Here wee see Estius both approves of Bezaes interpreta­tion, and also makes use of his reason for the confirming of it. And hee addes that the Apostle in that similitude of a lumpe, [Page 232] and a Potter doth not allude to Ier. 18. 6, Nee verum est, Paulum ad locum Je­remiae (Jer. 18. 6.) alludere, quin potius manifesta est allusio ad Isai. 45. Vae qui contradicit fictori suo, &c. Numquid dicit lutum, &c. Quae sanè verba significant ita Deum pro mero suo beneplacito statuere de rebus hu­manis in utramlibet partem, quomodo figulus ex luto facit opus quodcunque voluerit. Quo etiam pertinet quod sequitur, Vae qui dicit, &c. Quod enim meritum hominis, ut parentes eum talem, vel tamen gignant? Estius. Ibid. but that rather there is a manifest allusion to Isai. 45. 9. Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker: Let the potsheard strive with the potsheards of the Earth: shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy worke, he hath no hands? Which words (hee saith) doe verily signifie thus much, that God of his meere pleasure doth so de­termine of mens estate either the one way, or the other, as a Potter doth make of clay what worke hee pleaseth. And hither­to (hee saith) doth that belong, which followeth (Isai. 45. 10.) Woe unto him that saith unto his Father, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth? For (saith hee) what hath man deserved, why his parents should ingender him such, or such? And a little before by diverse arguments he confutes those, who thinke that the Apostle speaking of De Repro­batione non perinde om­nes consen­tiunt. Qui­dam enim di­cunt Aposto­lum supponere massam huma­ni generis in­fectam peccato originall, &c. Verum si diligenter expendantur ea, quae hoc cap. habet Apost. prorsus apparebit, tam Re­probationem, quàm electionem absolutè non ex ullis esse praevisis meritis. Nam, 1. cum dicit, Cum nihil egissent aut boni, aut mali, tam excludit actionem malam Esau, quàm actionem bonam Jacob, & consequenter tam malum meritum Reprobationis, quàm bonum meritum electionis. 2. Quaestioni isti, Numquid iniquitas, &c. non respondet, ideò non esse, quia tota massa peccato vitiata est, &c. sed ita respondet, ut tam horum Reprobatio­nem, quàm illorum electionem referat in solam Dei voluntatem, eo tandem dicto curiosum interrogatorem compescens, O homo tu quis, &c. 3. Comparatio illa de figulo ex eâdem massâ, &c. massae corruptae hypothesim excludit. Hic enim profectò nihil in massâ sup­ponitur, nisi quòd sit indifferens, & formabilis ad utrumque—In hanc sententiam, &c. Lamb. Hugo. Vid. S. Thom. Cajetan. Lyran. Tileman. Perer. &c. Estius ad Rom. 9. 13. Reprobation doth suppose the lumpe of mankinde infected with originall sinne. If (saith he) those things, which the Apostle delivers in this Chapter, be diligently considered, it will fully appeare, that as well Reprobation as Election is absolutely not of foreseene merits. For 1. When he saith, neither having done any good, or evill, he excludes as well the evill action of Esau, as the good action of Jacob, and consequently as well the ill merit of Reprobation, as the good merit of Election. 2. To that question, Is there unrighteousnesse with God? he doth not answer, that therefore there is not, because the [Page 233] whole lumpe is depraved by sinne, &c. but he answers so, as that he refers as well the Reprobation of these, as the election of those, unto the sole Will of God, and so represses the curious inquirer, O man, who art thou, &c. 3. That comparison of a Potter of the same lumpe making one vessell unto honour, and another unto dishonour, doth exclude the supposition of a corrupt lumpe. For here verily is nothing supposed in the lumpe, but that it is indifferent, and may be fashioned both the one way, and the other.

Thus this learned Papist goes as farre in the point both of Election and of Reprobation as any Protestant (that I know) whatsoever. Neither would he have us thinke that he goes alone; for hee cites many, as Lombard, Hugo de S. Victore, Aquinas, Cajetan, Lyra, Titleman, and Pererius, as being of the same opinion with him, and interpreting the words of the Apostle in the same manner. And this (I suppose) may suffice to vindicate the Doctrine of Protestants (even such as goe highest in this point) as touching Reprobation.

Now for the Scriptures objected against us, the first, viz. Wis. 1. 13. is not Canonicall. Hierome brandes that booke called the the Wisdome of Solomon, as falsly intitu­led; and saith, that it is no where to be Fertur, &c. Et alius Pseudepigraphus, qui Sapientia Solomonis inscribitur.—Apud Hebraeos nusquam est: quin & ipse stylus Graecam eloquentiam re­dolet, & nonnulli Scriptorum vete­rum hunc esse Judaei Philonis affir­mant. Sicut ergo Judith, & Tobiae, & Maccabaeorum libros legit quidem Ecclesia, sed eos inter Canonicas Scrip­turas non recipit: sit & haec duo vo­lumina (Ecclesiasticum, & Librum Sapientiae) legit ad ae dificationem plebis, non ad authoritatem Ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam. Hier. praefat. in Proverb. found among the Hebrewes (to whom the Oracles of God were committed, Rom. 3. 2.) and that the style doth smell of Greeke eloquence, and that some ancient writers affirme it to be the worke of Philo a Jew. Therefore (saith he) as the Church doth read indeed the Bookes of Judith, Tobie and the Maccabees, but doth not receive them amongst the Canonicall Scriptures: so also doth it reade these two volumes (viz. Ecclesiasticus, and the wisdome of Solomon) for the edifying of the people, but not for the confirming of Ecclesiasticall Doctrines. But suppose it were Canonicall, the place alledged is answered to our hand by one of the Roman Church, Sensus hujus loci est, quod Deus nō in­tendit perse primò mortem alicujus, sed ratione alterius majoris boni conjuncti. Secūdò explicatur locus iste de morte, quantū ad ejus causā, scil. peccatū. &c. viz. Alvarez: when it is said, God made not death, the meaning (hee saith) is, that God doth not primarily of it selfe intend the [Page 234] death of any but in respect of some other great good that is joyned with it. And againe, that place (hee saith) is expounded of death in respect of the cause, to wit, sinne. These expositi­ons of the place doe free the Doctrine of Protestants from suf­fering any prejudice by it, were the authority of it greater then indeed it is. The next place is that, 1 Tim. 2. 4. Who will have all men to be saved, &c. Austine gives diverse interpretations of those words. First, thus, that the meaning is, that God will have all to be saved that Debemus ita intelligere, &c. tanquam diceretur, Nullum hominem fieri salvum, nisi quem salvum fieri ipse voluerit, &c. Aut certè sic dictum est &c. ut omnes homines omne genus hominum intelligamus per quascunque differentias distributum, reges, pri­vatos, nobiles, ignobiles, &c. Enchir. cap. 103. are saved, and that none but such as hee will save, can bee saved. Secondly, this that by all men are meant men of all sorts, how ever distinguished, Kings and pri­vate persons, noble and ignoble, &c. This hee shewes to be agreeable both to the Context, and also to the phrase of Scrip­ture, Luke 11. 42. You tithe Mint, and Rue, and every Herbe, i. e. every kinde of Herbe. This latter exposition of the Apostles Alvar. de Auxil. disput. 33. words Alvarez saith is also followed by Fulgentius, Beda, and Anselme. The same Alvarez relates two other interpretati­ons, which Austine gives of these words, viz. first this, God will have all men to be saved, that is, hee makes men to will, or desire that all may be saved, as the Spirit is said to make intercession for us, Rom. 8. Deus vult, i. e. facit ut homines velint, omnes salvos fieri, &c. Sic explicat S. Aug. de corrept. & grat. cap. 15. 26. that is, makes us to make intercession or supplication, &c.

Qui omnes homines vult salvos fieri] h. e. vult & facit pios homines velle seu desiderare omnium salutem.—Quamvis Deus non velit omnes salvos facere, sed solos electos: vult tamen omnes salvos fieri, scil. per nos, & quantum in nobis est, dum praecipit ut omnium salutem quaeramus, & hoc ipsum studium in nobis operatur.—Hanc expositionem prae caeteris am­plectimur. Est. a [...] 1 Tim. 2. 4. Estius upon the place doth embrace this Exposition before any other. VVho will have all men to be saved] that is (saith hee) He willeth, and maketh godly men to desire the salvation of all.—Though God will not save all, but onely the Elect; yet he will have all to be saved, to wit, by us, as much as in us lies, in that he commands us to seek the salvation of all, and this desire and indeavour he workes in us.—This Exposi­tion wee embrace rather then any of the rest.

[Page 235] The other Exposition which Quarta ex­plicatio docet loqui Aposto­lum de volun­tate Dei an­tecedente, quae est voluntas signi, & volun­tas secundum quid, ut dicitur disput: sequen­ti. Hanc expli­cationem etiam tradit S. Aug. lib. ad art. sibi falso impositos, art. 2. & cap. 15. de corrept. & grat. &c. Alvar. ubi supra. Voluntas Dei antecedens est, quae fertur in objectum ali­quod absolutè consideratum, & secundum se; dicitur autem haec voluntas antecedens, non quia antecedit bonum, vel malum usum nostri arbitrii, ut arbitrantur auctores primae senten­tiae, sed quia antecedit voluntatem quâ Deus fertur in objectum consideratum cum aliquo adjuncto, quae est consequens, & posterior consideratio ejus.—Si consideretur salus re­proborum secundum se, & absolutè, sic est à Deo volita: si autem consideretur, secundum quod habet adjunctam privationem, aut carentiam majoris boni, viz. boni universi mani­festationis justitiae divinae in reprobis, & majoris splendoris misericordiae ejus in electis, sic non est volita à Deo. Et secundum hoc asserimus, quòd voluntate consequente Deus non velit omnes falvos fieri, sed solùm praedestinatos. Alvar. de Auxil. Disput. 34. num. 3. Alvarez relates, is, that the Apostle speakes of Gods antecedent will. Thus (hee saith) Austine doth expound it in diverse places, and for this Exposition hee also cites Damascene, Prosper, Theophylaot, Oecumenius, Aquinas, as also Chrysostome and Ambrose, and saith that it is common among the Doctors. Now in the next Disputation hee tels us that Gods antecedent Will is that, which respects the object simply considered, and by it selfe: and that this will is called antecedent, not because it goes before the good, or ill use of our will, as some thinke, but because it goes before that will, whereby God respects the object considered with some adjunct, which is the consequent, and latter consideration of it. If (saith hee) the salvation of the Reprobate be considered simply by it selfe, so God doth will it: but if it be considered, as it hath adjoyned the privation, or want of a greater good, to wit, the universall good of manifesting Gods Iustice in the Reprobate, and of causing his Mercy the more to shine forth in the Elect, so God doth not will it. And in this respect were affirmed, that God by a consequent will doth not will that all shall be saved, but only such as are predestinate.

Now take any of all these foure Explications of the Apostles words, wherein hee saith, that God will have all men to be saved (as for my part I like best either the second, or the last) take any of them, I say, and the Apostles words are nothing against that which Protestants hold concerning Reprobation. As for that of Peter, that God is not willing that any should perish, 2 Pet. 3. 9. Bellarmine himselfe expounds both it, and the former place, viz. 1 Tim. 2. 4. of that Verum est, Deum velle omnes salvos fieri voluntate illâ, quam rectè Theo­logi antecedentem vocant. Bell. de grat. & lib. arb. lib. 2. cap. 3. Will of God, which Divines call Gods An­tecedent will. Now what that Antecedent [Page 236] will of God is we have seene even now out of Alvarez: if Bellar­mine did understand it otherwise (as Alvarez notes that some did) hee is confuted by Alvarez in the place above cited. Where hee also cites Austine saying, Many are not saved, not be­cause they will not, but because God will not: which without all con­troversie Multi salvi non fiunt, non quia ipsi nolint, sed quia Deus non vult; quod absque ullâ contro­versiâ manifestatur in parvulis. Aug. apud Alvar. disput. 34. num. 5. Ergo conditio, quae in­cluditur in voluntate antecedente, quâ Deus vult omnes homines salvos fieri, non est ista, si ipsi voluerint, aut per eos non steter it. Alvar. Ibid. is manifested in young children: whence he inferrs that the condition, which is included in Gods Antecedent will, whereby he will have all men to be saved, is not this, if they will, and if they doe not hinder it.

And Bellarmine himselfe also, though he Verissimum est, non fieri omnes sal­vos quia ipsi nolunt: nam si vellent, Deus eis utique non deesset. Caeterùm nemo vult salvus fieri, nisi Deus prae­veniendo, & preparando voluntatem faciat eum velle: cur autem Deus non faciat omnes velle, quis novit sensum Domini? & quis consiliarius ejus fuit? Bell. loco proximè citato. say, It is most true, that all are not saved, because they will not: for if they would, God would not be wanting unto them. Yet im­mediately hee addes, But none can have a will to be saved, except God by preventing and preparing the will, make him to will it. And why God doth not make all to will this, who hath knowne the mind of the Lord? and who hath been his Counsellour? (Rom. 11. 34.) The last place of Scripture, which the Marquesse objecteth, is Ezech. 33. 11. As I live, saith the Lord, I delight not in the death of a sinner.

Now to this also we have Alvarez to answer for us, viz. first that it is meant of spirituall death, which is by sinne. Which Intelligitur de morte spiritu­ali, quae est per peccatum. Hanc enim non vult Deus sed solùm per­mittit. Col­ligitur haec ex­plicatio ex con­textu: ait enim, sed magis ut convertatur, & vivat. Si autem explicetur de morte secundâ, scil. de damnatione aeternâ, dicendum est, quòd Deus non vult hanc mortem alicui in­ferre, nisi supposito peccato, ut disp. 109. & 110. patebit. Alvar. de Auxil. disp. 33. num. 5. God doth only permit, but doth not delight in it. And this Explication hee saith, is confirmed by the words following, but rather that he be converted, and live. And if it be expounded of the second death, which is eternall damnation, the meaning, hee saith, is, that God will not inflict this upon any but for sinne.

[Page 237] But though God will not inflict damnation upon the Re­probate, but for sinne; yet this same Alvarez (as I have shew­ed abundantly before) and so other Writers of the Church of Rome doe tell us, that God by his eternall Decree of Reproba­tion of his meere Will, and Pleasure, doth determine to suffer the Reprobate to sinne, and so to damne them for it. And thus now I have made it appeare (I hope) sufficiently, that by the consent of the Romanists themselves the Scriptures alledged are not repugnant to the Doctrine of Protestants concerning Re­probation: neither (I thinke) will the Fathers, whom the Mar­quesse citeth, be against it. The first of them is Austine, who (as hath before been shewed) is as much for us as we neede desire. He is here produced against us, but so as that I know not easily how to finde what he saith. For onely li. 1. de Civit. Dei. is cited, but no Chapter, whereas there are no lesse then 36. in that booke: this is a strange kinde of citing Authors, but the fault may be in the Printer, or in some other, and not in the Marquesse. As for Cyprian, who is next cited, I see not any thing in the place pointed at, which is to this purpose, except this, Seeing it is writ­ten, Nam cum Scriptum sit, Deus mortem non fecit, nec laetatur in perditione vivorum, utique qui neminem vult perire, cupit peccatores poenitentiam agere, & per poenitentiam denuò ad vitam redire. Cypr. lib. 4. Epist. 2. vel edit. Pamel. Epist. 52. God made not death, nor doth he rejoyce in the destruction of the living, surely he that would not have any to perish, desires that sinners may come to Repentance, and that by Repentance they may returne unto life againe. Now that which Cyprian here alledgeth, viz. God made not death, &c. I have shewed before by the testimony of Hierome to be no Canonicall Scripture, nor of sufficient force to decide any point of controversie: as also that if it were, yet by the acknow­ledgement of Alvarez it makes not against Gods Decree of Reprobation, which wee maintaine. It hath also beene shewed before in what sense God would have none to perish, viz. by his Antecedent Will, with which yet will stand the Decree of Re­probation, as we hold it; which likewise hath been shewed, and that from both Bellarmine, and from Alvarez also. And that God desires sinners may come to Repentance, and so to life, Protestants, (that I know) doe not deny, though they hold that God doth give (and so from all eternity did purpose to give) Repen­tance [Page 238] unto some, and not to others, as hee pleaseth; which I have also shewed to be acknowledged by Bellarmine, Alvarez, Estius, and others of the Church of Rome. And it is most cleare by that of the Apostle, If God peradventure will give them Re­pentance, 2 Tim. 2. 25. and that, He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will, he hardneth. Rom. 9. 18.

The third and last Father, who is here alledged, is Ambrose de Cain & Abel lib. 2. but what Chapter, (whereas there are ten in that Booke) is not mentioned. Now I finde that Chap. 3. hath something, which Ideo omnibus opem sanitatis detulit, ut quicunque perierit, mortis suae cau­sas sibi ascribat, qui curari noluit, cum remedium haberet, quo posset evadere: Christi autem manifesta in omnes praedicetur misericordia, eò quòd ii qui pereunt, suâ pereant negligentiâ, qui autem salvantur, secundum Christi sententiā liberentur, qui omnes homi­nes vult salvos fieri, & in agnitionem veritatis venire. Amb. de Cain & Abel. l. 2. c. 3. probably was aimed at by the Marquesse, viz. this, Christ therefore offered the helpe of healing unto all, that whosoever perisheth, may ascribe the cause of his death to himselfe, who when he had a remedy, whereby he might es­cape, would not be cured. And that Christs mercy towards all might be made manifest, in that they that perish, doe perish by their own negligence, but they that are saved, are freed according to Christs sentence, who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the acknowledgement of the truth. Now I know no Protestant but hee will assent unto this, that whosoever perish, must ascribe the cause to themselves, and that they perish through their own default. I have before cited Calvin asserting thus much, That none doe perish without their desert. But this assertion of his is very well consistent with his Asserimus nul­los perire im­merentes. Calv. Instit. li. 3. c. 23. Sect 12. Doctrine about Reprobation, as I have shewed by the testimo­nies of diverse famous Writers of the Church of Rome. And whereas Ambrose saith, that such as perish, had a remedy, whereby they might escape, and that they therefore perish, because they would not be cured. No Protestants, (I suppose) will deny, but that such as perish through unbeliefe, if they did believe, should be saved: but yet neverthelesse not Protestants onely, but Pa­pists also (as I have shewed) doe hold, that God from all eternity did decree and purpose to give faith unto some, and not unto others, and that meerely of his own will and pleasure. And that therefore according to Austine (whose words are cited before) the prime and supreme cause why some are not saved, [Page 239] is not because they will not, but because God will not. For that which Ambrose hath in the last place, who will have all men to be saved, &c. enough hath beene said before to shew, that in the judgement of Austine, and diverse Romanists, it is nothing against the absolute decree of Reprobation; and so I have done with this point.

In the next place the Marquesse speakes of a mans assurance Page 66. & 67. of his salvation, saying, that Protestants hold that a man ought to assure himselfe of it; and to prove the contrary, which they of the Roman Church doe hold, he alledgeth 1 Cor. 9. 27. saying, S. Paul was not assured, but that whilest he Preached to others, he himselfe might become a cast-away. And Rom. 11. 20. Thou standest in the Faith: be not high minded, but feare, &c. lest thou also mayest be cut off. And Phil. 2. 12. Worke out your own salvation with fear and termbling.

Answ. Concerning this point, Protestants hold, 1. That a Christian may be assured of his salvation. 2. That a Christian ought to labour for this assurance. For the former of these po­sitions wee have diverse places of Scriptures. As first that Fa­mous place Rom. 8. 35, 36, 37, 38, 39. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall Tribulation, or Distresse, or Persecution, &c. Nay in all these things we are more then conquerours through Him that loved us. For I am perswaded, that neither Death, nor Life, nor Angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other Creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. So also that 2 Cor. 5. 1. We know then if our earthly house of this Tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternall in the Heavens, And v. 6, 7, 8. Therefore we are alwayes confident, knowing that whiles we are here in the body, we are absent from the Lord. For we walke by faith, and not by sight. We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. And that Phil. 1. 21. To me to live is Christ, and to die is gaine. And that 2 Tim. 4. 18. The Lord shall deliver me from every evill work, and will preserve me to his Heavenly Kingdom. And in the same Chapter v. 6, 7, 8. I am now ready to be offered, and my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have [Page 240] finished my course, I have kept the faith: henceforth is laid up for me the crown of righteousnesse, &c. So also S. Peter, Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Iesus Christ, who according to his abun­dant mercy hath begotten us againe unto a lively hope, through the Resurrection of Iesus Christ from the dead, unto an inheritance in­corruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in Heaven for us. 1 Pet. 1. 3, 4. This hope, which believers have, or may have of salvation, is a lively hope; it is a hope, that ma­keth not ashamed. Rom. 5. 5. because they are sure to obtaine that which they hope for, and shall not be disappointed of it. Hence it is also that believers rejoyce with joy unspeakable, and full of glory; 1 Pet. 1. 8. because they know they shall receive the end of their faith, even the salvation of their soules. v. 9.

Wee have also Fathers to testifie this truth; There flourisheth with us (saith Cyprian) the strength of hope, and the firmness of faith; and amongst the very Viget apud nos spei robur, & firmitas fidei, & inter ipsas seculi labentis ruinas erecta mens est, & immobilis virtus, & nunquam non laeta patien­tia, & de Deo suo semper anima se­cura: sicut per prophetam Spiritus S. loquitur, &c. Ego autem in Domino exultabo, & gaudebo in Deo salvatore meo. Cypian. ad Demetrian. ruines of the decaying world the minde is raised up, and virtue is unmoveable, and patience is ever joyfull, and the soule is alwayes secure and confident of her God. And immediatly hee confirmes this by that of the Prophet Habakkuk, Although the fig-three shall not blossome, &c. yet I will rejoyce in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation. Hab. 3. 17, 18.

So againe the same Father, Quis hîc anxietatis & sollicitudinis locus est? quis inter haec tre­pidus & moe­stus est, nisi cui spes & fid. s deest? Ejus est enim mortem timere, qui ad Christum nolit ire: ejus est ad Christum nolle ire, qui se non credat cum Christo incipere regnare. Scriptum est enim, justum fide vivere. Si justus es, & fide vivis, si verè in Deum credis, cur non cum Christo futurus, & de Do­mini pollicitatione securus, quòd ad Christum voceris amplecteris, & quòd diabolo careas, gratularis?—Deus de hoc mundo recedentibus immortalitatem atque aeternitatem pollicetur, & tu dubitas: hoc est; Deum omnino non nosse; hoc est Christum credentium Dominum & magistrum peccato incredulitatis oftendere; hoc est in Ecclesiâ constitutum fidem in domo fidei non habere. Cypr. de mortalit. what place is there here for anxiety and carefulnesse? who in the midst of these things can be fearfull and sad, except he want hope and faith? It is for him to fear death, that would not go unto Christ: it is for him to be unwilling to go to Christ, that doth not believe that he doth begin to reigne with Christ. For it is written, The just shall live by faith. If thou beest just, and [Page 241] doest live by faith, if thou doest truly believe in God, seeing thou shalt be with Christ, and art sure of Gods promise, why doest thou not embrace this that thou art called unto Christ, and art glad that thou art freed from the Devill?—God doth promise immortality and eternity to those that depart out of this life, and thou doubtest: this is not at all to know God: this is to offend Christ, the Lord and Master of Believers, with the sinne of unbeliefe: this is to be in the Church, the house of faith, and yet to have no faith. Here we see how earnest Cyprian is to prove that Christians may, yea ought to be confident against the feare of death, and that be­cause they may and ought to be assured of the life to come.

Thus also Credo pro­mittenti, Sal­vator loquitur, veritas pollice­tur, ipse dixit mihi, Qui au dit verba mea, & cre­dit ei qui misit me, habet vitam aeternam, & transitum facit de morte in vitam, & in judicium non veniet; Ego audivi verba Dmmini mei, credidi. Jam infidelis cum essem, factus sum fidelis, sicut ipse monuit, transii à morte ad vitam, ad judicium non venio, non praesumptione meâ, sed ipsius promissione. Aug. tract. 22. in Joh. Austine, I believe (saith hee) him that promi­seth; The Saviour speaketh, the truth promiseth, he hath said unto me, He that heareth my words, and believeth him that sent me, hath eternall life, and is passed from death to life, and shall not come into condemnation. I have heard the words of my Lord, I have be­lieved. Now whereas I was an unbeliever, I am made a Believer, as he hath said, I am passed from death to life, I come not into condem­nation, not by my presumption, but by his promise.

To this purposes also Sic ad ortum solis justitiae, Sacramentum absconditum à seculis de prae­destinatis, & beatificandis, emergere quo­dammodo inci­pit ex abysso aeternitatis, dū quisque vocatus per timorem, justificatus per amorem, praesumit se quoque esse de numero beatorum; sciens nimirum quia quos justificavit, illos & magnificavit. Quid enim? Audit se vocari, cum timore con­cutitur, sentit & justificari, dū amore perfunditur, & de magnificatione disfidet? Ber. Epist. 107. Bernard, The Sun of Righteousnesse arising (saith hee) the mystery concerning the predestinate, and those that shall be made blessed, which was so long hid, beginnes after a sort to come up out of the depth of eternity, whiles every one being called by feare, and justified by love (that is, by Faith working through love, as hee said a little before) doth assure himselfe that he is of the number of the blessed, Knowing that whom he hath justified them he hath also glorified. For why? Hee heares that he is called, when he is moved with feare; he perceives that he is justified, when he is filled with love: and shall he doubt of his being glorified?

[Page 242] And againe, Thou hast O man (saith hee) the justifying spirit a revealer of this secret, and so testifying unto thy spirit, that thou Habes homo hujus arcani indicem spiri­tum justifican­tem, eoque ipso testifican­tem spiritui tuo quod filius Dei & ipse sis. Agnosce consilium Dei in justificatione tui—Praesens namque justificatio tui, & Divini est consilii revelatio, & quaedam ad futuram gloriam praeparatio. Aut certè prae­destinatio ipsa potius praeparatio est, justificatio autem magis jam appropinquatio. Bern. Ibid; also art the Son of God. Acknowledge the counsell of God in thy justification.—For thy present justification is both a revelation of Gods Counsell, and also a certaine preparation unto future glory. Or truly predestination it selfe is rather a preparation, and justificati­on is rather an appropinquation unto it.

And againe, Who is righteous, but he that doth requite Gods Justus autem quis est, nisi qui amanti se Deo vicem re­pendit amoris? Quod non fit nisi revelante Spiritu per fi­dem homini aeternum Dei propositum super suâ salute futurâ. Quae sanè revelatio non est aliud quàm infusio gratiae spiritualis, per quam dum facta carnis mor­tficantur, homo ad regnum praeparatur, quod caro & sanguis non possident, simul accipi­ens in uno spiritu & unde se presumat amatum, & unde redamet, ne gratis amatus si [...]. Bernard. Ibid. love with love againe? which is not done but when the spirit by Faith doth reveale unto a man Gods eternall purpose concerning his future salvation. Which revelation surely is no other thing but the infusion of spirituall grace, by which the deeds of the flesh are mor­tified, and so a man is prepared for that Kingdome, which flesh and blood do not possesse, receiving together by one spirit both this, that he is assured that he is loved, and also this, that hee doth love againe, that so he may not be ungratefull to him, of whom he is loved.

Thus both Scriptures and Fathers testifie that Christians may be assured of their salvation. And that this assurance may be had, may be proved also by all that hath beene said before con­cerning the stability of Faith once had, and the certainty of per­severing in the estate of grace, if a man be once in it. For hence it followeth, that if a man can be assured that hee is in the estate of Grace, hee may also be assured of his salvation. Now that he may be assured of his being in the state of grace some of the Romish Church, and that since Luthers time, have maintained, as namely Catharinus, and the Author of the Booke called Enchiridium Coloniense, both which are mentioned in this respect [Page 243] by Bellarmine. And because the Councell of Trent Sess. 6. c. 9. Bellar. de Justif l. 3. c. 3. doth seeme to determine the contrary, therefore Eisingrenius hath written a whole booke to shew that the determination of the Councell is not indeed against this, that a man may be as­sured that he hath true grace in him. The booke I have seene and read many yeeres agoe, though now I have it not; And I remember he holds that a man may be as sure that hee hath true grace, and that his sinnes are forgiven, as hee is sure that twice two make foure, and that the whole is greater then a part, and as hee is sure of those things which hee sees with his eyes, and feeles with his hands. That a man may have this assurance of his present estate the Scripture plainly shewes, 1 Ioh. 3. 14. We know that we are passed from death to life, because we love the Brethren.

Whereupon sayes Nemo interroget hominem, redeat unusquisque ad cor suum, si ibi inve­nerit charitatem fraternam, securus sit quia transit à morte ad vitam. Aug. tract. 5. in 1 Joh. Austine, Let none aske man, let every one returne unto his own heart, if there he can finde brotherly love let him be secure that he is passed from death to life. So Rom. 8. 16. The Spirit himselfe doth beare witnesse with our spirits, that we are the sonnes of God. Upon which words Ex hoc testimonio clarè videmus, credendum nobis esse quòd sumus filii Dei. Caje. in Rom. 8. 16. Cajetan saith thus, By this testimony we see clearly, that we must believe that we are the sons of God. So also 1 Ioh. 3. 24. Hereby we know that he (viz. Christ) abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. And 1 Cor. 2. 12. We have received the spirit of God, that we may know the things that are freely given unto us of God. Bellarmine sayes this place is not meant of the knowledge of Non loquitur Apostolus de notitâ beneficiorum Dei, quae in particulari ad hunc, autillum pertinent, sed de notitiâ beneficiorum, quae Deus praeparavit electis suis, qualia sunt inprimis haereditas, & gloria regni caelorum. Bell. de Iustif. lib. 3. cap 9. Gods benefits, which belong unto this or that man in particular, but of the know­ledge of those benefits, which God hath prepared for his Elect, as the inheritance and glory of the Kingdome of Heaven. But if the Apostle speakes onely of our know­ing what good things God hath prepared in generall for the Elect, what is this more then appertaines to the very Devils? for they know that God hath prepared Heaven, and hap­pinesse for the Elect; Cajetan therefore is more ingenuous, [Page 244] expounding it of the holy Ghost infused in­to Spiritus S. infusus Apostolis causavit in illis notitiam certam donorum Dei in eisdem—Apostoli certam ha­bebant notitiam, quòd fides, spes, charitas, & alia dona gratis data eis erant à Deo. Cajet. ad 1 Cor. 2. 12. the Apostles, and causing them certainly to know the gifts of God, that were in them. The Apostles (saith hee) had a cer­taine knowledge, that Faith, Hope, Cha­rity, and other gifts, were freely given unto them of God. To adde but one place more, viz. that 1 Ioh. 5. 13. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God, that you may know that ye have eternall life. True (sayes Bellarmine) the Apostle saith indeed, These things I write Ait quidem, Haec scribo vobis qui creditis, ut sciatis, quia vitam habetis aeternam: sed non ait, Haec scribo vobis, ut sciatis vos habere fidem, qualis requiritur. Bell. de Iustif. lib. 1. cap. 11. unto you that believe, that you may know that you have eternall life: but hee doth not say, These things I write unto you, that you may know that you believe, as you ought to believe. But (say I) the Apostle here did suppose that they that truly believe, may know that they doe so; for otherwise how should they that believe, know that therefore they have life eternall, except they first know that they doe believe?

Now for the Scriptures objected against us, that 1 Cor. 9. 27. Lest having preached to others, I my selfe should be a cast-away, cannot be so understood, as that Paul was uncertaine either of his present justification, or of his future glorification; for that will not consist with many other sayings of his before cited. The meaning therefore is onely this, that Pauls care was that his Preaching and his conversation might be suitable, and that the one might not confound the other. The word here rendred cast-away, and 2 Cor. 13. 5. reprobate, is neither here nor there taken in opposition to elect, but is as much as reproved, so the word [...]. properly doth import; as without the privative Particle it signi­fies approved, 1 Cor. 11. 19. That Rom. 11. 20. Thou standest by [...]. faith, be not high minded, but fear, is nothing against assurance of salvation, which doth well consist with feare, viz. such a feare as is opposit to high-mindednesse; this feare making us keepe close unto God, and not to depart from him, Ier. 32. 40. And whereas it is said Rom. 11. 22. Lest thou also mayst (or as wee reade it, otherwise thou also shalt) be cut off, it is spoken by the [Page 245] Apostle to the Church of Rome, and serves well to shew that any particular visible Church, even that of Rome, may faile; but from hence cannot be inferred, that a true Believer may fall away, and perish. Neither is the assurance of salvation infringed by that Phil. 2. 12. Worke out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For as for our working out of our salvation, it hinders not but Hope maketh not ashamed. Rom. 5 5. And every one that hath this hope, purifieth himselfe, &c. 1 Ioh. 3. 3. that we may be assured of our salvation. We may be assured of that, which yet wee must use meanes to obtaine. Ezekiah was assured that fifteene yeares should be added unto his life, because God by his Prophet had told him so, Isai. 38. 5. Yet hee used meanes for his recovery, v. 21. and so no question but he did for the preservation of his life, by eating and drinking, and the like. Paul also was assured, that both hee, and all in the Ship with him should escape, because God by his Angell had revealed it unto him, Act. 27. 23, 24, 25. yet neverthelesse he saw it need­full Ut in timore Deo serviant, id est, non altū sapiant, sed ti­meant, quod significat, non superbiant, sed humiles sint. Aug. de corrept. et grat 6. 9. to use meanes, whereby they might escape, Acts 27. 31. And for those words, with feare and trembling, they doe not imply diffidence and doubting, but humility and lowlinesse of minde; feare and trembling being here the same as Romans 11. 20. viz. that which is opposit to pride and high-mindednesse. The A­postle 2 Cor. 7. 15. saith that the Corinthians received Titus with fear and trembling, that is, with all humility and reverence. So we must worke out our own salvation with fear and trembling, that is with reverence and with godly feare, as is expressed Heb. 12. 28. But this is no argument at all why wee may not be assured of our salvation; no more then it followes that there­fore the Corinthians could not be assured of Titus his love and good will towards them, and that be came unto them for their good, because they received him in that manner.

David Psal. 2. 11. bids serve the Lord with feare, and rejoyce with trembling. Therefore there may bee feare and trembling, and yet rejoycing too, and consequently assurance of Gods love and favour; for without assurance of it there can be no sound rejoycing in it. Joy (as Ramundus de Sa­bunde observes) doth arise from this, that Gaudium oritur ex hoc, quòd aliqua res scit se habere id quod habet, non ex hoc, quòd habet. Ramund. de Sa­bund. Theolog. natural. tit. 95. one knowes that he hath that which he hath, and not meerly from this that he hath it.

Now for the fathers here alleged by the Marquess, viz. Am. Ser. 5. in [Page 246] Psal. 118. Basil. in Constit. Monast. cap. 2. Hiero. li. 2. advers. Pelag. Chrys. hom. 87. in Ioh. Aug. in Psal. 40. Bern. Ser. 3. de Advent. & Ser. 1. de Sept. I answer, it's true, Ambrose saith, David desired that his reproach, which Volebat auferri opprobrium, quod suspicatus est, vel quia cogitaverat in corde, & non fecerat, & paeni­tentiâ licet abolitum, suspectus tamen erat ne fortè adbuc maneret ejus opprobrium, & ideò Deum pre­catur ut illud auferat, qui solus novit quod nescire potest etiam ipse qui fe­cit. Ambros. Ser. 5. in Ps. 118. (vel. 119) 39. he suspected, might be taken away, either be­cause he had thought in his heart, but had not done it; and though it were abolished by re­pentance, yet he was fearfull lest perhaps the reproch of it did yet remaine; and therefore he prayes God to take it away, who alone knows that which even he may be ignorant of that hath done it. But this doth not argue that a man cannot in Ambroses judgement be assured of his salvati­on; it onely shewes (contrary to what the Papists hold) that a man cannot be justified and saved by his owne inherent righte­ousnesse, because though he be otherwise never so righteous, yet still there is some sinne in him, which hee knoweth not of; ac­cording to that of the Apostle (which Ambrose there citeth) I know nothing by my selfe, yet am I not thereby justified, 1 Cor. 4. 4. The Apostle denieth that hee was justified by that righte­ousnesse that was in him, though hee had the testimony of a good conscience to rejoyce in, 2 Cor. 1. 12. yet was hee never­thelesse assured that hee was justified, and should be saved through faith in Christ Jesus, as hath been proved before from Rom. 8. 33. &c. and from other places. This was all that Subobscurè dictum vide­tur, sed expla­navit Aposto­lus quod hic videbatur ob­scurum, ubi ait, Nihil mi­hi conscius sum, sed non in hoc justifi­catus sum. Sciebat n. se esse hominem, & sibi cavebat ut poterat, ne post suscepta baptis­mi Sacramenta peccaret; ideoque delicti sibi conscius non erat: sed quia homo erat, pecca­torem se fatebatur, sciens unum esse Jesum lumen verum, qui peccatum non fecit, nec est inventus in ore ejus dolus, ipsum solum justificari, qui verè alienus esset à lapsu. Ambr. Ibid. Ambrose meant, as appeares by his words immediately going before those objected; The Apostle (hee saith) Explaines Da­vids meaning, saying, I know nothing by my selfe, yet am I not there­by justified. He knew that he was a man, and did take heed to him­selfe as he could, that he might not sin after his Baptisme; there­fore he knew nothing by himselfe; but because he was a man, he confessed himselfe a sinner, knowing that Iesus alone is the true light, who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth, that he [Page 247] alone is justified (i. e. perfectly just in himselfe) who was truly with­out all sin.

That which Basil (whose words I find in Bellarmine, though otherwise I have him not to peruse) saith, is directly to the same Bell de Iustif di. 3. cap. 7. purpose, and imports no more then that of Ambrose. We doe not understand (saith he) many things where­in we sin. Therefore the Apostle saith, I know Multa peccantes, plurima neque in­telligimus. Quapropter dicit Apost. Nihil mihi conscius sum, sed non in hoc justificatus sum, h. e. multa pecco, & non intelligo. Bas. de Constit. Monast. cap. 2. nothing by my selfe, yet am I not thereby justified, that is, I sin in many things, and am not aware of it. For Hierome, hee is too loosely cited both by the Marquesse, and before him by Bellarmine, there being eleven long Chapters in that booke which is mentioned, but in which of them he saith any thing against us, they doe not tell us. However the words objected are these. Sunt justi, ad quos pervenit quasi opus impiorum, & sunt impii, ad quos perverni quasi opus justorum. Hoc idcircò dicitur, quia certum judicium solius Dei est. Hier. adv. Pelag l. 2. c. 2. There are righteous men, to whom it happe­neth according to the work of the wicked: and there are wicked men, to whom it happeneth according to the worke of the righteous. This is said (viz. Eccles. 8. 14.) because certaine judgement belongs only unto God. These words by search I finde in Hierome; but it plainly appeares, that his scope onely is to prove against the Pelagians, that no man in this life is so righte­ous, as to be without sinne, which is not against us in this con­troversie, but for us in another, as hath beene shewed before. A little after those words Hierome saith thus, What mortall man is not taken with some Quis mortalium aliquo errore non capitur?—Vix salvatur (justus) in eo, quòd in quibusdam Dei indiget misericordiâ. Hieron. Ibid. errour? And that the righteous shall scarcely be saved (1 Pet. 4. 18.) because in some things (or rather indeed in all things) he stands in needs of Gods mercy. In the for­mer Nihil mihi conscius sum, &c. Qui hoc dicebat, nullius utique peccati si­bi conscius erat, sed quia legerat, De­licta quis intelligit? &c. idcircò tem­perabat sententiam, &c. Hieron. advers. Pelag. l. 2. c. 1. Chapter Hierome brings in that of S. Paul; I know nothing by my selfe, &c. and saith, that though the Apostle were not conscious to himselfe of sinne, yet hee did not justifie himselfe, because hee had read (Psal. 19. 13.) who can understand his [Page 248] his faults? Thus then his testimony makes indeed against the perfection of a mans own righteousnesse; but not against his assurance of salvation, which may well stand without the other. Chrysostome in the place cited, comments upon that Ioh. 21. 17. Peter was grieved, Proptereà contristatus sum, ne fortè me amare arbitratus, non amem: ut anteà cum me fortem & constantem putarem, postmodum imbecillis de­prehensus sum. Chrys. Hom. 87. in Joh. because he said unto him the third time, lovest thou me? and hee saith, that Peter feared lest now hee thought himselfe to love Christ, when hee did not; as before he was deceived in thinking himselfe stout and constant, when it proved otherwise.

But 1. Though Chrysostome so take the words of Peter, as if he might then be mistaken in that opinion which hee had of himselfe: yet it does not follow that therefore hee should hold that a man cannot be assured that hee hath saving grace in him.

2. Austine gives another, and a better reason, why Peter was grieved that Christ did aske him that question the third time, viz. because thereby Christ (as he thought) seemed not to believe him; not that hee Cum jam tertiò ille taedio afficeretur, quasi non sibi crediderit. Aug. in 1 Joh. Tract. 5. suspected his owne heart, but hee feared that Christ did suspect him, because he did aske him the same question thrice over.

Maldonate the Jesuite cites Theodorus He­racleotes, Magis probo quod scribit Theodorus Heracleotes, contristatum fuisse, quòd cum Christus eum tam sepè, & tam diligenter interrogaverat, indicare videretur se illum suspectum habere &c. proptereà respondisse, Domine tu nosti, &c. q. d. Tu, qui omnia nosti, ignorare non potes verum esse, quod dico: quid ergò, quasi mihi non credens, me tam saepè rogas? Maldon. in Joh. 21. 16, 17, 18. as also thus expounding it, and saying, that therefore Peter answered, Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love Thee; as if hee should have said, Thou that knowest all things, canst not but know that it is true that I say: and therefore why doest thou aske mee so often, as if thou didst not believe me? This Exposition Maldonate doth prefer before the other of Chrysostome, which he also mentioneth, and saith, that Quod subjungit, Domine tu scis, non solum moderationis causâ dictum pu­to, sed multo etiam magis, ut quod dix­erat, etiam, ipsus Christi testimonio confirmaret. Maldon. Ibid. Peter saying, Lord, thou knowest, did speak so, not so much out of modesty, as to con­firme that which hee had said, (viz. that he loved Christ) by Christs own testimony. [Page 249] Austine in Psal. 40. hath nothing (that I can see) to the purpose; I suppose it should Novi quia justitia Dei manet, ultrùm mea maneat nesclo. Terret enim me Apost. dicens, Qui se putat stare, vi­deat ne cadat. Aug. in Psal. 41. 8. be in Psalme 41. from whence Bellarmine doth produce this, I know that the righte­ousnesse of God doth remaine, whether my righteousnesse may remaine, I know not. For the Apostle doth make me to feare, saying, Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heede lest he fall. (1 Cor. 10. 12.) I acknowledge Ergo quia non est in me firmitas mi­hi, nec est mihi spes de me, ad me ipsum turbata est anima mea. Vis non conturbetur? Non remaneas in teipso, & dic, Ad te Domine levavi animam meam. Hoc planiùs audi, Noli sperare de te, sed de Deo tuo. Nam si speras de te, anima tua con­turbabitur ad te, quia nondum inve­nit unde sit secura de te. Ergo quoni­am ad me conturbata est anima mea, quid restat nisi humilitas, ut de se ipsâ anima non praesumat? Aug. Ibid. these words of Austine; but that which followes immediately, shewes the meaning of them. Therefore (saith hee) because I have no strength (or stability) in my selfe, neither have I hope of my selfe, my soule is troubled toward my selfe. Wouldest thou not have it troubled? Doe not abide in thy selfe, but, say, unto thee, O Lord, have I lift up my soule (Psal. 25. 1.) Heare this more plainly, Doe not hope of thy selfe, but of thy God. For if thou doest hope of thy selfe, thy soule will be troubled towards thee, because it hath not yet found whereby it may be secure of thee. There­fore because my soule is troubled towards me, what remaines but humility, that the soule doe not presume of it selfe? Thus it clear­ly appeares, that Austine spake not against assurance of salva­tion, but onely against selfe confidence, and presumption.

The last Father alledged is Bernard, who saith, This doth adde to the heape of care, and Accedit ad sollicitudinis cumulum, & pondus timoris, quòd cum & meam, & proximi conscientiam servare ne­cesse sit, neutra mihi satis est nota. Utraque abyssus est imperscrutabilis, utraque mihi nox est, &c. Bern. Ser. 3. de Advent. to the weight of feare, that when as it's ne­cessary to looke both to mine own, and my Neighbours conscience, neither of them is suf­ficiently knowne unto me. Both are an un­searchable depth, both are night unto me.

But Bernard onely meanes that it's very hard for a man to know his owne heart, because of the deceitfulnesse of it, not but that by the Spirit of God a man may know it so farre forth as to be assured of the truth of Grace in him; which hath beene proved before by Bernards testimony in diverse places. So elsewhere hee saith indeed, Who can say, I am of the Elect, [Page 250] I am of those that are predestinate unto life, Quis potest dicere, Ego de electis sum, ego de praedestinatis ad vitam, ego de numero filiorum? Quis haec, inquam, dicere potest? reclamante nimirum Scripturâ, Nescit homo si sit dignus amore, an odio. Certitu­dinem utique non habemus, sed spei fiducia consolatur nos, ne dubitationis anxietate penitus cruciemur. Bern. Ser. 1. in. Septuag. I am of the number of Gods children? who, I say, can say these things? the Scripture saying on the contrary, Man knowes not whether he be worthy of love, or hatred. Surely we have no certainty, but the confidence of hope doth comfort us, lest we should be tormented with the anxiety of doubting.

But 1. Bernard here builds upon a false ground, viz. that the Scripture saith, No man knowes whether he be worthy of love or hatred, i. e. whether hee be in such an estate, as to be loved of God, or hated of him: whereas Salomon Eccles. 9. 1. (which place he meaneth) onely saith, No man knoweth love or hatred by all that is before them; that is, by outward things which befall men, as pros­perity and adversity, they cannot conclude either that God doth love, or that hee doth hate them: because (as it followes im­mediately) All things come alike to all, i. e. all outward things; prosperity happens to the wicked, and adversity to the god­ly; and therefore there is no judging of Gods love, or hatred by these things: yet it followes not but that by other markes and trials a man may know whether God love him or no; and so much Bernard himselfe hath confessed, as I have shewed.

2. Neither doth Bernard here absolutely deny that any can know himselfe to of the number of those that shall be saved, onely he denies such a knowledge, so sure and certaine, as to exclude all care of obtaining salvation. For so hee addes immediately, Therefore there are given certaine signes, and ma­nifest tokens of salvation, that it may be without doubt that he is of Propter hoc data sunt sig­na quaedam & indicia manifesta sa­lutis, ut in­dubitabile sit eum esse de numero electo­tum, in quo ea signa permanserint. Propter hoc, inquam, quoa praescivit Deus, & prae­destinavit conformes fieri imagini filii sui, ut quibus certitudinem negat causâ sollicitudinis, vel fiduciam praestet gratiâ consolationis, Bern. Ibid. the number of the Elect, in whom those signes shall remaine. There­fore, I say, whom God foreknew, them also he predestinated to be be conformed to the image of his Son, that to whom he denies cer­tainty, that they may be carefull, he yet affords confidence, that they may have comfort. I grant, that Bernard presently after seemes [Page 251] to be very peremptory against a mans being Quales sumus, nosse possumus, vel ex parte; quales autem futuri sumus, id nosse penitus nobis impossibile est. Bern. Ibid. assured of his perseverance, saying, What we are we may know, at lest in part: what we shall be, that is altogether impossible for us to know. But it hath beene proved before both by Scriptures and Fathers, that true justifying faith once had cannot bee wholy lost. And even Bernard himselfe (as before is shewed) doth hold that a man may know assured­ly that he is justified, and that therefore hee shall be glorified, because the Apostle saith that whom God hath justified, them also he hath glorified, that is, will certainly glorifie, Rom. 8. 30.

And therefore here hee must be understood as intending only to prevent security, and a casting off all care for the future. For so immediately hee goes on, There­fore let him that standeth take heed lest he fall: Itaque qui stat, videat ne cadat, & in formâ, quae salutis indicium est, & argumentum praedestinationis, per­severet atque proficiat. Bern. Ibid. and let him continue and goe on in that, which is both a token of salvation, and an argument of Predestination. Thus then notwithstand­ing any thing contained either in the Scriptures, or the Fathers, which are alledged, the Doctrine of Protestants concerning assurance of salvation doth remaine firme and sure, viz. that a man may have this assurance. And if so, then surely (which is the other position) all ought to labour for this assurance, it being to be had, and well worth the labouring for that it may be had; the Scripture also requiring us to give diligence to make our calling, and our election sure, 2 Pet. 1. 10.

To proceede, We say (saith the Marquesse) that every man Page 67. hath an Angel guardian; you say he hath not. We have Scripture for it, viz. Mat. 18. 10. Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, that in Heaven there Angels do alwayes be­hold the face of my Father. Acts 12. 13. S. Peter knocking at the door, they say, It is his Angel. They believed this in the Apostles time. The Fathers believes it, &c.

Answ. For every ones having a peculiar Angel to guard him, I know not any great controversie that there is betwixt Pro­testants and them of the Church of Rome about it. Bellarmine in all his three great volumes of controversies hath none of this that I doe finde. Whether severall Believers have severall [Page 252] Angels for their guardians Calvin neither affirmes, nor denies, Instit. lib. 1. cap. 14. Sect. 7. The Rhemists on Mat. 18. 10. say that he will needs doubt of it, but that he dares not deny it. The Scripture is cleare for this, that the Angels are appointed to guard the Elect; They are all ministering spirits, sent forth to Minister for those that shall be heires of salvation, Heb. 1. 14. The like is to be seene in other places, as Psal. 34. 7. and 91. 11. But that every one hath his peculiar Angell, this is not so cleare but that we may well doubt of it. Yea, if it be so understood, that each believer hath onely one Angell guarding him, it will not agree with that Psal. 91. 11. He hath given his Angels charge over thee, to keep thee, &c. Nor with that Gen. 32. 1, 2. Where it is said that as Iacob was returning out of Mesopotamia into Canaan, the Angells of God met him; and therefore hee called the name of the place Mahanaim, that is, two Campes, or two Hosts, viz. that of his owne, and the other of the Angels. In this therefore Calvin might well be confi­dent, as hee was, that every one of us hath Hoc quidem pro certo habendum, non tantum uni Angelo unumquemque nostrum esse curae, sed omnes uno con­sensu vigilare pro salute nostrâ. Calv. Instit. lib. 1. cap. 4. Sect. 7. Similia habet ad Mat. 18. 10. not only one Angell to care for us, but that they all with one consent to watch for our safety. This, hee saith, is to be held for certaine. Neither durst the Rhemists, or any others (that I know) quarrell with him about it. For those two places, which the Marquesse alledgeth, they are neither of them sufficient to prove that every believer hath his peculiar Angell. That Mat. 18. 10. where our Saviour speaking of believers, calles the Angells their Angels, doth evince no more then this, that believers have the Angels to attend upon them. For there is no necessity to understand it so that each particular Believer hath his particular Angell; no more then because it's said, obey your guides ( [...]) or governours, Heb. 13. 17. therefore each one hath his peculiar guide or governour: or because its said Isai. 3. 4. I will give children to be there Princes, therefore each severall person had his severall Prince, or Magistrate. The other place, viz. Acts 12. 15. it is his Angell, viz. Peters, is more obscure, neither (I confesse) doe I well know how to understand it. Some by Angell there understand not a caelestiall spirit, but a messenger, [Page 253] as the Geeke word [...], whence the Latine Angelus, and Camer. Myroth. ad Act. 12. 15. the English Angell is derived, doth primarily import. And they conceive this to be the meaning, that the Damosell did not tell those within, that she heard Peters voyce, but onely said, that Peter was at the doore, and she constantly affirming this, they supposed that Peter had sent some messenger, and that the Damosell mistaking what he said, imagined that Peter himselfe was there. But it is not probable but that the Damosell would signifie that it was Peters voyce, which she heard, the Scripture expressely saying, v. 14. that she knew Peters voyce. On the other­side, if a Heavenly Angell be there meant, it seemes to imply, that they supposed the Angell that garded Peter, and therefore is called his Angel, to represent the person of Peter, and to assume his voyce; which conceit seemes very uncouth. However, if such an Angell be there meant, yet onely this can be inferred from thence, that Peter had his Angell to guard him; but it fol­lowes not, that therefore he had an Angell proper and peculiar to himselfe, and that only one certaine Angell was appointed his guardian.

Neither doe the Fathers, that are cited, (so far as I can see) speake home to the point in question. Gre­gory Quis enim fidelium habere dubium possit, in ipsâ immolationis horâ, ad sacerdotis vocem caelos aperiri, in illo Jesu Christi mysterio Angelorum choros adesse, &c. Greg. dial. lib. 4. cap. 58. of whom mention is first made, is here so impertinently alledged, that I suppose there was some oversight in it. For hee speakes nothing at all of the Angels guard­ing men, but onely of their being present at the celebration of the Eucharist; which is nothing to our pre­sent purpose.

Athanasius, who is mentioned next, saith onely that there Athanas. de com­muni essentiâ, sub finem. are some supercaelestiall powers, qui apud homines permanent, that doe abide with men, and are hominum paedagogi, mens in­structors or governours: but of particular Angels belonging to particular men hee speakes nothing. Chrysostome in one place, Chrysost de Sacerd. lib. 6. which the Marquesse quoteth, speakes of the Angels being present, when the Eucharist is celebrated, and of their conveying to Heaven the soules of such, as immediately before their death with a pure conscience received that Sacrament; which hee saith one told him, that saw it; but to the question now agitat­ed, [Page 254] I finde not that hee saith any thing in that place. Indeed Hom. 3. (not as it is misquoted, Hom. 2.) in Coloss. hee citeth, Mat. 18. 10. and saith, Every Believer hath an Angell: but this doth not necessarily im­port, Unusquisque n. sidel is habet angelum. Chrys. hom. 3. in Coloss. Similiter, ad Mat. 18. 10. His innuit verbis nostrum unum quemlibet angelum habere. that each Believer hath his peculiar Angell. What Gregorious Turonensis saith, (whose testimony is the next) wanting his works, I cannot yet examine. The next after him is Austine, but he is mis-alledged, viz. Epist. ad Probam cap. 19. Whereas there are but 16. Chapters in that Epistle, which is wholly about prayer, and hath nothing (that I finde) about Angels. The last witnesse is Hierome, who saith indeed, Great is the dignity of soules, that every one from his birth Magna dignitas animarum, ut una­quaeque habeat ab ortu nativitatis in custodiam sui Angelum delegatum. Hieron. in Mat. 18. 10. Unde legimus in Apocalypsi Joannis, Angelo Ephesi, Thyatirae, et Angelo Philadelphiae, & angelis quatuor re­liquarum Ecclesiarum scribe haec, Hieron. Ibid. hath an Angell appointed to keepe him. But it doth not appeare, that he thought every one to have his peculiar Angell. The con­trary rather appeares by that which hee addes immediatly after, viz. that hereupon Iohn Revel. 2. & 3. was bidden to write to the Angell of Ephesus, Thyatira, Philadel­phia, and the other foure Cburches there mentioned. Though Hierome doe mis-interpret the Angels there spoken of in the Re­velation, and therefore both hee, and some others of the an­cients are in this rejected by Ribera, yet thereby we may per­ceive, Riber. in Apoc. 1. ult. that he did not hold every one to have a peculiar Angell, but one Angell to be for a whole Church. If it be said, that there by Angell he meant Angells, the singular number being put for the plurall, the same may be said concerning the other words which are objected. But enough of this point; there is more con­troversie about those that follow.

We say (saith the Marquesse) the Angells pray for us, know­ing Page 67. our thoughts, and deeds: you deny it. We have Scipture for it, Zach. 1. 9, 10, 11, 12. Then the Angell of the Lord answered, and said, O Lord of hostes, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Ierusa­lem, and on the Cities of Iudah, against whom thou hast had indig­nation these threescore and ten yeares? Apoc. 8. 4. And the smoak of the incense of the prayers of the Saints ascended from the hand of the Angell before the Lord. This place was so understood by [Page 255] Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 34. and S. Hilary in Psal. 129. tells us, This in­tercession of Angels Gods Nature needeth not, but our infirmities doe. So S. Ambrose lib. de viduis, Victor Utic. lib. 3. de persecut. Vandal.

Answ. Had the Marquesse onely said, that the Angels know our deedes, and pray for us, there had beene little cause to oppose: but whereas hee saith that they know our thoughts, that may not bee granted, the Scripture making this Gods Prerogative. For thou, even thou onely knowest the hearts of all the children of men. 1 Kings 8. 39. [...]. Theophyl. in Luc. 5. Theophylact therefore upon Luke 5. 22. saith that CHRIST proved himselfe to be God by this, that (as it is there said) hee knew mens thoughts. And the same also is observed by Ostendit sibi competere, quod etiam Scripturae Deo proprium esse passim docent, dum declarat se cordium esse inspectorem, &c. Jansen. Concord. cap. 32. Ian­senius in his Comment upon the place. For that in Zach. 1. 12. some by the Angell there spoken of understand Christ, the Vulg. Angelus testamenti. Angel (or Messenger) of the Covenant, as he is called Mal. 3. 1. But others understand a created Angell, viz. the Angell that talked with the Prophet Zachary, and thence observe that the Angels pray for the Church. This seemes more probable by the words immediately following, And the Lord answered the Angell that talked with me, v. 13. In the other place, viz. Revel. Hunc multi Christum esse existimant. Rib. ad Apoc. 8. 3. The same also is confessed by the Rhemists upon the place. 8. 4. Ribera telleth us, that many thinke the Angell there men­tioned to be Christ. And though he dislike that Exposition, yet it is more then probable by that which is said v. 3. There was given him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all Saints, &c. For what can we well understand by that incense, but Christs Merit and Meditation, whereby the prayers of the Saints are acceptable and well pleasing unto God?

For the Fathers alledged, Est ergo al­tare in caelis. Illuc enim preces nostrae diriguntur, & ad templum, quemadmodum Joan. in Apocal. ait, Et apertum est templum Dei, & tabernaculum. Ecce enim, inquit, tabernaculum Dei, in quo habitabit hominibus. Iren. lib. 4. cap. 34. Irenaeus speaketh not either of this Angell spoken of Revel. 8. 4. or at all of Angells praying [Page 256] for us. All that he saith is, that there is an altar in Heaven, to which our prayers must be directed: and then hee cites Iohn say­ing in the Revelation, that the Temple and Tabernacle of God was opened: but this is nothing to the point in hand.

Hilary is truly cited, speaking of the in­tercession of Angels, he saith, that not Gods Intercessione itaque horum non na­tura Dei eget, sed infirmitas nostra. Hilar. in Psal. 129. Nature, but our infirmity doth stand in need of it.

But (as I said before) I see not why wee should deny, that Whether those blessed spirits pray for us, is not here the que­stion, but whether we are to pray unto them. B. Vsher. Answ. p. 421. He speaks of the Saints, but it may hold of the Angels. Hieron. praefat. in Proverb. the Angels pray for us; for it doth not therefore sollow, that wee may pray to them; which is the next point to be conside­red. Yet I should have liked it better, if Hilary had grounded himselfe upon that place of Zachary, which the Marquesse pro­duced, then that hee should build upon the Booke of Tobit (as also doth Ambrose Ser. 92. for I finde nothing this way in the place, which the Marquesse quoteth) that Booke (as Hie­rome long agoe hath censured it) being Apocryphall, and of no authority for the determining of matters of this nature. What the last Author saith, viz. Victor Vticensis, being not fur­nished with his Booke, I cannot tell; neither is there neede to inquire after him, hee being alledged for no more then Hilarie, and hee asserting no more then (I thinke) may be granted.

But from the angels praying for us the Marquess passeth to our Page 68. praying to the angells. We hold it lawfull (saith hee) to pray un­to them: you not. We have Scripture for it, Gen. 48. 16. The Angell which redeemed me from all evill, blesse these Lads, &c. Hos. 12. 4. He had power over the Angell, and prevailed: he wept and made supplications unto them. S. Austine expounding these words of Job 19. 21. Have pitty upon me, O yee my friends, for the hand of the Lord is upon me, saith, that holy Job addressed himself to the Angels. Prayer is a wor­ship, a Religious worship as our adversaries grāt. Now worshipping of Angels is condemned, Col. 2. 18. & Revel. 19. 10. &. 22. 9.

Answ. That it is lawfull to pray unto angels, Protestants de­ny, and that justly, there being no ground, nor warrant for it in the Scripture, but much against it. For the Scripture every where teacheth and requireth us to pray unto God, and to none other. Call upon me in the day of trouble. Psal. 50. 15. After this manner therefore pray yee, Our Father, &c. Mat. 6. 9. When [Page 257] yee pray say our Father, &c. Luke 11. 2. In the day of my trouble I will call upon thee. Psal. 85. 7. As for me I will call upon God. Psal. 55. 16. For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee. Psal. 32. 6. How shall they call upon him, in whom they have not believed? Rom. 10. 14. Now wee both professe in the Creed, and so are taught in the Scripture, to believe onely in God. That your faith and hope might be in God. 1 Pet. 1. 21. Ye believe in God, believe also in me. Joh. 14. 1. viz. because Christ, who there speakes, is God. Prayer must proceede from the heart, and not from the lips onely. Give eare unto my prayer, that goeth not out of fained lips. Psal. 17. 1. Vnto thee O Lord doe I lift up my soule. Psal. 25. 1. Poure forth your hearts unto him. Psal. 62. 8. Hannah spake in her heart, &c. 1 Sam. 1. 13. Now God only knoweth the heart, as was shewed before.

The Fathers were of this minde. Nam & Deum oramus, &c. Tertull. de orat. cap. 2. Tertullian writing of prayer, and expounding the Lords Prayer, upon the first words of it saith, We pray unto God. And afterwards in the same book, Commen­damus Deo preces nostr as. Ibid cap. 13. We commend our prayers unto God: neither does hee speake of praying unto any other. And elsewhere, Nos pro sa­lute impera­torum, Deum invocamus aeternum, &c. Tertull. Apolog. cap. 30. We call upon the Eter­nall God (saith he) for the safety of the Emperours. Haec ab alio orare non possum, quàm à que me scio consecuturum, quoniam & ipse est, qui solus praestat, &c. Tertull. Ibid. And againe more fully to the purpose, These things I cannot pray for from any other, but from him, from whom I know I shall obtaine; because he it is, who alone doth give them.

So Cyprian also writing of the Lords Prayer, all along sup­poseth, and taketh it for granted, that it is God to whom wee must pray. Hee saith that to pray otherwise then Christ hath taught us, is not only igno­rance, Ut aliter orare quàm docuit, non ignorantia sola sit, sed & culpa. Cypr. de orat. Dom. but a sin also. Now Christ hath taught us to pray unto God onely.

And Cyprian saith, that Wee must pray with the heart rather then with the voyce, Quia Deus non vocis, sed cordis au­ditor est. Nec admonendus est clamo­ribus, qui cogitationes hominum videt. Cypr. Ibid. because God heares not so much the voyce as the heart. Hee saith that before prayer (viz. in the Congregation) the people were required [Page 258] to lift up their hearts; and they used to Ideo & sacerdos ante orationem prae­fatione praemissà, parat fratrum men­tes dicendo Sursum corda; ut dum respondet plebs, Habemus ad Domi­num, admoneatur nihil aliud se, quàm Dominum cogitare debere. Cypr. Ibid. Quomodo te audiri à Deo postulas, cum te ipse non audias? Ibid. answer, wee lift them up unto the Lord; whereby they were admonished to thinke of nothing but the Lord when they prayed. And taxing those that pray negligently, How doest thou request that God should heare thee, when as thou doest not hear thy self?

And some of the ancients have proved Christ to be God by this very argument that hee is called upon, and prayed unto. If Christ be onely man (saith Si homo tan­tūmodò Chri­stus, cur homo in orationibus mediator in­vocatur, cum invocatio ho­minis ad prae­standam salutem inefficax judicetur? Novat. de Trinit. cap. 14. Novatian) Why is man called up­on in prayers as Mediatour, seeing that the invocation of a man is judged ineffectuall to afford salvation? Though Novatian in some things proved an Heretike, yet was hee not an Heretike in this: yea De Trinitate disputa­turus Novatianus Presbyter Romanus sub S. Fabiano Papa, quantum apparet, adhuc Catholicus, &c. Pamel. in argum. lib. de Triuit. Pamelius a Romanist tells us, that he wrote this whiles, for any thing that appeares, he was a Catholik.

Thus also that great hammer of the Arians, Athanasius, proved Christ to be consubstantiall to the Fathet, by that of the A­postle, 1 Thess. 3. 11. Now God himselfe, and our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ direct our way unto you.

For (saith hee) none would pray to re­ceive from God and from the Angels, or Neque enim quispiam precaretur accipere à Deo, & ab Angelis, aut ab ullis rebus creatis. Neque quisquam hanc verborum formam concepit, Det tibi Deus, & Angelus; sed contra ä Patre, & Filio propter unita­tem uniformemque rationem dandi. Athanas. orat 4. contra Arianos. from any of the creatures. Neither would any speake in this manner, God and an An­gell give unto thee. But the Apostle askes of the Father and of the Son, because of the unity of their nature, and the uniforme manner of their giving.

And immediately after hee answers that place which the Marquesse alledgeth, viz. Non aliquem Angelorum cratorum, & qui naturâ Angeli erant in unum copulavit cum Creatore Deo, neque omisso nutritio suo Deo, ab Angelo benedictionem suis nepotibus postu­lavit: sed quia disertè locutus est de Angelo, qui illum ab omnibus malis liberaverat, satis prae se tulit non ex creatis Angelis aliquem, sed Filium fuisse Patris, quem Patri in suis pre­cibus consociavit, per quem Deus liberat quos vult. Hunc enim magni consilii Patris Angelum noverat, nec alium nisi illum ipsum, qui benedicit, & liberat ex malis, suis verbis expressit. Athanas. Ibid, Gen. 48. 16. The Angel that reedemed me from all evill, blesse the Lads, saying, Jacob did not couple any of the created and naturall Angels with God the Creatour; neither did he omit God that nourished him, and desire [Page 259] a blessing for his nephewes from an Angell. But in that he spake expressely of the Angell that redeemed him from all evill, he shewed sufficiently, that it was none of the created Angells, but the Son of the Father, whom he in his prayers joyned with the Father, by whom God doth redeem whom he pleaseth. For he knew him to be the So Christ is stiled Isai. 9. 6. accord­ing to the Greeke Translation. Angell of the Fathers great Counsell, neither did he in his words ex­presse any other but him that doth blesse, and redeeme from evill.

Austine also in his booke of true Religion, doth frequently assert that religious wor­ship Quarta de Invocatione, quae est eximium genus adorationis. Bellar­ord. disput. de Eccles. Triumph. belongs not unto Angells, but to God onely; and consequently that Angels are not to be prayed unto, Prayer and Invocation being (as Bellar­mine confesseth) a singular kinde of adoration. That (saith Quod colit summus An­gelus, id co­lendum etiam ab homine ultimo.—Hoc etiam ipsos optimos Angelos, & excellentissima Dei Ministeria velle creda­mus, ut unum cum ipsis co­lamus Deum, cujus contemplatione beati sunt.—Quarè honoramus eos charitate, non servitute.—Rectè itaque scribitur hominem ab Angelo prohibitum, ne se adoraret, sed unum Deum, sub quo ei esset & ille conservus.—Ecce unum Deum colo, &c. Quis­quis Angelorum diligit hunc Deum, certus sum quòd etiam me diligit.—Religet ergò nos Religio uni omnipotenti Deo. Aug. de ver â relig. cap. ult. Austine) which the highest Angell doth worship, is also to be wor­shipped by the lowest man.—Let us believe that the best Angels and the most excellent Ministers of God desire this, that we together with themselves may worship only God, by whose contemplation they are blessed.—Therefore we honour them with love, not with ser­vice.—Rightly therefore is it written, that a man was forbidden by an Angell to worship him, and was required only to worship God, under whom the Angell was mans fellow-servant.—Behold I worship only God, &c. Which of the Angells soever doth love this God, I am sure doth also love me.—Therefore let Religion binde us on­ly to the Almighty God.

Now for the two places of Scripture, which the Marquesse objecteth, one of them is already answered from Athanasius. And the same answer also belongs to the other place, viz. Hos. 12. 4. the Angell there spoken of is not a created Angell, [Page 260] but God himselfe, as appeares by the words immediately going before v. 3. He had power with God; then followes v. 4. yea he had power over the Angell, and prevailed; he wept also, and made supplications unto him. This shewes that God and the Angell there mentioned are one and the same. This which the Prophet speaketh of Iacobs making supplications to the Angell, hath re­ference to that Gen. 32. 26. I will not let thee go except thou blesse me, as Hierome upon the place observeth. Now if Iacob would not desire a blessing for his Nephewes from a created Angell (and wee have seene that in the judgement of Athanasius hee would not) then surely neither was it such an Angell of whom he himselfe did seeke to be blessed. And Hierome upon the words of Hosea saith Roboratus benedictionibus Angeli, qui ipse est Deus. Hicron. in Hos. 12. plainly that this angell is God. None of the Fathers are here alledged against us, but onely Austine, whom I have shewed to testifie abundantly for us. That which hee Angelos videtur postulare, ut pro eo deprecentur, aut certè sanctos, ut pro paenitente orent. Aug. in Job. 19. 21. saith in the place quoted, is that Iob seem­eth to desire the angels to intreat for him, or else some of the Saints. But Pineda a Jesuite doth not like this Exposition, but calles it allegoricall, and expoundes it (as it Quod Augustinus exponit hîc An­gelos, aut sanctos invocari, allegori­cum est. Pined in Job 19. 21. ought to be expounded) of those friends of Iob that disputed with him. If our ad­versaries shall reply, that though Austine Amicos nominat, quibuscum disputat. Pined. Ibid. did not rightly expound the words of Iob, yet however hee shewed it to be his opinion, that the angells might be prayed unto. I answer, first Austine here maketh as well against them, as against us. For he speakes as much of Iobs praying unto Saints, as unto angells: now our adversaries hold (as I shall shew more hereafter) that in those times before Christs comming the Saints were not to be prayed unto. Again, Austine doth not say, that Iob did pray either to Saints or angels, but that hee desired, yea onely that hee seemeth to have desired, that they might pray for him. Thirdly for one place, wherein Austine speaketh obscurely and doubtfully for praying to angels, wee have many plaine and evident testimonies of his against it, as before I have shewed.

[Page 261] Lastly, Austine himselfe hath taught us to believe neither him, Neque enim quorumlibet disputationes, quam vis Ca­tholicorum & laudatorum hominum, ve­lut Scripturas Canonicas habere debemus, ut nobis non liceat salvâ honorificentiâ, quae illis debetur hominibus, aliquid in eorum scriptis improbare, atque respuere, si fortè invenerimus quòd aliter senserint quam veritas habet, divino adjutorio vel ab aliis intellecta, vel à nobis. Talis ego sum in scriptis aliorum; tales volo esse intellectores meorum. Aug. Epist. 111. nor any other further then they accord with the Scriptures, but that we may, saving the reverence that is due unto them, dissent from them, when as they dissent from the truth. Thus he saith, he did in respect of the writings of others, and so he would have others to doe in respect of his writings.

From the Angels the Marquess passeth to the Saints deceas­ed, Page 68. saying, We hold that the Saints deceased know what passeth here on Earth; you say they know not: we have Scripture for it. Luke 16. 29. where Abraham knew that there were Moses and the Prophets bookes here on Earth, which he himselfe had never seene when he was alive. The Fathers say as much, Euseb. Ser. de Ann. S. Hiero. in Epit. Paulae, S. Max. Ser. de Agnete.

Answ. That the Saints deceased doe not know the particu­lar affaires of men here on Earth, the Scripture doth teach us, Iob. 14. 21. His sonnes come to honour, and he knoweth it not, and they are brought low, but he perceiveth it not of them. There Iob speakes indefinitely of a man departed out of this life (whether he be Saint, or no Saint) and sheweth, that he doth not so much as understand the estate of such as had most neare relation unto him: and how then shall we perswade our selves, that hee doth understand the estate of others? And from those words Isai. 63. 16. Abraham is ignorant of us, and Israel knoweth us not, Austine doth inferre that the Dead are not acquainted with the affaires of the Living. Si parentes non intersunt, qui sunt alii mortuorum, qui noverunt quid agamus, quidve patiamur? Si tanti Patriarchae quid erga populum ex ipsis procreatum ageretur, ignorave­runt, quomodo mortui vivorum re­b [...]s, atque actibus cognoscendis ad­juvandisque miscentur? Aug. de cur ā pro mortuis. cap. 13. If not our parents, (saith hee) what other dead persons know what we doe, or suffer? If so great Patriarkes (Abraham and Jacob) knew not how it fared with those that did de­scend from them, how doe the dead intermeddle in knowing and helping the affaires of those that are alive? For my part, I thinke that place of Esay not so pertinent to the pur­pose, [Page 262] but that the meaning of it is, that the people of Israel were so degenerate, that Abraham and Israel (if they knew what manner of persons they were) would not own them, not ac­knowledge them for their posterity: yet however, Austine shew­eth what his Opinion was concerning those that are deceased, viz. that they are ignorant of the things that are done here; which is evident enough by those words of Iob before cited.

Bellarmine sayes that Gregory upon the place doth answer, that Bell. de Sanct. beat. lib 1. c. 20. naturally the dead know not how it fares with the liking; but that yet the Saints, being glorified, doe see in God all things, quae nimirum ad ipsos pertinent, viz. which doe belong unto them. But Gregory upon those words of Iob saith thus, As they that are alive, know not where Sicut enim hi, qui adhuc viventes sunt, mortuorú animae quo loco habe­antur, ignorant: ita mortui vitam in carne viventium post eos qualiter disponatur, nesciunt. Greg. Moral. lib. 12. cap. 14. Quod tamen de animabus sanctis sen­tiendum non est: quia quae omnipo­tentis Dei claritatem vident, nullo modo credendum est, quia foris sit aliquid, quod ignorent. Greg. Ibid. the soules of the dead are; so they that are dead, know not how they live that are after them. Indeed hee addes presently after, This yet is not to be thought of the holy soules, because they that see the brightnesse of Almighty God, are by no meanes to be thought ignorant of any thing besides. Therefore he understands Iob as speaking onely of such dead persons, as are unholy, whereas indeed Iobs words are indefinite, and indifferently to be understood of all that are dead, except by speciall Revelation any thing done here below be made known unto them. Thou destroyest the hope of man, v. 19. viz. his hope of continuing here in this life. Thou changest his countenance, and sendest him away, v. 20. This holdes in respect of all: and then followes, His sonnes come to honour, and hee knoweth it not, &c. v. 21. So that the coherence of the words shews, that they are meant generally of all that are deceased. And that which Gregory saith of the Saints, that seeing God, in him they see all things, Bellarmine himselfe (it seemes) did thinke too lavish, and therefore he limits it to all things which concerne them, or belong unto them. Which limitation doth indeed mar his market; for how doth it appeare, that it belongs unto the Saints departed to understand particular occurrences here be­low, and namely all the prayers that any shall make unto them? which is the scope, that they of the Church of Rome aime at, [Page 263] when they speake of the Saints knowing things here on Earth: but of that more (God willing) hereafter. But for the Saints knowing our affaires, it was (it seemes) in the time of Lom­bard (above 1100 years after Christ) a point not much believed; For Lombard moving the question, saith onely this, It is not incredible that the soules Non est incredibile animas sanctorum quae in abscondito faciei dei veri lu­minis illustratione laetantur, in ipsius contemplatione ea, quae foris aguntur, intelligere, quantum vel illis ad gaudi­um, vel nobis ad auxilium pertinet. Lomb. sent. lib. 4. dist. 45. lit. f. of the Saints enjoying the vision of God, doe understand humane and earthly affaires, so far as concernes their joy, and our helpe. Hee doth not say, that this is certaine, but onely that it is not incredible. And Bellarmine himselfe relating foure severall De modo aurem quo cognoscunt, quatuor sunt Doctorum sententiae, &c. Bell de Sanct. beat. lib. 1. cap. 20. opinions about the manner how the Saints know things here upon Earth, of two of them, viz. that they know them by the relation of Angels, or by being after a sort Sed neutra est sufficiens, &c. Bellarmin. Ibid. every where present, hee saith plainly, that neither of them doth satisfie, and gives convincing Reasons for it.

And for the other two opinions, viz. that the Saints from the beginning of their blessednesse doe in God see all things that any way appertaine unto them: Or that God doth then reveale things unto the Saints, when any at any time doe pray unto them; hee likes not the latter of these, because (hee saith) If the Saints did neede a new revelation upon every occasion, the Church would not so bold­ly Si indiger ent Sancti novâ revelatione, Ecclesia non diceret ita au dacter om­nibus Sanctis, Orate pro nobis, sed peteret aliquando à Deo, ut eis reve­laret preces nostras. Bellar. Ibid. say unto all the Saints, pray for us, but would sometimes desire of God to reveale our prayers unto them: And for the other O­pinion, which remaines, hee sayes no more but onely that it is probable. So that wee see Estque probabilis haec sententia. Bel. Ibid. by our adversaries owne confession, they have no certainty of this, that the Saints in Heaven are parti­cularly acquainted with things here on Earth. Some may say, that they are certaine that it is so, though they be uncertain how it comes to be so. I answer, indeed if the Scripture did affirme that so it is, then wee might and ought to be assured of it, though wee could not see why it is so. But the Scripture is [Page 264] so farre from affirming it, that it denies it, as I have shewed; and therefore they that maintaine it, must both answer the Scrip­ture where it is denied, and also by Scripture prove the con­trary assertion, which they neither doe, nor can doe. That place cited by the Marquesse, viz. Luke 16. 29. is not of force to prove it. For 1. Some Romish Expositors, and namely Iansenius doth confesse that it is doubtfull whether that which is spoken of the rich Dubium est, an hoc exemplum sit tantum parabola, &c. Jansen. Concord. cap. 97. man and Lazarus, and so of Abraham, be any more then a Parable: and if it be a History, and a Narration of a thing done, Si Historiam quis esse dixerit, & rei gestae narrationem; necesse est camen fateatur, non omnia sic contigisse ut narrantur. Certum est enim divitem in inferno non locutum esse linguâ, nec oculis corporalibus vidisse Abraham, &c. Jan. Ibid. yet this (hee saith) must needs be confes­sed, that all things did not happen so as they are related. For that it is certaine that the rich man being in Hell, did not speake with a Tongue, nor with bodily Eyes did see Abraham, and Lazarus in his bosome, nor did complaine of the scorching of his Tongue, nor did desire water to cole it. Therefore (hee saith) Christ did accommo­date himselfe to our capacity, and declare the things of the life to come after the manner of the things of this life, so that those Ita ut corpora­lia, quae post hanc vitam commemoran­tur, sint alle­goricè & spiri­tualiter accipi­enda, sive sit nuda parabola, sive vera Hi­storia. Jansen. Ibid things are to be understood allegorically and spiritually, whether it be a bare Parable, or a true History. And for the words ob­jected, he sheweth that they are more easie to be understood, if this part of Scripture be taken not for a History, but onely for a Parable. For then it may be said, that Christ did feigne these things, which were not done indeed, onely to instruct and ad­monish those that are alive, that they should not think to excuse their impenitency by this, that they were never informed of the estate of the life to come by any that did returne from it. That men might not thinke thus, he saith, that Christ did bring in the Si autem ex­emplum hoc non Historia esse dicatur, sed parabola tantùm, facilior erit quaestionis explicatio. Dici enim poterit haec sic à Domino conficta esse, cum sic gesta non essent, tantùm ad erudiendum & monendum vivos, ne suae impenitentiae praetexant, quòd de statu futurae vitae nihil unquam didicerint ex his, qui è futurâ vitâ redierunt.—Ideò quò hanc cogitationem Dominus castigaret, pro­posuit hunc divitem orasse, ut Abraham ad fratres suos Lazarum mitteret, & vulgarem hanc hominum cogitationem exposuisse, ut sic Abrahae cujus magna erat apud Judeos authoritas, responsum subiiceret quo talis cogitatio reprehenditur & confutatur.—Hic jam ergò Abraham hanc vulgi opinionem consutans respondit, Si Mosen & Prophetas non audiunt, &c. Ian. Ibid. [Page 265] rich man, desiring Abraham to send Lazarus to his Brethren, that so he might also bring in the answer of Abraham, who was of great authority among the Jewes, by which answer that con­ceit is reproved, and confuted. For Abraham confuting that opinion of the common sort of people answered, If they heare not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they believe, although one should arise from the dead. Thus then that place doth not evince, that Abraham knew that the Jewes had the writings of Moses, and of the Prophets. 2. Suppose that part of Scripture to be a History, and that Abraham did indeed know that the writings of Moses and the Prophets were upon the Earth, yet it doth not therefore follow that hee knew all the severall things done amongst men. What God would please to reveale, hee might know, but how much that is, who can tell? yea the Romanists themselves do hold that neither Abraham, nor any other, during the time of the old Responderi potest, Abrahamum, Israe­lem, & alios Patres veteris Testamen­ti non cognovisse posteros suos vi­ventes, quia nondum beati erant, &c. Bellarm, de Sanct. beatit. lib. 1. cap. 20. Testament, did understand the estate of men here alive. Although the ground of this opinion of theirs be not good, viz. be­cause as then they did not enjoy the blessed­nesse of the life to come, yet however this is sufficient to extort from them this place of Luke, and to shew that they by their own principles can draw no argument from it for their Purpose. For the Fathers which the Marquesse alledgeth, I can onely looke into Hierome, as being destitute of both the other; But I have here, and continually almost cause to complaine of the Mar­quesses quotations, they being so wide, as here, and in many other places they are. For there are 14. Chapters of this booke of Hierome, that is mentioned, but in which of these Chap­ters any thing to the purpose is to be found, is not expressed, yet with much adoe I finde that Hierome seemeth to sup­pose that Paula being dead knew this estate. But I finde in another place (viz. Adversus Vigilantium cap. 2.) that Hierome makes the Saints departed to be every where, and by consequence to know what is done any where. Sequuntur ag­num quocun­que vadit; Si agnus ubique, ergo & hi, qui cum agno sunt, ubique esse credendi sunt. Hieron. ad­vers. Vigilant. cap. 2.

[Page 266] But Ad cognos­cendas preces, quae eodem tempore fiunt in diversissimis locis, non sufficit celeritas, sed requiritur vera ubiquitas, quam nec Angelorum, nec hominum spiritibus convenire credimus. Bell. de beatit. Sanct lib. 1 cap. 20. Bellarmine likes not to build upon such a foundation, con­fessing that truly and properly to be every where, is a thing, that doth not belong either to the soules of men, or to the Angels.

From the knowledge, which the Saints deceased are preten­ded Page 68. to have of our affaires, the Marquesse passeth to their pray­ing for us. This hee proves by Revel. 5. 8. The 24. Elders fell downe before the Lambe, having every one of them Harpes, and golden Vials, full of odours, which are the prayers of the Saints.

And by Baruch 3. 4. O Lord Almighty, thou God of Israel, heare now the prayers of the dead Israelites. Hee addes also the testimonies of Aug. Ser. 15. de verb. Apostoli, Hilar. in Psal. 129. and Damas. de Fide l. 4. c. 16.

Ans. That the Saints in Heaven do not pray for us in particular, appeares by what hath beene proved already, viz. that our par­ticular affaires are not knowne unto them. That they pray for us in generall, Protestants doe not deny: about this wee doe not contend, saith Amesius against Bellarmine. And Bellarmine himselfe cites the Apology Sancti orant pro nobis, saltem in ge­nere] Neque de istâ propositione contentionem ullam fovemus. Ames. advers. Bellar. de Invocat. Sanctor. Bell. de Sanct. beat. lib. 1. cap. 20. of the Augustane Confession granting thus much, that the Saints in Heaven doe pray for the Church in generall. But for that place Revel. 5. 8. I see not how it makes for the purpose. For neither doth it appeare, that the 24. Elders there mentioned, are the Saints departed; nor, if they be, is it said, that they pray for the Church here upon Earth. Indeed the Rhemists upon the place say, Hereby it is plaine, that the Saints in Heaven offer up the prayers of faithfull and holy persons in Earth, &c. And hence they infer, That the Protestants have no excuse of their errour, That the Saints have no knowledge of our affaires, or desires. But there is no such thing, as they speake of, plaine by this place of Scripture, except (to use the Mar­quesses words) it be margin'd with their own notes, senc'd with their own meaning, and enlivened with their own private spirit. Page 52. and 53.

They take it for granted (as the Marquess also doth after them) that the Saints in Heaven are meant by the 24. Elders, and [Page 267] that the Saints after mentioned, are the De viginti quatuor senioribus tam varia Patrum & Expositorum sen­tentia est, ut quo magis leguntur, eò lector reddatur incertior. Riber. in Apoc. 4. 4. Saints upon Earth, whereas the former of these is so farre from being evident, that their own Jesuite Ribera doth tell us, that Concerning the 24 Elders the opinion of the Fathers, and of Expositors is so various, that the more one reades them, the more uncertaine Alii totam Ecclesiam, &c. Ibid. Non esse totam Ecclesiam constat, quoniam quatuor animalia non nume­rantur in illis.—At si quatuor animalia sunt quatuor Evangelistae, quomodo secernuntur à numero 24 Seniorum, cum ipsi maximè ad hunc numerum pertinere videantur, ut qui inter beatos omnes multum excellant? Respondeo non secerni ab illis, quasi ipsi inferiores sint, aut ad numerum illum, aut ad illam dignitatem per­tinere non possint, sed quòd dignitate quâdam praetereà emineant, cujus causà extra illum numerum constitui, & nominari debeant. Riber. ad Apoc. 4. 6. he shall be. And among other opinions hee faith that some by the 24. Elders understand the whole Church. This Exposition indeed he dislikes upon this ground, that the foure beasts spoken of, are not comprehended in the 24. Elders. But he enervates this reason himselfe, understanding by the 24. Elders the most eminent among the Saints in Heaven, and by the foure beasts the foure Evangelists, who yet are of the number of those eminent Saints, and so the foure beasts are also part of the 24 Elders, onely (hee saith) they are mentioned apart by them­selves, as being out of that number, because besides the excellencie which is common to them with others, they have some excellency which is proper and peculiar to them­selves. By the thred of his own Exposition it appeares, that his argument is of no force why the 24. Elders may not signifie the whole Church. And although hee make it to be without doubt, that the 24. Elders Deinde ipsi offerunt orationes sanct­orum, haud dubium quin eorum, qui sunt in terrâ. Riber. ad Apoc. 4. 4. doe offer up the prayers of other Saints, viz. which are upon Earth, yet when it is said, that the 24. Elders had golden Vialls full of odours, which are the prayers of the Saints, Revel. 5. 8. I see not but that by the Saints there may be understood the 24. Elders themselves as well as any others. If other Saints be meant, distinct from the 24 Elders, Master Medes Exposition seemes probable, that by the 24 Elders are meant Ministers, and by the Mede on Revel. 4. foure beasts the rest of Gods people, and so here by the Saints, whose prayers are offered up by Ministers, who in the publike Assemblies are the mouth of the people, and offer up their [Page 268] prayers unto God for them. But how ever it be, thus much may sufficiently appeare by what hath beene said, that the Romanists can evince nothing from this Scripture as to this point, that the Saints in Heaven doe understand the particular estate of men here upon Earth, and pray for them. For the other place al­ledged, viz. Baruch 3. 4. I give this answer, that the Booke is not Canonicall, the Jewes, to whom were committed the oracles of God (viz. the Scrip­tures Librum autem Baruch notarii ejus, qui apud Hebraeos nec legitur, nec habetur, praetermisimus. Hieron. prae­fat. in Jer. of the old Testament) Rom. 3. 2. Luke 16. 29. not owning it, as is observed by Hierome, who therefore did let it passe, as himselfe testifieth.

For the Fathers that are cited, Austine de verb. Apost. Ser. 15. hath nothing, that I see, to the purpose. Neither hath Hilary in Psalme 129. any thing about the Saints praying for us, but onely about the Sunt secundum Raphaelem ad Tobi­am loquentem Angeli adsistentes ante claritatem Dei, & orationes depre­cantium ad Deum deferentes. Hil. in Psal. 129. Angels carrying the prayers of men unto God, which hee fetcheth from the Booke of Tobit, but to that I have spoken before. Indeed in another place, viz. upon Psalme 124. (which Bellarmine produceth) hee Sed neque desunt stare volentihus sanctorum custodiae, neque angelo­rum munitiones. Hilar. in Psal. 124. saith that neither the guards of the Saints, nor the Munitions of Angels are wanting unto us. But I see not how any more can be inferred from this, then that the Saints doe in generall pray for us, which wee doe not deny.

Neither doe the words of Damascen in the place quoted import more then thus, [...]; Damasc. de Fide lib. 4. c. 16. when he saith that the Saints departed make intercessions for us, and that therefore they are to be honoured by us. This may well be un­derstood [...]; Damas. Ibid. of their praying in generall for us. A little before indeed hee hath that which doth not sound well, viz. that every good gift doth come downe from the Father of lights by them (viz. the Saints departed) to those that aske in faith with­out doubting. The Scripture teacheth us no such thing concer­ning the Saints, but attributeth this honour unto Christ, that [Page 269] by him we obtaine of God whatsoever is good and needfull for us. He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Rom. 8. 32. But Damascene, though a man famous in his generation, yet Bell. de Eccles. Scriptor. is of no great antiquity, being (as Bellarmine computes) 731 years after Christ, and therefore his testimony is of the lesse force, besides that some of the Romanists, namely Sixtus Senensis Sixt. Sen. Bibl. li. 6. Annot. 187. doth note him as in some point of faith erroneous, viz. about the proceeding of the holy Ghost.

But at length the Marquesse comes to our praying to the Page 69. Saints, that being the marke aimed at a long time. Wee hold (saith hee) that we may pray unto them; you not: we have Scrip­ture for it, Luke 16. 24. Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, &c. You bid us shew one proofe for the lawfulnesse hereof, when here are two Saints prayed unto in one Verse. And though Dives were in Hell, yet Abraham in Heaven would not have expostulated with him so much, without a non nobis domine, if it had beene it selfe a thing not lawfull. You will say, it is a pa­rable: yet a jury of ten Fathers, of the grand inquest, as Theophil. Tertull. Clem. Alex. S. Chrys. S. Ier. S. Amb. S. August. S. Greg. Euthym. and Ven. Beda, give their verdict, that it was a true History. But suppose it were a parable, yet every parable is either true in the persons named, or else may be true in some others. The holy Ghost tells us no lies, nor fables, nor speakes not to us in pa­rables consisting either of impossibilities, or things improbable. Job 5. 1. Call now, if there be any that will answer thee, and to which of the Saints wilt thou turne? It had been a frivolous thing in Eliphaz to have asked Job the question, if invocation of Saints had not beene the practice of that time. The Fathers affirme the same, S. Dionys. cap. 7. S. Athan. Ser. de Annunt. S. Basil. Orat. de 44. Martyr. S. Chrys. Hom. 66. ad Pop. S. Hierome prayed to Paula in Epitaph. S. Paulae, S. Maximus to S. Agnes Ser. de S. Agnete, S. Bern. to our blessed Lady.

Answ. This point of praying to Saints, the Marquesse (it seemes) made great account of, in that he bestowed so many words about it: but the unlawfulnesse of this practice is cleare enough by that which I have said before about praying unto Angels. For I have demonstrated both by authority of Scrip­tures, [Page 270] and also by testimony of Fathers, that prayer is to be made unto God onely. And if the Saints doe not know our affaires here below (as I have shewed that they doe not) then it must needs be absurd and irrationall to pray unto them. Yea, although we should but onely desire them to pray for us, as here we desire the prayers one of another. But whatever our Ad­versaries sometimes may pretend, yet they are farre from con­tenting themselves with this liberty, though it be more then is allowed them. Their praying unto the Saints, is a worshipping of them, as I have shewed before by their own confession. Bellarmine also tells us, that when they say, the Saints are onely Notandum, cum dicimus, non debere peti à sanctis, nisi ut orent pro nobis, nos non agere de Verbis, sed de sensu verbo­rum. Nam quantum ad verba, licet dicere, S. Petre miserere mei, salva me, aperi mihi aditum caeli, item da mihi sanitatem corporis, da patientiam, da mihi fortitudinem, &c. dummodo intelligamus, salva me, & miserere mei orando pro me, da mihi hoc & illud tuis precibus, & meritis. Bellar. dc sanct. beat. lib. 1. cap. 17. to be requested to pray for us, they doe not meane but that we may say, S. Peter have mercy on me, save me, open an entrance into Heaven for me: give me health of body, give me patience, cou­rage, &c. So that we understand it thus, Save me, and have mercy on me by praying for me: give me this or that by thy prayers and merits. But what is this, but to displace Christ, and to set up Saints in his roome?

Their Pope Leo cited by their Cassander, concerning this same point, hath taught a Accepere sancti, non dedere coronas; & de fortitudine fidelium exempla nota sunt patientiae, non dona justitiae. Leo apud Cassand. consult. de merit. & intercess. sanct. better lesson, saying, The Saints have re­ceived, not given crownes: and by the fortitude of Believers we have examples of patience, not gifts of righteousnesse.

This Cassander cites, shewing how ill it suites with the Romish practice, which hee (although a Romanist) com­plaines of as too exorbitant. Bellarmine takes it very ill that Calvine sayes they pray unto the Virgin Mary to command her Sonne: with great Dicit nos rogare Virginem, ut fili­um jubeat facere quod petimus. At quis nostrum hoc dicit? Cur non probat ullo exemplo? Bell. de beat, sanct. lib. 1. cap. 16. indignation hee cries out, Who of us doth say this? Why doth hee not prove it by some example?

[Page 272] But the forementioned Cassander plain­ly Quin & cò ventum est, ut etiam Christus jam in caelo regnans Matri subjiciatur: quomodo in nonnullis Ecclesiis canitur, Ora Patrem, & jube filio, O faelix puerpera, Nostra pians scelera, jure matris impera Redemptori. Cassand. ubi suprà. shewes that Calvin did not charge them in that manner without cause. For (saith hee) it is come to that passe, that Christ now reigning in Heaven is made subject to his Mo­ther, as they sing in some Churches, Pray the Father, and command the Son, O happy child▪ bearing woman, who doest expiate wickednesse, by the authority of a Mother command the Redeemer. Hee tells us also, that as Ahasuerus told Esther he would give her half of his Kingdome, if she would aske it; so Imò non defuerunt viri etiam cele­bres, qui assererent, id quod Hester Assuerus promisit se petenti, dimidi­um regni daturum, in Mariâ comple­tum esse, in quam Deus regni sui, quod judicio & misericordiâ constat, dimidium, hoc est, misericordiam transtulerit, alterâ regni parte sibi rete [...]tâ. Cassand. Ibid. some famous men among them say, that Gods Kingdome consisting of Judgement and Mercy, God hath indeed given halfe of his Kingdome to the Virgin Mary, viz. that part which consisteth in mercy, reserving the other part unto himselfe, viz. that which consisteth of judgement. Whereby they intimate, that who so desires mercy, must seeke to the Virgin Mary for it, otherwise hee can expect nothing but judgement.

And (as Cassander also complaines) all Davids Psalmes they Quid quod totum Psalte­rium sublato ubique Do­mini nomine in nomen Do­minae commu­tatum legimus? Cass. Ibid. Domina in te speravi. Psal. 7. In Dominâ consido. Psal. 10. Conserva me Domina, quia speravi in te. Psal. 15. Ad te Domina levavi animam meam. Psal. 24. In te Domina spe­ravi, non confundar in aeternum. Psal. 30. Judica me Domina, & discerne causam meam. Psal. 42. Domina refugium nostrum es in omni necessitate nost. a, Psal. 45. Miserere mei Domina, quae mater misericordiae nuncuparis, & secundum viscera miserlcordiarum tuarum munda me ab omnibus iniquitatibus meis, effunde gratiam tuam super me, & solitam clementiam tuam ne subtrahas à me. Psal. 50. as they call it, instead of Lord putting in Lady, and attributing that unto the Virgin Mary, which David attributeth unto God. As for example, Lady, in thee have I put my trust. In the Lady do I trust. Save me O Lady, for I have trusted in thee. To thee O Lady have I lift up my soule. In thee O Lady have I trusted, let me never be confounded. Iudge me O Lady, and discerne my cause. O Lady, thou art our refuge in all our necessity. Have mercy on me O Lady, which art called the Mother of mercy, and according to the bowels of thy mercies, cleanse me from all mine iniquities; Powre out thy grace upon me, and withold not thy wonted clemency [Page 272] from me. And so all along throughout all the Psalmes it runs after this manner. May we not now most justly apply that to the Romanists, which Ambrose spake of the Heathens? They thinke themselves not guilty, Et isti se non putant reos, qui hono­rem nominis Dei deferunt creaturae, & relicto Domino conservos adorant; quasi sit aliquid plus, quod reservetur Deo. Ambr. in Rom. 22. who give the honour of Gods Name to the crea­ture, and leaving the Lord adore their fel­low-servants; as if there were any thing more, that might be reserved for God.

Now for the Marquesses proofes, I marvell hee should stand so much upon that in Luke 16. 24. For 1. Chemnitius sayes well, Wee will not learne how to pray, of the damned, whom God hath cast off, and who are Non igitur à damnatis, qui à Deo abjecti, & in aeternâ desperatione sunt, discemus veram invocationem. Chemnit. in Exam. Orent igitur cum divite illo, qui ita exaudiri, & juvari volunt. Ibid. in eternall despaire.

And againe, Let them pray as that rich man did, who would be heard, and helped as he was.

2. Whereas the Marquesse bringeth in a jury of ten Fathers, to prove that this Scripture is no Parable, but a History, why should wee be any more moved in this case with their verdict, then Iansenius a Romanist was, who (as I have shewed before) thought it more probable, that it is no History, but a Parable: or at least a History related after a parabolicall manner? Theophlylact also saith expressely that it is a Parable, and censures them as [...]. Theophylact. in Luke 16. voide of understanding, who take it for a History. His reason, I grant, is not good, viz. that as yet neither the just, nor the un­just doe receive their reward. And yet [...]. Theophy. Ibid. that assertion of his also is advantagious un­to us in this point. For our Adversaries hold (as hath beene noted before) that therefore in the time of the old Testament there was no praying to the Saints departed, because the Saints then (as they say) were not in blisse, and so could not heare the prayers that should be made unto them. Now Theophylact held, that the Saints in the time of the new Testament are not in blisse untill the last judgement, and the same was the opinion Bell de Sanct. beat. l. 1. c. 4 & 5. of many other Fathers. I know Bellarmine doth indeavour to free [Page 273] both Theophylact, and the rest, interpreting them as if they meant onely in respect of full and perfect blisse both in soule and body. But others of the Roman Church doe confesse, that it was their opinion, that the soules of the righteous doe not enjoy the bea­tificall vision untill the day of judgement. Sixtus Senensis doth Sixt. Sen. Bibl. l. 6. Annot. 345. cite Irenaeus, Iustine Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Chrysostome, Lactantius, Ambrose, Austine, Theodoret, Theophylact, Bernard, and others, as being of this opinion: and therefore by our ad­versaries, owne principles they could not rightly hold the Invo­cation of Saints deceased. But to returne to that Scripture, Luke 16. Iustine Martyr (as hee is cited by Bellarmine,) denies that it is a true Hi­story. Justinus quaest. 60. ex iis, quas Gentes Christianis opponunt, dicit narrati­onem de divite & Lazaro non esse veram Historiam. Bell de Sanct. beat. lib. 1. cap. 1. Chrysostome also saith plainly that it is a Parable, Hom. 1. de Lazaro. And yet hee is one of the Fathers, whom the Marquesse alledgeth to the contrary. I know not what that meaneth, which the Marquesse saith, every parable is either true in the persons named, or else may be true in some others. For we do not finde persons named in any parable besides this; which is the maine, if not onely argument which is used to prove it a History rather then a Pa­rable: Narratio magis quàm parabola vide­tur, quando etiam nomen exprimitur. Amb. in Luc. 8. cap. 16. Nomen proprium ipsius Lazari arguit esse Historiam, quamvis non efficaci­ter, ut infrà patebit. Jans. Concord. cap. 97. Atque utraque haec ratio nominati mendici conveniens est, five exemplum hoc sit nuda parabola, five etiam Hi­storia. Jan. Ibid. though Iansenius did not thinke this to be a convincing argument; and he shews two reasons why the poore man was nam­ed, and not the rich, viz. 1. To teach us that God regardes the poore that are righteous, more then the rich that are wick­ed. 2. Because when one is commended, it is meete to name him, but not so when one is condemned. And both these rea­sons (hee saith) stand good, whether this narration be onely a Parable, or a History. It is certaine, the holy Ghost tells no lies, nor fables, &c. Parables are not false, nor fabulous, yet [...]. Theophylact. ad Ioh. 3. page 410. Edit. Rom. Theophylact saith well, We must not take all things that are spok­ken in Parables, as Lawes and Canons.

[Page 274] So Maldonate thought meete often to Tutissimum est, quod saepè moneo, non nimis pressè tractandas esse pa­rabolas: frangi saepè tractando; sole­reque hîc accidere, quod proverbio dici solet, ut qui nimium emungit, sanguinem eliciat. Maldon. ad Luc. 15. 22. admonish this, as a thing most safe, that Parables are not to be handled too strictly; that they are often broken by handling; and that here that doth happen, which is said in the proverbe, the too much wringing of the nose bringeth forth blood.

The other place, viz. Iob 5. 1. is very inconveniently alledg­ed by the Marquesse for invocation of Saints deceased. Bellar­mine was more wary in citing it onely to prove, that Angels, whom hee there understands by Saints, may be invocated. These words (saith he) shew, that it was the Indicant (haec verba) tunc fuisse consuetudinem invocandi patrocini­um sanctorum Angelorum. Bell. de sanct. beat. l. 1. c. 19. Ante Christi adventum, sancti qui moriebantur, non intrabant in coelū, nec deum videbant, &c. ideo non fuit consuetum, ut diceretur, S. Abraham ora pro me. Bell. Ibid. custome then to call upon the holy Angels for their patronage. But to say (as the Mar­quesse doth) that it appears by these words, that they used then to call upon the Saints departed, is contrary to the tenet of the Romanists, who hold, that during the time of the old Testament praying unto the de­ceased Saints was not in use, because then the Saints that de­parted out of this life (as they hold) did not goe to Heaven, nor enjoy happinesse. But the truth is, those words Iob 5. 1. Call now, &c. and to which of the Saints wilt thou turne? make neither for the invocation of Saints, nor of Angels, the meaning of Eliphaz being onely to convince Iob that none is punished as he was except he were wicked; and therefore he bids him shew any of the Saints, if hee could, that was so punished as hee was. For this was the error of Eliphaz and the other two friends of Iob, that they thought Iob could not be a godly man, because God did so afflict him. Therefore God said his Anger was kindled against them, because they had not spoken of him the thing that was right. Iob. 42. 7. For the Fathers, which are here objected, the first, viz. Dionys. is cited cap. 7, but of what? For hee wrote diverse Bookes. But his testimony is of little worth, it being uncertaine who hee was, and when hee lived, and this being evident to all that have any the least taste of him, that hee was not (as is pretended) that Dionysius that is men­tioned Acts 17. 34. which his fustian and bombast-stile doth [Page 275] sufficiently declare. The next is Athanasius; but I finde no such peece as Ser. de Annunt. either in his workes, as they are extant both in Greeke and Latine, nor in Bellarmines Index or Catalogue of them, which he hath in his Booke of Ecclesiasticall writers; If perhaps the Marquesse meant That I finde to be it, by Bell. de Sanct. beat. lib. 1. cap. 19. Ser de Sanctissimâ Deiparâ, Bellarmine in that same booke censures it as not be­longing to Athanasius, but to some other long after his time, and in some thing (as it seemes) not very sound. Basil I have not to peruse, nor Maximus. Stat sanctis supplicaturus, ut prose apud Deum intercedant. Chrysost­loc. cit. Chrysostome in the place quoted, viz. Hom. 66. de Pop. Antioch. doth indeed seeme to speake for pray­ing unto Saints to pray for us. But wee must remember how hee is reckoned among them, who held that the Saints departed are not yet in glory, and therefore if the Romanists will have him speake agreably to this position, they must not have him for a patron in this cause touching the invo­cation of Saints. And upon the same ground must they also let goe Bernard, who is likewise noted for the same opinion; He lived 1130 yeares after Christ. Bell. de Eccles. Script. though the truth is, hee lived in very corrupt times, and there­fore it is no marvell if hee did draw some dreggs; it is indeed a marvell, that hee was not more corrupted and infected then he was. There remaines onely Hierome, who in the end of his Epitaph or Funerall Oration concerning Paula, addresseth his speech unto her, bid­ding her farwell, and helpe him with her Vale, O Paula, & cultoris tui ulti­mam senectutem orationibus juva. Fides & opera tua Christo te sociant, praesens quod postulas facilius impe­trabis. Hieron. in Epitaph. Paul. in fine. prayers. But 1. I have shewed before, that Bellarmine doth overthrow the foundation that Hierome buildes upon, viz. that the Saints departed are every where, and so can heare and understand whatsoever any stand in need of, and de­sire of them; which Bellarmine confesseth to be incompetible to any meere creature, as indeed it is, this being a property that belongs unto God only. 2. When the Fathers sometimes speak in that manner to the Saints deceased, their speeches proceeded rather from affection then from judgement, and are Rhetoricall rather then Theologicall [...]. Nazianz. in Iulian. orat. 1. circa initium. expressions. As appeares by that of Gre­gory Nazianzen, who in his first Oration [Page 276] against Iulian speakes thus unto Constantine, who was then dead, And heare O thou soule of the great Constantine, if thou hast any sense (or understanding) of these things. Where the Greeke Scholiast notes that [...]. Scho­liast. Ibid. Nazianzen did imitate Isocrates a Heathen Oratour; This is spoken (saith hee) in imi­tation of Isocrates, as if he should say, If thou hast any power to heare the things that are here spoken. And ob­serve how Nazianzen (whom Hierome calleth his Master) spake doubtfully, making it a question whether the Saints departed doe un­derstand Gregorius Nazianzenus praeceptor meus. Hieron. Catal. Scriptor. Eccle­stast. things here upon Earth. 3. Austine (who lived in the same time with Hierome) in his booke of true Religion Honorandi sunt propter imitationem, non adorandi propter religionem. Aug dc verâ relig. cap. 55. speaking of the Saints deparred saith plain­ly, They are to be honoured for imitation, but not to be worshipped for Religion. And in the Uni Deo & Martyrum, & nostro, sacrificium immolamus; ad quod sa­crificium, sicut homines Dei, qui mundum in ejus confessione vicerunt, suo loco & ordine nominantur, non tamen à sacerdote, qui sacrificat, in­vocantur. Ang. de Civit Dei lib. 22. cap. 10. last booke of that famous worke intituled Of the City of God, in the tenth Chapter of it, speaking of the Martyrs, hee saith, that in the celebration of the Eucharist they were mentioned in their place and order (viz. to praise God for them, and to stir up others to the imitation of them) but yet that they were not invocated, and that no prayers were put up unto them. This may suffice to shew how farre in this point they of the Roman Church are departed both from the Rule of Gods Word, and also from the judgement and practice of the ancient Fathers.

We hold (saith the Marquesse) Confirmation necessary; you Page 69. not: We have Scripture for it, Acts 8. 14. Peter and Iohn prayed for them that they might receive the holy Ghost (for as yet he was falne upon none of them, onely they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Iesus) then laid they their hands on them, and they re­ceived the holy Ghost. Where we see the holy Ghost was given in Confirmation, which was not given in Baptisme. Also Heb. 6. 1. Therefore leaving the principles of the Doctrine of Christ, let us goe on unto perfection, not laying against the foundation of Repen­tance [Page 277] from dead workes, and of Faith toward God, of Baptisme, and of laying on of hands, The Fathers affirme the same, Tertul. de Resur. S. Pacian. de Bapt. S. Amb. de sacr. S. Hierome contra Lucif. S, Cypr. l. 2. Ep. 1. speaking both of Baptisme and Confirma­tion saith, Then they may be sanctified and be the sons of God, if they be borne in both Sacraments.

Answ. Concerning Confirmation, the Romanists make it a Sacrament properly so called, of the same nature with Baptisme, and the Lords Supper. The matter of this Sacrament they make Bell. de Confir. lib. 2. cap. 8. & 9, 10, & 11. to be a certaine Ointment compounded after a speciall manner, and consecrated by a Bishop, wherewith the person to be con­firmed, is anointed in the forehead in the forme of a crosse. The forme of the Sacrament they make to consist in these words, I signe thee with the signe of the Crosse, and confirme thee with the Chrisme (or ointment) of salvation, in the Name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghost. The effect of this Sacra­ment they say is to confer true sanctifying grace, and that more abundantly then Baptisme doth in respect of the strengthening of the soule against the assaults of Satan. Now this Confirma­tion Protestants deny to be a Sacrament, as having no institu­tion, nor any ground for it in the Scripture. The Author of the Treatise intituled De unctione Chris­matis, who goes under the Name of Cy­prian, Nec tamen cessantibus his, quae ritu antiquo inoleverant, cum jam in populo Christiano circumcisio vide­retur damnabilis, & sacrificia idolola­triae imputarentur, unctionis myste­rium Religio Ch. istiana contemp­sit, &c. but appeares to have been some other, shewes that this anointing, which they use in confirmation, was taken up in imitation of that anointing which was used in the time of the Law.

Bonaventure also (who lived betwixt Credo quòd illud Sacramentū Chri­stus nec dispensavit, nec instituit. Bona. in sent. l. 4. dist 7. art. 1 quaest. 1. Et quaest. 2. Christus hoc sacramentū non insti­tuit. 1200 and 1300 yeares after Christ) held that Confirmation was neither dispensed, nor instituted by Christ.

And if it were not of Christs instituting, Patet unum eundemque Deum in Christo justificationis, & Sacramen­torum auctorem agnoscendum esse.—Perspicitur Sacramenta à Deo ipso per Christum instituta esse. Catechis. Trident. de Sacram. it can be no Sacrament properly so called, onely Christ (as the Councell of Trents Catechisme doth acknowledge) being the Author and Ordainer of every Sacra­ment.

[Page 278] And therefore the Councell of Trent denounceth Anathema Concil. Trid. Scss. 7. can. 1. against all those that shall deny any of the Sacraments to have been of Christs institution.

For that Acts 8. 14. 17. which the Marquesse alledgeth, it is nothing to their Confirmation. For 1. There was laying on of hands, but no anointing with Chrisme, nor signing with the signe of the Crosse. 2. The giving of the holy Ghost there spoken of, was in respect of some extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost, as speaking with strange Tongues, &c. as Cajetan himselfe upon the place observeth; and he solidly proveth it Accepisse eos Sp. S. in effectu sensibili (puta locutione linguarum) testantur subjuncta, quòd Simon qui fuerat Magus, viderit Spiritum S. datum per impositionem manuum. Cajet. ad. loc. Bell. de Confir. lib. 2. cap. 2. by this, that Simon Magus saw that the holy Ghost was given by the laying on of the handes of the Apostles. Besides, Acts 19. 6. (which place Bellarmine doth joyne with the other) it is expressely said, when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with Tongues, and prophecied. That therefore, which the Scripture speakes of the Apostles laying handes on some that had beene Baptized, and conferring the holy Ghost upon them, is far from proving that the Apostles did administer the Sacrament of Confirmation, there being neither the matter, nor the forme, nor the effect of that pre­tended Sacrament. Bonaventure saith plainly, Nec materiam, nec formam Apostoli dispensaverunt. Bonav. lib. 4. dist. 7. art. 1. quaest. 2. The Apostles did dispense neither the matter, nor the forme. And for the effect, we have had already Cajetans Confession, viz. that the effect of the Apostles laying on of their hands was a sensible giving of the holy Ghost, and therefore not that which they make the effect of Confirmation. For the other place of Scripture, viz. Heb. 6. 2. what reason is there why by laying on of hands there mentioned, should be meant the Sacrament of Confirmation, which they will have to be administred with an ointment made of Oile and Balsome; whereas that Scripture speakes of no anointing? why may not that laying on of hands be the same with that, 1 Tim. 5. 22. lay hands suddenly on no man? viz. the laying on of hands used in the ordination of Ministers: which also wee reade of 1 Tim. 4. 14. and 2 Tim. 1. 6. Or that laying on of hands, which is mentioned Acts 8. and 19. whereby (as hath beene [Page 279] shewed) the extraordinary and sensible gifts of the holy Ghost were conferred upon Believers? Thus Impositio­nis quoque manuum, Quā scil. & Spi­ritum S. acci­piebant, cujus gratiâ & futu­ra praedicerent, & miracula ederent. Theophyl. ad loc. Theophylact upon the place expounds it, of laying on of hands, whereby they received the holy Ghost so as to foretell things to come, and to worke miracles. Et hoc ad prima fidei fundamenta in primiti­vâ Ecclesiâ spectabat. Cajet. ad loc. Cajetan also understands it in like manner, of that laying on of hands, which was peculiar to those Primitive Christians.

For the Fathers alledged, it is granted, that the Fathers doe often speake of anointing, and that they speake of it as of a Sacrament. But diverse things are to be considered;

1. That the word Sacrament is by an­cient Writers taken very largely. Bellarmine Invenimus nomen Sacramenti in Scripturis tribui multis rebus, quae omniú consensu non sunt Sacramenta, de qualibus nunc agimus. Bell. de effect. sacram. l. 2. c. 24. confesseth that in the vulgar Latine Tran­slation of the Scriptures the word is used of many things that by the consent of all are no Sacraments properly so called.

So Cassander saith that besides those seven Et extra hunc numerum quaedam sunt in Ecclesiâ celebrata signa, quae & ipsa latioris vocis notione Sacramenta nonnunquam dicuntur. Et de his quoque septem Sacramentis certum est, ne ipsos quidem Scholasticos exi­stimasse omnia ea aequè propriè Sa­cramenta vocari. Nam et de confir­matione quidam scripserunt, gratiam confirmationis non esse univocè gratiam cum illâ, &c. Cassand. Con­sult. artic. 13. which the Church of Rome accounteth Sa­craments, there are some other things used among them, which by a more large accep­tion of the word are sometimes called Sa­craments. And that of those seven Sacra­ments it is certaine the Schoolemen them­selves did not thinke them all to be alike properly called Sacraments. And he in­stanceth in this very Sacrament of confir­mation, shewing that some of the School­men (namely Holcot) did not take it for a Sacrament of like nature with Baptisme.

The same Author tells us, that one shall hardly finde any before Peter Lombard Nec temerè quenquam reperias ante Pet. Lomb [...]rdum, qui certum ali­quem & definitum numerum Sacra­mentorum statuerunt. Cassand. Ibid. (who was 1145 yeares after CHRIST) that did set downe a certaine and determi­nate number of the Sacraments.

[Page 280] But the Councell of Trent hath decreed, If any shall say, that the Sacraments of the new Testament were not all instituted by Iesus Si quis dix­etit Sacra­menta novae legis non fuisse omnia à Jesu Christo Do­mino nostro instituta; aut esse plura, vel pauciora quàm septem, viz. Baptismum, Confirmationem, Eucharistiam, paenitentiam, Extremam Unctionem, Ordinem, & Matrimonium: aut etiam aliquod horum non esse verè & propriè sacramentum, anathema sit. Concil. Trident. sess. 7. can. 1. Christ our Lord; or that they are either more or lesse then seven, viz. Baptisme, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme unction, Order, and Marriage; or that any of these is not a Sacrament truly and properly so called, let him be anathema. We may see therefore of what small standing the present Roman faith is.

2. Some of the Fathers doe expressely [...]; Basil de Spir. S. cap. 37. tells us, that the anointing, which they used, hath no foundation in the Scripture. Basil speaking of it, askes, what written word hath taught it? And so Bellarmine confesseth that there is no institu­tion of it in the Scripture, and that they have it onely by Tra­dition, which yet hee saith is most certaine, and no lesse to be believed then the written word it selfe. But we are bidden goe to the Law, and to the Testimony; and are told, that if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Isai. 8. 20.

3. The Fathers so peake of their anointing, as that they seeme to make it onely an Appendix of Baptisme. Wee came to the water; thou wentest in (saith Ambrose) then presently hee addes, Thou wast anointed as Venimus ad fontem, ingressus es—Unctus es quasi athleta. Ambros. de Sacram. l. 1. c. 2. a wrestler.

So Tertullian, Being come out of that la­ver wee are anointed with the blessed an­ointing. Exinde egressi de lavacro perungimur benedictâ unctione Tertull. de Baptis. c. 8.

I know Pamelius makes that anointing there spoken of by Tertullian distinct from Pamel. Annot. in Tertull. Bellarm. de Consim. lib. 2. cap. 6. that used in Confirmation: but Bellarmine cites those words as meant of confirmation.

So those very words of Cyprian, which Tunc enim demùm plenè sanctifica­ri, & esse filii Dei possunt, si sa­cramento utroque nascantur. Cypr. lîb. 2. Epist. 1. sive edit. Pamel. Epist. 71. the Marquesse citeth, Then they bee fully sanctified, and be the Sonnes of God, if they be borne of both Sacramments; those very [Page 281] wordes, I say, doe argue that Cyprian though he seeme to speak of two Sacraments, yet indeed accounted them but one Sacra­ment, in that he makes one and the same effect of both, viz. to be borne, whereas they of Rome make birth onely the effect of Baptisme, and strength the effect of Confirmation. Neither doth it follow that in Cyprians judgement they are two distinct Sacraments, because hee Corpus & sanguis Domini in duo Sacramenta secantur; quod apertè fit à Rabano. Cassand. Consult. art. 13. saith both Sacraments. For so he might speak in respect of two severall signes, though both used in one and the same Sacrament; Even as Rabanus calleth the body and blood of Christ two Sacraments; he means the consecrated bread and wine, which though they make but one Sacrament, yet because they are two sacramentall signes, he calles them two Sacraments.

4. Whereas the Fathers used to adde Confirmation present­ly after Baptisme, whether it were one of years, or an infant that was Baptized, as is acknowledged by Bellarmine, and other Romanists: now they thinke it not meete to Confirme children Bell. de Confir. lib. 2. c. 7. Du­rant. de ritib. l. 1. c. 20. Hoc tempore cum Baptizan­tur adulti, eo­dem die datur Baptismus, Confirmatio, & Eucharistia, ut veteres fa­ciebant: sed cum Baptizan­tur infantes, differuntur alia duo Sacramenta, donec ad usum rationis pervernerint, &c. Bell. Ibid. Summâ ratione receptum est, quicquid Gerson censeat, hoc sacramentum mininè conferri antequam pueri rationis usum habuerint, & fidem suam confiteri possint. Durant. Ibid. Si duodecimus annus non expectandus videatur usque ad septimum certè hoc Sacramentum differre, maximè convenit. Catech. Trident. de Confirmat. untill they come to the use of reason, and be able to confesse their faith. The Catechisme set forth by the decree of the councell of Trent, thinkes it requisite, that children be either twelve years old, or at least seven years old before they be con­firmed. And Piè & Religiosè Synodus Medi­olanensis Anno 1565. decrevit, minori sptennio Confirmationis sacramentum minimè praebendum. Durant. ubi supra. Durantus tells us that a Synod at Millan did de­cree (and that, hee sayes, piously and religiously) That the Sa­crament of Confirmation should be administred to none under seven years old. Thus have they (by their own confession) depart­ed from the judgment and practice of the ancient Fathers them­selves; and why then should they presse us with it?

After Confirmation the Marquesse commeth to communicat­ing Page 70. in one kinde, which they hold sufficient. And he saith that they have Scripture for it, viz. Ioh. 6. 51. (not 15.) If any man [Page 282] eate of this bread, hee shall live for ever. Whence hee inferrs, If everlasting life be sufficient, then it is also sufficient to communicate under one kinde. So Acts 2. 42. They continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and prayer. Where is no mention of the Cup, and yet they remained sted­fast in the Apostles Doctrine. So also Luke 24. 30, 35. Where Christ communicated (hee saith) his two Disciples under one kinde. He addes, that Austine, Theophylact, and Chrysostome ex­pound that place of the Sacrament.

Answ. The Scripture plainly shewes, that our Saviour in­stituting the Sacrament of his Supper, took, and blessed, and gave the Cup as well as the bread, and commanded that to be drunk as well as this to be eaten in remembrance of him. Mat. 26. Mar. 14. Luke 22. 1 Cor. 11. And the Apostle tells us, that, As oft as we eate this bread, and drinke the Cup of the Lord, we shew forth the Lords death till he come. 1 Cor. 11. 26. And he bids v. 28. Let a man examine himselfe, and so let him eate of that Bread, and drinke of that Cup. Protestants therefore have good reason to hold it necessary to communicate in both kindes, and that it is utterly unlawfull to withhold the Cup from people, as they in the Church of Rome do. Our Adver­saries thinke to put off those words of our Haec verba (Bibite ex hoc omnes) dicuntur solis Apostolis, &c. Bell. de Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 25. Saviour, Drinke yee all of this, by saying that Christ spake so onely to the Apostles, and therefore wee must not infer from them, that the common sort of people are to drinke of the Cup in the Sacrament. But 1. by this reason they may as well withhold the bread also from the people, and so deprive them of the whole sacrament. For when Christ gave the Bread, and bad take, eate, he spake onely to the Apostles, as well as when hee gave the cup, and bad that all should drinke of it. 2. The Apostle spake universally of all Christians, requiring that having examined themselves they should not onely eate of the bread, but drinke of the cup also. All antiquity is here on our side. How doe we teach, or provoke them (saith Quomodo docemus, aut provocamus eos in confes­sione nominis sanguinem suum fundere, si eis militaturis Christi sanguinem denegamus? Aut quomodo ad Martyrii poculum idoneos facimus, si non eos priùs ad bibendum in Ec­clesiâ poculum Domini jure communicationis admittimus? Cypr. Epist. 54. edit. Pamel. Cyprian) to shed their blood in the confession of [Page 283] Christ, if we deny them the blood of Christ, when they are going to war-fare? Or how doe we make them meete for the Cup of Martyr­dome, if we doe not first admit them to drinke the Lords Cup in the Church by the right of Communion? Thus spake Cyprian (and he spake in the name of a whole Synod of Af­frick, as Pamelius observes) concerning Id Episcoporum statutum, totius Sy­nodi nomine, nuntiat Cornelio Cy­prianus; atque adeò non tam ipsius Cypriani, quàm Synodi Africanae est haec Epistola. Pamel. in argum. epist. such as though they had grossely offended, yet were judged meete to be admitted to the Sacrament because of a persecution, which was ready to come upon them, that so they might be strengthened and prepared for it. This clearly shewes, that in Cyprians time all that did communicate at all, did communicate in both kindes, and not in one onely. So also in another place, Considering (saith Cyprian) Considerantes idcircò se quotidie cali­cem sanguinis Christi bibere, ut possint & ipsi propter Christum san­guinem fundere. Cypr-epist. 56. that they therefore daily drinke the cup of Christs Blood, that they also for Christ may shed their blood. There is a decree of Pope Iulius recorded by Gratian, wherein hee condemneth the practice of some, who used Illud verò, quòd pro complemento communionis intinctam tradunt eu­charistiam populis, nec hoc prolatum ex Evangelio testimonium receperunt, ubi Apostolis corpus suum commen­davit & sanguinem. Seorsim enim panis, & seorsim calicis commenda­tio memoratur. De consecrat. dist. 2. cap. Cum omne. to give unto people the bread dipped for a full communion. This he saith is not con­sonant to the Gospell, where we finde that the bread and the cup were given severally each by it selfe. Much more, we may sup­pose, hee would have disliked that the bread alone, without any manner of parti­cipation of the cup, should have been administred. Sure I am, the reason that hee alledgeth is every whit as much against this as against the other. So another Pope. viz. Gelasius (as the same Gratian relates) hearing of some, that would onely re­ceive Comperimus quòd quidam sumptâ tan­tummodò cor­poris sacri portione, à ca­lice sacrati cruoris absti­neant; qui proculdubio (quum nescio quâ superstitione docentur astringi) aut in­tegra Sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur. Quia divisio unius & ejus­dem mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest pervenire. [...] Ibid. cap. Comperimus. the bread, but not the Cup, bade that either they should receive the whole Sacrament, or no part of it, because the di­vision of one and the same mystery (hee saith) cannot be without great Sacriledge.

[Page 284] And whereas they speake of a concomi­tancy Nec superfluit haec, vel illa sumptio—Nam species panis ad carnem, & species vini ad animam refertur; cum vinum sit sacramentum sanguinis, in quo est sedes animae; ideóque sumitur sub utraque specie, ut significetur quòd utrumque Christus assumpsit, carnem & animam, & quòd tam ani­mae quàm corpori participatio valeat: unde si sub unâ tantum specie sume­retur, ad tuitionem alteriùs tantùm valere significaretur. Glossa Ibid. of the blood with the body, and so would have it sufficient to receive the bread onely, the glosse upon that canon is expressely against them, saying, that the bread hath reference onely to Christs Body, and the Wine onely to his Blood: and that therefore the Sacrament is received in both kindes to signifie that Christ assumed both Body and Soule, and that the participation of the Sacrament is available both to Soule and Body. Wherefore (it saith) if the Sacrament should be received onely in one kinde (in Bread onely) it would shew that it availes onely for the good of the one, viz. of the Body, and not for the good of the other, viz. of the Soule. Not to multiply testi­monies, De admini­stratione sacre­sancti Sacra­menti Eucha­ristiae satis compertum est, Universalem Christi Eccle­siam in hunc usque diem, Occidentalem verò seu Romanam mille ampliùs à Christo annis in solenni praesertim & ordinariâ hujus sacramenti dispensatione utramque panis & vini speciem omnibus Christi membris exhi­buisse: id quod ex innumeris veterum scriptorum tam Graecorum quàm Latinorum testi­moniis manifestum est. Cassand, Consult, art. 22. Cassander in the very beginning of the Article, where­in he treates of this point, ingenuously confesseth that the Uni­versall Church of Christ to this day doth, and the Westerne or Ro­man Church for more then a thousand years after Christ did (especi­ally in the solemne and ordinary dispensation of the Sacrament) ex­hibit both kindes, both Bread and Wine to all the members of Christ; which (he saith) is manifest by innumerable testimonies of ancient Writers both Greek and Latine.

And hee addes, that they were induced Atque ut ita facerent inductos fuisse, primùm instituto exemplóque Christi, qui hoc sacramentum corporis & sanguinis sui duobus hisce panis & vini symbolis discipulis suis fidelium communicantium personam repraesen­tantibus praebuit: tum quia in sacra­mento sanguinis peculiarem quandam virtutem & gratiam hoc vini sym­bolo significatam esse credebant: tum ab rationes mysticas hujus instituti, quae à veteribus variè adducuntur, viz. ad repraesentandam memoriam passionis Christi in oblatione corporis, & effusione sanguinis, juxta illud Pauli, Quotiescunque comederitis panem hunc, & calicem Domini biberitis, mortem Domini annuntiatis donec veniat. Item ad significandam integram refectionem sive nutritionē, quae cibo & potu constat, quomodo Christus inquit, Caro mea verè est cibus, & sanguis meus verè est potus. Item ad designandam redemptionem & tuitionem corporis & animae, ut corpus pro salute corporis, & san­guis pro salute animae, quae in sanguine est, dari intelligatur, Ad significan­dum quoque Christum utramque naturam assumsisse, corporis, viz. & animae, ut utrumque redimeret. Cassand. Ibid. hereunto, first by the institution and example of Christ, who did give this Sacrament of his Body and Blood under two signes, viz. Bread and Wine, unto his Disciples as representing the person of faithfull Communicants. And because in the Sacrament of the Blood they believed that a peculiar vertue and grace is signified. So also for mysticall reasons of this institution, which are diversly assigned by the [Page 285] ancient Writers. As to represent the me­mory of Christs Passion in the offering of his Body, and the shedding of his Blood, accord­ing to that of Paul, As oft as yee eate this Bread, and Drinke the cup of the Lord, yee shew forth the Lords death till hee come. Also to signifie full refreshing and nourishing which consists in Meate and Drinke, as Christ saith, My flesh is meate indeed, and my Blood is Drinke indeed. Likewise to shew the redemp­tion and preservation of Soule and Body, that Christs Body may be understood to be given for the salvation of our body, and his Blood for the salvation of our soule, which is in the Blood. And so also to signifie that Christ tooke both Body and Soule, that he might re­deeme both.

And therefore hee saith, It is not without good cause, that very many good men, even of the Catholike profession, being conversant Quarè non temerè est, quòd optimi quique etiam Catholicae por­fessionis in divinorum & Ecclesiasti­corum scrip­torum lectione versati, & his quas supra diximus rationibus incitati, summo desiderio potiundi Dominici calicis incenduntur, omnibusque modis contendunt, ut hoc salutare sacramentum sanguinis Christi unà cum sacramento corporis juxta veterem & multis seculis perpetuatam universalis Ecclesiae consuetudinem in usum reducatur, &c. Cassan. Ibid. in the reading both of Divine and Ecelesiasicall Writers, doe most earnestly desire to partake of the Lords cup, and by all meanes strive that this saving Sacrament of Christs Blood together with the Sa­crament of his Body may againe use to be received according to the ancient custome of the universall Church, which was continued for many Ages.

For the Scriptures which the Marquesse alledgeth, the first of them, viz. Ioh. 6. 51. doth not concerne the Sacrament, which is not treated of in that Chapter, as I have noted before, and that according to the judgement of Iansenius a Romanist; to whom may be added diverse others of the Church of Rome, who (as Bellarmine confesseth) were of that opinion, viz. Bellar. de Euch. lib. 1. cap. 5 [...] Biel, Cusanus, Cajetan, Tapper, and Hesselius. And even [Page 286] Bellarmine himselfe, and others, who hold Non est controversia an in toto capite agatur de Bucharistiâ: constat enim non ita esse.—Solū igitur quaestio de illis verbis, Danis quem ego dabo, caro mea est pro mundi vitâ, & de sequentibus ferè ad finem capitis. Bellar. Ibid. that the Sacrament is spoken of in Ioh. 6. yet hold it not to be spoken of till after those words, which the Marquesse citeth, in those words, which follow immediately after, vers. 51. And the bread, which I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the World; in those words, I say, and the rest that fol­low almost to the end of the Chapter, they say that our Savi­our speakes of the Sacrament, but not in any of the former words of the Chapter. And if the Sacrament were spoken of in that Chapter, those words v. 51. If any man eate of this bread, he shall live for ever, would not so much evince a sufficiency of communicating in one kinde, as the words a little after, viz. v. 53. Verely, verely I say unto you, Except you eate the flesh of the Son of man, and drinke his Blood, you have no life in you, would evince a necessity of communicating in both kindes. For if those words be understood of a Sacramentall eating and drink­ing, it cannot be avoided but that by those very words, as it is necessary to eate of the bread in the Sacrament, so is it to drinke of the cup also. For though by the forementioned con­comitancy of the blood with the Body, they say that when one kinde onely, viz. bread is received, the Blood of Christ is drunk as well as his Body is eaten; yet (as Ian­senius well observes) that outward act of Verùm non facilc apparet, quomodo exterior illa sumptio possit dici bibi­tio. Manducatio enim rectè dicitur, quia sumitur ibi aliquid per modum cibi: sed quomodo bibitio, cum nihil sumatur per modum potûs? Jansen. Concord. cap. 59. taking the bread in the Sacrament cannot be called drinking. It is rightly called eat­ing (saith hee) because something is taken by way of meate: but how is it called drink­ing, when as nothing is received by way of drinke? Neither is it certaine that in the other two places, viz. Acts 2. 42. and Luke 24. 30. by breaking of bread is meant the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. Cajetan Cajet. in Act. 2. Jansen. Concord. cap. 146. expounds the former place of ordinary bread, and the other place is expounded by Iansenius after the same manner.

Neither is it true that Bellarmine saith, Docet (Jansenius) voluisse Dominum hoc exemplo demonstrare fructū & u­tilitatem Eucharistiae in unâ specie. Bell. de Euchar. l. 4. c. 24. that Iansenius teacheth that Christ by that example would shew the fruit and benefit [Page 287] of the Sacrament received in one kinde. Jan­senius Effectu hîc subsecuto commendare fidelibus Dominus voluit vim Eu­charistiae dignae susceptae, nempe quòd per eam oculi hominum illuminantur ad cognitionem Jesu. Jansen. Concord. cap. 146. doth not speake of receiving the Sa­crament in one kinde (though I know hee did approve of it) but onely saith, that by the effect, that followed, the Lord would commend unto us the vertue of the Sacra­ment worthily received, to wit, that thereby our eyes are enlightned to know Iesus.

And whereas Austine, and Theophylact are said to understand Ex quibus Theophylacti & Augustini sententiis ap­paret multis, illos sensisse Dominum jam impertiisse suis Eucharistiae Sacramentum: verum magis intelligendum eos hujus Sa­cramenti mentionem fecisse, quòd illud hîc à Domino mysticè fuerit commendatum & insinuatum. Jansen. Ibid. that in Luke 24. of the Sacrament, Iansenius tells us, that so many thinke, but that indeed they did rather make mention of the Sacrament, because it was (not here spoken of in Luke, but) mystically commended and insinuated by our Saviour.

But suppose that the Sacrament were spoken of in those pla­ces, as probably it is in Acts 2. because breaking of Bread is there joyned with Doctrine and Prayer, yet there is no sufficient ground for communicating in one kinde. For the figure Synecdoche, wherby the part is put for the whole, is not unusuall in the Scripture. Thus Soule, which is but a part of man, is put for man. All the Soules that came with Jacob, &c. that is, all the persons. Gen. 46. 26. So likewise flesh being a part of man, is used for man. I will not feare what flesh can doe unto me. Psal. 56. 4. that is, what man can doe unto me, as it is expressed, vers. 11. So whereas David saith, In thy sight shall no man be justified, Psal. 143. 2. Paul hath it, There shall no flesh be iustified in his sight. Rom. 3. 20. Thus the whole celebration of the Sacrament may be termed breaking of bread, because that is one, and that an eminent part of it.

The Marquesse goes on still concerning the same Sacrament, but so as in the Church of Rome it is changed into a Sacrifice.

We hold (saith hee) that Christ offered up unto his Father, in Page 70. the Sacrifice of the Masse (as an expiation for the sinnes of the people) is a true and proper Sacrifice. This you deny: this we prove by Scripture, viz. Mal. 1. 11. From the rising of the Sunne to the [Page 288] going downe of the same, my Name shall be great among the Gen­tiles: and in every place Incense shall be offered to my Name, and a pure offering. This could not be meant of the figurative offerings of the Iewes; because it was spoken of the Gentiles: neither can it be understood of the reall sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse; because that was done but in one place, and at one time, and then, and there, not among the Gentiles neither. Which could be no other but the daily sacrifice of the Masse; which is, and ever was, from East, to West, a pure and daily sacrifice. Luke 22. 19. This is my body, which is given for you, not to you: therefore a sacrifice. The Fathers are of this opinion.

Answ. That Christ is offered up in the Eucharist a Sacrifice truly and properly so called, Protestants have good cause to deny. For the Eucharist is a Sacrament, to be received by us; not a sacrifice, to be offered unto God. Christ instituting the Sacrament, gave it to his Disciples; hee did not offer up him­selfe as then unto his Father. The Scripture tells us, that Wee are sanctified through the offering of the Body of Iesus Christ once for all. Heb. 10. 10. And immediately after there it followes, that whereas the Leviticall Priests did often offer the same sacri­fices, Christ having offered one Sacrifice for sinnes, for ever sate down on the right hand of God. And Heb. 9. 25, 26, 27, 28. the Apostle proves that Christ was not to be offered often, because his of­fering was his suffering; so that if hee should have been offered often, then he should also have suffered often. But (saith he) as it is appointed unto men to die once, &c. So Christ was once of­fered, &c. Bellarmine also averres, that un­to a true sacrifice it is required, that the thing, Ad verum sacrificium requiritur, ut id quod offertur Deo in sacrificium, planè destruatur, id est, ita mutetur, ut desinat esse id, quod antè erat. Bell. de Miss. lib. 1. cap. 2. which is offered unto God for a sacrifice, be plainly destroyed, that is, that it cease to be what it was before. So that if Christ bee offered up in the Eucharist, a true and proper Sa­crifice, then hee must be destroyed, hee must cease to be what he was before. Whether or no it be blasphemy to affirme this of Christ, let all judge.

Bellarmine indeed afterward indeavours to answer this argument; Let us see what he Hostiam, quae offertur, occidi & mactari necesse est: Ergo si Christus singulis Missis sacrificatur, eum singulis momentis mille in locis cru­deliter interfici oportet.—Respon­deo, Sacrificium Missae esse verissi­mum sacrificium, & tamen non exi­gere veram hostiae occisionem. Solùm enim occisio requiritur in oblatione rei viventis, & quae in formâ rei viventis offertur, ut cum offeruntur agni, vituli, aves, & similia, quorum destructio in morte consistit. At cum forma sacrificii est rei inanimae, ut Panis, Vini, Thuris, & similium, non potest requiri occisio, sed solum consumptio rei illi conveniens. In Missâ igitur offertur quidem Christus, qui est res vivens, & offertur in formâ rei viventis, quantum ad repraesenta­tionem, ubi solum requiritur mors Repraesentata, non autem mors reip­sà: sed ut est sacrificum reale, & propriè dictum, offertur in formâ panis & vini, juxta ordinē Melchisedech, & proinde in formâ rei inanimae.—Quarè consumptio hujus sacrificii non debet esse occisio, sed manducatio. Bell. de Missâ. l. 1. c. 25. saith. The argument hee propounds thus, [Page 289] The sacrifice, that is offered, must be slaine. Therefore if Christ be sacrificed in every Masse, he must every moment in a thousand places be cruelly slaine. To this hee answers thus, The sacrifice of the Masse is a most true sacrifice, and yet doth not require the kil­ling of that which is offered. For killing is only required in the offering of a thing that hath life, and which is offered in the forme of a thing that hath life, as when Lambes, Calves, Birds, and the like are offered, whose destructi­on consists in death. But when the forme of the sacrifice is of a thing without life, as of Bread, Wine, Frankincense, and the like, kil­ling cannot be required, but only such a con­suming of the thing as is agreeable to it. In the Masse therefore Christ is indeed offered, who is a thing having life; and he is offered in the forme of a thing having life, in respect of re­presentation, where onely a death representative is required, but not death indeed. But as he is a reall and properly so called sacrifice, he is offered in the forme of Bread and Wine, according to the order of Melchisedech, and therefore in the forme of a thing without life.—Wherefore the consuming of this sacrifice ought not to be Killing, but Eating.

I have rehearsed his words at large, that so his answer may be seene at full. But though there be many wordes, which hee useth, yet it is somewhat hard to know what hee meaneth. Certainly this is a very strange kinde of sacrifice, that he spea­keth of. Christ is offered up a sacrifice both in the forme of a thing that hath life, and also in the forme of a thing that is with­out life. And as hee is offered in the forme of a thing that hath life, hee is onely offered in respect of representation; but as he is offered in the forme of a thing that is without life, hee is really and indeed offered. So that Christ being offered in the forme of a thing that hath life, his death is represented; but he being offered in the forme of a thing that is without life, his [Page 290] death is not represented, and much lesse is it really executed, and yet Christ is so really and properly sacrificed. These things do but very unhandsomely hang together. But whereas hee saith, that the consuming of this sacrifice is the eating of it, I demand, is Christs Body so eaten, as that it ceaseth to be what it was be­fore? If it be not, (as certainly it is not, Christs Body being now glorified, and so free from all mutation) then is it not truly and properly sacrificed, Bellarmine himselfe telling us (as I have shewed before) that whatsoever is truly and properly sacrifi­ced, is so destroyed, as that it ceaseth to be what it was before. To talke here of consuming the species or forme of bread, so that it ceaseth to be what it was before, is nothing to the pur­pose; for they maintaine, that the Body and Blood of the Lord are that sacrifice, Corpus & sanguis Domini sunt id sacrificium, quod in Missâ propriè offertur, & sacrificatur. Bell. de Miss. l. 1. c. 27. which is properly offered and sacrificed in the Masse.

And whereas Bellarmine also speaketh of Christs being offered in the forme of Bread and Wine, ac­cording to the Order of Melchisedech, I desire to know by whom CHRIST is so offered? For either by himselfe, or by the Priest that saith Masse. Not by himselfe; for here we speak of Christs being offered in the Eucharist, which is not admi­nistred by Christ, hee being now in Heaven. Nor by the Priest on Earth, there being no Priest after the order of Melchisedech, but Christ only. Psal. 110. 4. Heb. 7. 15, &c. And thus indeed there is no Priest upon Earth, that is properly so called; and consequently there is no true and proper sacrifice to be of­fered. For every sacrifice presupposeth a Priest to offer it; and such as the sacrifice is, such also must the Priest be; hee must be a Priest properly so called, if it be a sacrifice properly so called. But there is no such Priest upon Earth; there being none (as I have shewed) after the order of Melchisedech; nor yet any af­ter the order of Aaron, for that order is abolished, as all the Leviticall sacrifices are. And of any other order besides these we read not in the Scripture.

Againe, in a sacrifice properly so called, it must be some sensible thing, (as our Ad­versaries Sacrificium est oblatio, &c. quâ res a­liqua sensibilis, & permanens ritu my­stico consecratur, & transmutatur. Bell. de Miss lib. 1. cap. 2. themselves acknowledge) that is [Page 291] offered. But Christ is not sensible in the Eucharist; for by what sense is hee there discerned? And therefore neither is hee there truly and properly sacrificed. Neither was this Doctrine (viz. that Christ is properly sacrificed in the Eucharist) received in the Church of Rome for more then 1100 years after Christ, as ap­peares by the Master of the Sentences, Post haec quaeritur, si quod gerit sacerdos, pro­priè dicatur sacrificium vel immolatio, & si Christus quotidiè im­moletur, vel semel tantùm immolatus sit. Ad hoc brevi­ter dici potest, illud quod offertur & consecratur à sacerdote, vocari sacrificium & oblationem, quia me­moria est & repraesentatio veri sacrificii, & sanctae immolationis factae in arâ crucis. Et semel Christus mortuus est in cruce, ibique immolatus est in semetipso; quotidiè autem im­molatur in sacramento, quia in hoc sacramento recordatio fit illius, quod factum est semel. Lombard. lib. 4. dist. 12. lit. e. & f. Peter Lombard, who propounds the question, whether that which the Priest doth, be properly a sacrifice, and whether Christ be sacrificed daily, or were only once sacrificed. And to this hee answers that, that which is offered and consecrated by the Priest, is called a sacrifice, and an offering, because it it a memoriall, and representation of the true sacrifice, and holy immolation, that was made in the Altar of the Crosse. And Christ died once on the crosse, and was there sacrificed in himselfe; but he is daily sacrificed in the Sacrament, because in the Sacrament there is a remembrance of that which was done once.

Here we plainly see that he determines, that Christ is not pro­perly sacrificed in the Sacrament, but improperly, in that his sacrificing of himselfe upon the crosse is remembred and repre­sented in the Sacrament, which is no more then the Apostle saith, viz. that Christs death is shewed forth in the Sacrament, 1 Cor. 11. 26. And thus Ambrose (as Lom­bard doth cite him) Although we offer daily, Etsi quotidie offerimus, ad recordati­onem mortis ejus fit.—Offeri­mus & nunc, sed quod nos agimus, recordatio est sacrificii. Ambros. apud Lombard. Ibid. it is for the remembrance of his death.—We also offer now, but that which we doe, is a remembrance of the sacrifice which Christ offered. To this purpose also he cites Austine.

Now for the places alledged by the Marquesse, the first, viz. Mal. 1. 11. doth not particularly concerne the Eucharist, but generally the spirituall worship and service, which the Prophet foreshewed should be performed unto God in the time of the New Testament, and which should not be confined and limited [Page 292] to one certaine place, and as the solemne worship and service of God in the time of the old Testament was, but should be per­formed in every place, as well in one place as another. This is that which our Saviour said to the Woman of Samaria, Woman, believe me, the houre commeth, when ye shall neither in this Moun­taine, nor yet at Ierusalem worship the Father.—The houre commeth, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Fa­ther in spirit, and in truth, &c. Joh. 4. 21, 23. S. Paul also to the same purpose, I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, &c. 1 Tim. 2. 8. This is that incense and pure offer­ing, which the Prophet Malachy said should be offered unto God in every place. This incense and pure Offering are the pray­ers of the Saints, Revel. 5. 8. And all spirituall sacrifices, which Christians offer acceptable unto God thorough Iesus Christ. 1 Pet. 2. 5. What is this to prove that Christ is truly and properly sacri­ficed in the Eucharist? It is true, the Iren. lib. 4. cap. 32. Aug. de Civ. Dei lib. 18. c. 35. Fathers sometimes apply that place of Malachy to the Sacrament of the Eucharist; but not as if Christ were there in that Sacrament truly and properly sacrificed, nor as if that place concerned this Sacrament more then any other spirituall worship now to be performed under the new Testament. Irenaeus in one Chapter applies it to the Sacrament, and in the very Et in omni loco incensum offertur nomini meo, & sacrificium purum. Incensa autem Joannes in Apocalyp. si orationes esse alt sanctorum. Iren. lib. 4. cap. 33. next immediately after hee applies it to Prayer. Having cited the words of Malachy, In every place incense is offered to my Name, and a pure offering, immediately hee addes, Now Iohn in the Revelation saith that incense are the Prayers of the Saints. So also Ergò pro­piè nunc ad sacerdotes Ju­daeorum sermo fit Domini, qui offerunt cae­cum & claudū, & languidum ad immolandum; ut sciant carnalibus victimis spirituales victimas successuras. Et nequaquam taurorum hircorumque sanguinem, sed thymiama, hoc est, sanctorum ora­tiones Domino offerendas, & non in unâ orbis provinciâ, judaeâ, nec in unâ Judaeae urbe, Hierusalem, sed in omni loco offerri oblationem nequaquam immundam, ut à populo Israel, sed mundam, ut in ceremoniis Christianorum. Hieron. ad Mal. 1. Hierome in his commentary upon the words of Malachy. Now the Lord directs his speech to the Iewish Priests who offer the Blind, and the Lame, and the sick for sacrifice, that they may know that spirituall sacrifices are to succeed carnall sacri­fices. And that not the blood of Buls, and Goates, but incense, that is, the Prayers of the Saints are to be offered unto the Lord; and [Page 293] that not in one province of the world, Iudea, nor in one City of Iudea, Hierusalem, but in every place is offered an offering, not im­pure, as was offered by the people of Israel, but pure, as is offered in the ceremonies (or services) of Christians. Here it is very ob­servable, that Hierome writing professedly upon the place of the Prophet, to shew the meaning of it, was so far from thinking it to be peculiarly meant of the Eucharist, that hee doth not so much as mention that Sacrament, otherwise then it is compre­hended in those spirituall sacrifices, which hee saith are here spoken of: but as hee saith, that spirituall sacrifices in generall are here signified, so particularly hee applieth the words of the Prophet unto prayer, saying that it is the incense which the Pro­phet speaketh of.

The other place of Scripture, viz. Luke 22. 19. is as little to Bell. de Missâ. l. 1. c. 12. the purpose, though Bellarmine also doth alledge and urge it in the same manner, saying that Christ did not say, Vobis datur, frangitur, effunditur, sed pro vobis, is given, broken, shed to you, but for you. But what of this? Wee know and believe that Christs Body was given, and his Blood shed for us on the crosse, in remembrance whereof according to Christs institution wee receive the Sacrament: but doth it therefore follow, that Christ is properly offered and sacrificed in the Sacrament? The ground Illa verba tem­poris praesentis, &c. Bell. Ibid. of this conceit is, that the word is in the present tense, datur, is given, not in the future, dabitur, shall be given. But this is too weake a foundation to build upon. For Bel­larmine cannot deny, but that in the Scrip­ture Fateor in Scripturâ saepè accipi prae­sens, aut praeteritum pro futuro. Bellarm. Ibid. the present, or the preter tense is often put for the future. And well might it be so here, Christ being now ready to be offered, he instituting the Sacrament the same night that he was betrayed, 1 Cor. 11. 23. the night before hee suffered. And therefore Cardinall At si praesentis temporis verbum, frangitur, in quaestionem quis deducat, animadvertat scripta ab aliis Evange­listis, & cessabit quaestio—Eâ­dem siquidem ratione, quâ illi Evan­gelistae futuram in cruce effusionem sanguinis significaverunt in praesenti, effunditur: câdem ratione Paulus futuram in cruce fractionem carnis Christi significat in praesenti, dicendo frangitur.—Communis autem omnium horum ratio (quarè scil. Dominus Jesus in caenâ expressit fu­turam in cruce sanguinis effusionem, & carnis fractionem verbis praesentis temporis) est ut manifestaret disci­pulis, hujusmodi effusionem, & fracti­onem non distantem tempore, sed tanquam praesentem esse. Et verè lo­quendo de tempore praesenti Gram­matico more, tempus effusionis & fractionis erat tunc praesens, quoni­am jam inchoatum erat tempus passio­nis ejus. Ac per hoc sicut inchoato die potest significari verbo praesentis temporis quicquid fit illo die: ita in­choato jam die passionis ejus, potuit significari verbo praesentis temporis omnis ejus passio. Praesens enim Grammaticè non est instants, sed quoddam confusum praesens. Cajet. in 1. Cor. 11. Cajetan was much more ingenuous then Cardinall Bellarmine. For upon 1 Cor. 11. 23. he notes, that both the Evangelists, and also Paul relating the words of the institu­tion of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, use the present tense is given, or broken, and is shed, because when Christ did institute [Page 294] the Sacrament, though his Body was not yet crucified, nor his Blood shed, yet the crucifying of his Body, and the shedding of his Blood was at hand, and in a manner pre­sent. Yea, the time of Christs suffering (hee saith) was then present, as being then be­gun. And therefore as when the day is be­gun, wee may signifie in the present tense whatsoever is done that day: so the day of Christs Passion being begun (the Jewes be­ginning the day at the Evening) all his Pas­sion might be signified by a word of the pre­sent tense. The present being taken Gra­matically not for an instant, but for a cer­taine time confusedly present. The ancient Writers also have expounded the present tense (used in the words of the institution) by the future.

Heare Christ himselfe (saith Audi ipsum tibi dicentem, quia hic est sanguis meus, qui pro vobis effundetur, &c. Origen. Hom. 9. in Levit. ab ipso Bellarmino citatus lib. 2. Euchar. cap. 8. Origen) saying unto thee, This is my Blood, which shall be shed, &c. So also Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur. Tertull. lib. 3. in Marcion. citat. à. Bellar. de Euchar. lib. 2. cap. 7. Tertullian rehears­eth Christs words thus, This is my Body, which shall be given for you. And even the vulgar Latine Translation, Mat. 26. 28. & Mar. 14. 24. hath it in the future tense, effundetur, and so Luke 22. 20. fundetur, shall be shed: and 1 Cor. 11. 24. tradetur, shall be given.

Now for the Fathers, whom the Marquesse alledgeth as being of their opinion, I answer, the Fathers indeed doe frequently use the word sacrifice, and offering, when they speake of the Eu­charist; but it doth not therefore follow, that according to their opinion there is a true and proper sacrifice offered in the Eucharist. For it is certaine that they doe also frequently use the same words, when they speake of those things which the [Page 295] Romanists themselves acknowledge to be no sacrifices properly so called; even as the Scripture speaketh of the sacrifice of Prayer, Psal. 141. 2. of praise, Heb. 13. 15. of Almes, Heb. 13. 16. of our own selves, Rom. 12. 1. And where the Fathers (as the Marquesse observeth) call the Eucharist an unbloodly sacrifice, they sufficiently shew that properly Christ is not sacrificed in it. For (as Bellarmine himselfe doth tell us) All sacrifices (properly so called) that the Omnia omnîao, quae in scripturis dicuntur sacrificia, necessariò destru­enda erant, si viventia per occisionem, si inanima solida, ut simila, & sal, & thus, per combustionem, &c. Bell. de Miss. l. 1. c. 2. Scriptures speake of, were to be destroyed, and that by staying, if they were things having life; and if they were solid things without life, as fine Floure, Salt, and Frankincense, they were to be destroyed by burning. Besides I have shewed before, by the testimony of Lombard, that the Fathers sometimes expressely speake of Christs being sacrificed in the Eucharist, in that there is a commemoration and remembrance of the sacrifice which Christ upon the crosse did offer for us.

Baptismus est sacramen­tum repraesen­tativum mortis Christi:—Et tamen nulli veterum Bap­tismum sacrificium Deo oblatum unquam appellaverunt. Non igitur ista sola repraesentatio causa esse potuit cur actio Caenae Domini sacrificium appellatur. Bell. de Miss. lib. 1. cap. 2. Bellarmine objects that Baptisme doth represent the death of Christ; and yet none of the ancients doe ever call Bap­tisme a sacrifice: and therefore the representation of Christs death alone could not be the cause why they call the Lords Supper a sacifice.

I answer, doubtlesse Bellarmines reading [...]. Oecum. in Heb. 10. was sufficient to informe him that diverse ancient Writers call Baptisme a sacrifice. Oecumenius upon Heb. 10. 26. saith, that the meaning of those words, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sinnes, is that there is no se­cond Baptisme to be expected. For by sacrifice (hee saith) is there meant the crosse (Christs Sacrifice on the crosse) and Baptisme, wherein that sacrifice is represented. After the same manner, and almost the same words writeth Theophylact upon that place to the Hebrewes.

[Page 296] Chrysost. & ejus sequaces per hostiam intelligunt aut Baptismum, aut potiùs mortem Christi, quatenus in Baptismo operatu. Estius in Heb. 10. 26. Estius also upon the place saith that Chrysostome and his fol­lowers by sacrifice there understand either Baptisme, or rather the death of Christ, as it doth operate in Baptisme.

Sed quaeris quid causae plerisque anti­quorum fuerit, ut Baptismum hostiam appel­laverint, ideó­que dixerint non superesse hostiam pro peccato, quia Baptismus re­peti non potest. Sanè quia in Baptismo Christo commorimur, & per hoc sacramentum applicatur nobis hostia crucis ad plenam peccati remissionem; hinc illi Baptisma translatitie hostiam nuncuparunt, ac post Baptisma semel susceptum nullam hostiam esse reliquam in­terpretati sunt, quia Baptisma secundum non est. Can. Loc. Theolog. lib. 12. cap. 13. pag. 680. Edit. in 8. And Melchior Canus affirmes, that most of the ancients did call Baptisme a sacrifice, saying that there remaines no sacrifice for sinne, because Baptisme cannot be repeated. And he gives this reason why they spake so, viz. because in Baptisme we die together with Christ, and the sacrifice of the crosse by this Sa­crament is applyed unto us for full forgivenesse of sinnes. There­fore (saith he) by a metaphore they called Baptisme a sacrifice, and said that after Baptisme there remaineth no sacrifice, because there is no second Baptisme.

Thus then it may sufficiently appeare, that there is nothing either in the Scriptures, or in the Fathers, to prove that in the Eucharist Christ is offered up unto the Father a sacrifice pro­perly so called, but that both Scriptures and Fathers are a­gainst it.

In the next place, VVe say (saith the Marquesse) that the Sa­crament Page 71. or Orders confers grace upon those, on whom the hands of the Presbytery are imposed: you both deny it to be a Sacrament, not­withstanding the holy Ghost is given unto them thereby; and also you deny that it confers any interior grace at all upon them. VVe have Scripture for what we hold, viz. 1 Tim. 4. 14. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, and with lay­ing on the hands of the Presbytery. So 2 Tim. 1. 6. Stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands. S. Aug. lib. 4. Quaest. super Num. S. Cypr. Epist. ad Magnum. Optat. Mile­vit. the place beginneth, Ne quis miretur. Tertull. in Praescript. the place beginneth, Edant origines.

[Page 297] Answ. That Orders (or the Magis pro­priè deberet vocari Ordina­tio quàm Ordo. Durand. l. 4. dist. 24. quaest. 1. Concil. Trid. Sess. 23. can. 3. Ordination of Ministers) is a Sacrament truly and properly so called, of the same nature with Baptisme and the Lords Supper, they of the Church of Rome do hold, and the Councell of Trent hath denounced Anathema against such as deny it. Chemnit. in Ex. Calv. Instit. l. 4. c. 19. Sect. 28. Protestants on the other side, though they doe not deny but that the name of Sacrament largely taken may be given to Ordination, yet they deny that it is a Sa­crament in that sense as Baptisme and the Lords Supper are Sa­craments. A Sacrament properly so called (as the name is at­tributed to Baptisme and the Lords Supper) is a Signe and Seale of the covenant of Grace, confirming unto us that Christ is ours, and we his; that in him we are justified, and through him shall be saved. Thus circumcision was a Sacrament in the time of the old Testament, a token of the Covenant betwixt God and his people, Gen. 17. 11. a Seale of the righteousnesse of Faith, Rom. 4. 11. So now is Baptisme, Mat. 28. 19. Acts 22. 16. And so the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 11. 24, 25. But thus Ordination is not a Sacrament, not serving to signifie and seale the covenant of Grace, as Bap­tisme and the Lords Supper doe. Calvinus agnoscit Or­dinationem esse verum Sacramentum. Bellar. de Sa­cram. Ord. lib. 1. cap. 1. Quantum ad verum Presby­terii munus, quod ore Christi nobis est commen­datum, liben­ter co loco habeo. Illic enim ceremonia est, primum ex Scriptur is sumpta, deinde quam non esse inanem, nec supervacuam, sed fidele Spiritualis gratiae symbolum Paulus testatur.—Spiritus S. gratiam (Christus) promisit, non ad peragendam peccatorum expiationem, sed ad gubernationem Ecclesiae rite obeundam & sustinendam. Calv. Iustit. lib. 4. cap. 19. Sect. 28. Bellarmine saith, that Calvin doth acknowledge Ordination to be a true Sacrament. But Calvin so grants it to be a Sacrament, as that he plainly shewes it to be no such Sacrament as Baptisme and the Lords Supper are. As for the true office of a Presbyter (or Elder, saith hee) which is commended unto us by the mouth of Christ, I willingly ac­count it a Sacrament. For there is a ceremony, first taken from the Scriptures, and then also such as Paul doth testifie not to be empty and superfluous, but a faithfull token and pledge of spirituall grace. But presently after hee addes, Christ hath promised the grace of the holy Ghost, not for the expiating of sins, but for the right govern­ing of the Church.

Thus much also is yeelded by Chemnitius (whom yet Bellarmine would make to dissent from Calvin) There is Bell. ubi Supra. [Page 298] (saith hee) a promise added, that God will Addita elt promissio, Deum daturum gratiam, & dona, quibus ea, quae ad Ministerium pertinent, rectè, fide­liter & utiliter praestare & exequi possint, qui legitimè vocati sunt. Joh. 20. Acciplte spiritum S. Chemnit. in Exam. give grace, and gifts, whereby they who are lawfully called, may rightly, faithfully, and profitably performe and execute those things, which belong unto the Ministery. Joh. 20. Receive the holy Ghost.

And afterwards againe, This serious prayer (saith hee) used in the Ordination of Ministers, because it builds upon Gods Precept Et haec seria oratio in ordi­natione Mini­strorum, quia nititur man­dato & pro­missione Di­vinâ, non est irrita. Hoc vero est, quod Paulus dicit, Donum, quod est in te per impositionem manuum. Chemnit. Ibid. Si hoc modo intelligatur Ordinatio, de Ministerio verbi & Sacra­mentorum, jamdudum Apologia Augustanae Confessionis nostrarum Ecclesiarum sententi­am declaravit, nos non gravatim Ordinem vocaturos Sacramentum. Et additur ibi, Neque Impositionem manuum vocare Sacramentum gravabimur. Latè enim vocabulum Sacra­menti patere suprà ostendimus. Ibid. and Promise, is not in vaine. And this is that which Paul saith, The gift, which is in thee by the laying on of hands. Hee addes im­mediately, If ordination be thus understood, viz. of the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments, the Apology of the confession at Aus­purge hath long agoe declared what our Churches hold, viz. that we are not unwilling to call Order a Sacrament. And there it is added, neither will we stick to call Laying on of hands a Sacrament. For we have shewed before that the word Sacrament is of a large ac­ception.

Thus Chemnitius; whereby it may appeare, that neither doth he dissent (as Bellarmine pretends he doth) from Melancthon, Bellar. Loc. suprà. citat. the Author of the Apology of the confession at Auspurge, though I have not now liberty to consult that Author. And thus also it appeares, that though Protestants deny Ordination to be a Sacrament of the same nature with Baptisme, and the Supper of the Lord, and that justifying and saving grace is either conferred, or confirmed by it; yet they doe not deny but that it may be called a Sacrament, and that some interiour grace is conferred by it, and that because of those very words of the A­postle, which our Adversaries stand upon, the gift that is in thee by the laying on of hands.

But Bellarmine will easily prove (he saith) that Ordination is a true Sacrament. For Facilè ostendemus Ordinationem esse verum Sacramentum. Nam gratia, quae illi promissa est, non est donum aliquod gratis datum, ut prophetia, vel donum linguarum, sed gratia ju­stificans. Nam imprimis Joh. 20. cum Dominus tribuit Apostolis potestatē remittendi peccata, quae est pars quae­dam sacerdotii, dixit, Accipite Spi­ritum S. non autem vocatur absolutè Spiritus S. in Scripturis donum illud, quòd in impiis esse potest. Praetereà 2 Tim. 1. ubi dixerat Apostolus gratiam Timotbeo per manus impositionem datam, subjungit explicans quae sit illa gratia, Non enim dedit nobis (id est, nobis Episcopis) Spiritum timo­ris, sed virtutis, & dilectionis, & sobrietatis. Bell. de Sacr. Ord. lib. 1. cap. 2. (saith hee) the grace that is promised unto it, [Page 299] is no common gift, as Prophecy, or the gift of Tongues, but justifying Grace. And this he proves by that Ioh. 20. Receive yee the holy Ghost. For that gift which may be in the ungodly, is never (hee saith) in the Scrip­tures called absolutely the holy Ghost. He addes also that the gift spoken of 2 Tim. 1. 6. viz. which was given to Timothy in his Ordination, was the spirit of love, and of power, and of a sound minde, as it followes vers. 7.

I answer, the places alledged doe not prove that justifying grace is promised, or by promise annexed unto Ordination.

For 1. It is not true, that the gift, which may be in the wick­ed, is never in the Scripture called the holy Ghost. For Acts 19. 6. it is said of some, that when Paul laid his hands upon them, the holy Ghost came on them: yet by the holy Ghost there is meant such a gift of the holy Ghost, as the wicked may receive, viz. the gift of Tongues, and Prophecy: for so immediately it fol­lowes, and they spake with Tongues, and Prophesied.

2. Neither doth it appeare, that the Apostle 2 Tim. 1. 7. doth explaine what he meant by the gift mentioned vers. 6. but having exhorted Timothy to stir up the gift that was in him by laying on of hands, hee addes as a motive to inforce the exhortation, For God hath not given unto us the spirit of feare, but &c. As if hee should say, All true Christians have received this Spirit of God, and more especially all faithfull Ministers: therefore stir up the gift that is in thee, &c. But the end of Ordination is not the justification of the person ordained, but the edification of others for whom hee is ordained. Hee gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastours and Teachers. (Why? for what end?) For the perfecting of the Saints, for the worke of the Ministery, for the edifying of the body of Christ. Ephes. 4. 11, 12.

So Durandus * Sacramentum Ordinis est spirituale medicamentum, non tamen illius, qui Ordinem suscipit, qui jam debet esse sanus, sed communitatis: quia per Ordinem efficitur homo dispensator sacramentorum, Durand. in Sent. lib. 4. dist. 24. quaest. 1. ad 1 m.an acute and learned Schoolemen, saith that the Sacrament of [Page 300] Order is a spirituall medicine, yet not for him that is ordained, but for the people; because by Ordination a man is made a dispenser of the Sa­craments &c.

For the Fathers here objected, there is onely one, viz. Cyprian, that I can punctually answer unto. Hee in the place cited hath nothing (that I finde) about Ordination. He speakes indeed there of imposition of Si habent (scil. haeretici Spiritum S.) cur illic Baptizatis, quando ad nos veniunt, manus imponitur ad acci­piendum spiritum S. Cum jam utique illic acceptus sit, ubi si fuit, dari potuit? Cyrian. Epist. 77. (Edit. Pamel.) ad Mag. hands for the receiving of the holy Ghost; but the imposition of hands there spoken of was not by way of Ordination, but by way of Confirmation, of which I have spoken before. For Cyprian there speakes of laying hands upon all that had beene baptized by Heretikes, when they did returne to the Church, and not of laying hands upon such as did receive Ordination.

The Marquesse himself in the point of Confirmation alledged Cyprians 71. Epistle, and this which he now alledgeth is in respect of the former part of it, of the same subject with that, and the rest that follow, as Pamelius noteth in the Ar­gument of the Epistle. The other Fathers Prior pars Epistolae ejusdem est argu­menti cum praecedentibus. Pamel in argum. Epist. 77. ad Magnum. are so cited, that there is no examining what they say, without more labour then the thing is worth, or reason doth require. Austine is cited in his questi­ons upon Numbers, now there are 65 questions upon that book, but which of them is meant, is not expressed. In like manner are Optatus and Tertullian cited, without any mention made of the booke, wherein Optatus hath any thing to the purpose, whereas there are seven Bookes, which hee wrote; or of the Chapter, in which Tertullian de Praescript. speaketh about Or­dination, whereas that Booke of Tertullian hath 53. chapters. Neither doth Bellarimne in this controversie about Ordination Bell. de Sacram. Ord. lib. 1. c. 3. alledge either Tertullian, or Optatus at all; nor Cyprian, but only in a worke, which himselfe confesseth to be none of Cyprians: nor yet Austine in that place, which the Marquesse citeth. But how ever, it is granted, that the Fathers sometimes call Ordi­nation a Sacrament; and so doe Protestants too, as hath beene shewed; though they deny it to be a Sacrament of the same [Page 301] nature with Baptisme and the Lords Supper; and so much (as I have shewed) Durandus himselfe doth acknowledge, making it to be a remedy provided for the spirituall welfare of others, and not of him that is ordained.

To proceede, We hold (saith the Marquesse) that the Priest, Page 71. and 72. and other Religious persons, who have vowed chastity to God, may not marry afterwards. You deny first, that it is lawfull to make any such vowes: and secondly, that those who have made any such vows, are not bound to keepe them. We have Scripture for what we hold, Deut. 23. 2. When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the Lord thy God will require it of thee. So 1 Tim. 5. 11, 12. But the younger widdowes refuse, for when they have begun to wax wanton against the Lord, they will marry, ha­ving damnation, because they have cast off their first Faith. What can be meant hereby but the vow of chastity? or by their first faith, but some promise made to Christ in that behalfe? Otherwise Mar­riage could not be damnable. So all the ancient Fathers have ex­pounded it. S. Aug. de bono viduit. cap. 9. S. Athanas. de Virginit. S. Epiphan. haer. 48. S. Hier. contra Iovin. l. 1. c. 7.

Answ. One thing is here omitted by the Marquesse, which yet we must observe, viz. that they of the Church of Rome hold that Priests and Clergy-men (as they are called) ought not to Marry, and that they restraine them from Marriage, causing them to vow against it. Some of them hold this to be of divine institution; Bellarmine though he likes not that, yet makes it to Ego verissi­mum puto, decretum hoc, quo votum est annexum Or­dinibus, non quidem propriè divinum esse, sed tamen esse Apostolicum, &c. Bell. de Cler. lib. 1. cap. 18. Sanctissimus mos est Romanae Ecclesiae, rationique & Scripturis consentaneus, atque à majoribus acceptus, quo neminem ad sacros ordines admittat nisi caelibem, aut qui de uxoris consensu castitatem suam Deo consecravit. Coster. Encbirid. de Caelib. Sacerdat. Quinta propositio. be an Apostolicall decree, which indeed amounts to as much. Costerus the Jesuite saith, It is the most holy custome of the Roman Church, agreeable to reason and the Scriptures, and received from our ancestors, not to admit any to holy Orders, but him that is un­married, or that with the consent of his wife hath consecrated his chastity unto God.

And the same Author affirmes, that Al­though a Priest finne grievously if hee com­mit Sacetdos si fornicetur, aut domi concu­binam foveat, tametsi gravi sacrilegio sese obstringat, gravius tamen peccat, si con­trahat Matri­monium. Ibid. Nona propo­sitio. Sacerdotibus nullo modo permittenda sunt Matrimo­nia. Ibid. De­cima propo­sitio. Communiter dicitur, quòd pro simplicl fornicatione quis deponi non debet, cum paucissimi sine illo vitio inveniantur. Gloss. in dist. 81. cap. Maximianus. Dicunt hodiè pro fornicatione neminem deponendum, nisi in eâ perduret; & ideo quia hodiè fragiliora sunt corpora nostra quàm olim erant. Gloss. in dist. 82. cap. Presbyter. [Page 302] Fornication, yet much more if hee Marry. And there­fore hee concludes, that Priests are by no meanes to be suf­fered to Marry: Yet they may be suffered to commit fornica­tion; for so the Glosse upon Gratians Decrees tells us, that it is commonly held, that one ought not to be deposed for simple forni­cation. And marke the reason, because (sath hee) very few are found without that fault. And so in another place, They say that now none is to be deposed for fornication, except he continue in it: and that because our bodies are now more fraile then they were in times past.

How well doth this agree with the Scripture, which saith that Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whore­mongers and adulterers God will judge? Heb. 13. 4. But saith Bellarmine, if Marriage be honorable in all, then in those that are neare allied, and in Si conjugia omnium sunt honorabi­lia, etiam conjugia consanguineorum in primo & secundo gradu erunt ho­norabilia; & conjugia adolescentium injussu parentum contracta, erunt honorabilia. Bell. de Cler. lib. 1. cap. 20. those that marry without the consent of their Parents. I answer, Marriage may be, and is honorable in all; and yet not all kind of Marriage. It is lawfull for any to marry, yet not to marry with any; they that marry, must marry in the Lord. 1 Cor. 7. 39.

Bellarmine himselfe approves of Theo­phylacts In omnibus, i. e. in omnibus legitimè conjunctis, quicunque illi sint, &c. Ita Theophylactus in hunc locum, & videtur magis literaliae expositio. Bellar. Ibid. Exposition, viz. that Marriage is honourable in all, that is, in all that are law­fully joyned together, whosoever they be: Now such are all they, whom the Scripture doth not exclude, as it doth not the Cler­gy. Gratian himselfe confesseth that it is Cum ergo ex sacerdotibus nati in summos Pontifices supra legantur esse promoti, non suut intelligendi de for­nicatione, sed de legitimis conjugiis nati: quia sacerdotibus ante prohibi­tionem ubique licita erant: & in orientali Ecclesiâ usquè hodiè licere probantur. Dist. 56. cap. Caenomanensem. but an Ecclesiasticall Law, that forbids Priests to marry, and that before this pro­hibition their Marriage was every where [Page 303] lawfull, and so in his time was accounted in the Easterne Church. Yea hee saith, that many, whose Fathers were Priests, were pro­moted to be Popes; and that they were not to be thought borne of fornication, but of lawfull wedlock.

Non levibus de causis olim adducti fuerunt proceres Eccle­siae, &c.— Contra tamen fatendum est graviter à po­steris esse pec­catum, qui hanc utilem pro tempore con­stitutionem multis in la­queum ver­terunt, &c. Cassand. Consult. artic. 23. Quarè nimis rigidâ & intempestivâ hujus constitution is exactione, gravissima & abomi­nanda in Ecclesiâ scandala exitisse videmus. Nam causae illae, quibus majores ad con­stitutionem hanc faciendam inductos esse diximus, non solùm hodiè cessarunt, sed in contrarium sunt conversae. Nam primùm videmus hoc decreto usque adeò castitatem & continentiam in Christo non confirmatam, ut per illud ad omne libidinis & flagitii genus fenestra aperta esse videatur. Tum res in plerisque sacerdotibus ita comparatae sunt, ut conjugum piarum consortio non modò ad functiones Ecclesiasticas obeundas non impediantur, sed etiam ad earum procurationem adjuventur ab eis: quemadmodum de patre suo Gregorio, & matre Nomiâ Gregorius Nazianzenus testatur. Ibid. Cassander also acknowledgeth it to have beene but a consti­tution of the Church, and that though for a while it was expe­dient, yet afterwards it became a snare to many. He saith, that by the rigid and unseasonable exacting of this constitution, most grievous and abominable scandals are in the church. For that the causes, which moved them in former times to make that constitution, are not onely now ceased, but even turned quite contrary. That by this decree chastity and continency is so far from being confirmed, that thereby a window may seeme to be set open unto all kinde of lust and lewdnesse. And that it fares so now with some Priests, that the society of their godly wives is not onely no hinderance, but it is a helpe and furtherance un­to them in respect of their Ecclesiasticall functions and imploy­ments, as Gregory Nazianzen testifies of his parents.

It remaines therefore (he saith) that henceforth this statute Restat primùm ut in posterum ordinandis hoc statutum re­laxetur, & more veteris Ecclesiae, & huc usque Orientalium Ecclesiarum honesti quoque mariti ad Ecclesiae Mini­sterium admittantur, &c. be released, and that according to the custome of the ancient Church, and of the Easterne Churches unto this day, honest mar­ried men may be admitted to the Ministery of the Church, &c.

There are weighty causes (hee saith) why this constitution should be released. And he cites Panormitan (a Cardinall, and great Sunt igitur hujus constitutionis relax­andae graves causae, &c. Prudenter ita (que) observavit & monuit Panormitanus, Experientiâ docente contrariū prorsus effectū secutū ex lege illâ continentiae, cum hodiè non vivant spiritualiter, nec sint mundi, sed maculentur illicito coitu cum illorum gravissimo peccato, ubi cum propriâ uxore esset castitas. Unde debere Ecclesiam facere sicut bonus medicus, ut si medicina experientiâ docente magis obsit quàm profit, eam tollat. Ibid. [Page 304] Canonist) observing and admonishing, that experience shewes, that a quite contrary effect hath followed by that Law of con­tinency, when as now they doe not live spiritually, nor are pure, but defiled with unlawfull copulation, to their most great sinne, whereas with their own wives they might live chastly. That the church there­fore ought to doe, as a good Physician doth, who if he finde by experience, that the medicine doth more hurt then good, hee will prescribe it no longer.

He goes further yet, and holds that not onely they, who were Sunt autem causae non le­ves, cur hodiè iis quoque, qui jam ordinati, non libidine, sed conscientiâ ducti, uxores duxerunt, & Ecclesiis utiles esse possunt, gratia hujus legis fieri de­beat, &c. Ibid. Posterior error longè gravior est, non solum licere ante Or­dinationem, sed etiam post Or­dinationem, uxorem ducere. Bell. de Cler. l. 1. cap. 19. Cum igitur haec Matrimonii contractio post Ordinationem solo statuto prohibeatur, & ex­empla prisca extent, quae testentur, hujusmodi statuta non tam anxiè observata fuisse, quin ob Ecclesiae necessitatem aliquando relaxata fuerint, quis non concedat in extremâ hâc Ecclesiae necessitate hoc idem hodiè fieri posse?—Cur autem etiam in Ordinatis conjugium hodiè admitti possit, haec ratio est, quòd ex hujusmodi conjugio non modò nulla offensio populi, sed magna etiam utilitas sit expectanda. Nam eò res jam rediit, ut vix centesimum invenias, qui ab omni commercio faeminarum abstineat, populus verò it a affectus est, ut sacerdotis fornicatoris vel concubinarii Ministerium vel prorsus condemnet, vel leviùs aestimet: maritum verò sacerdo­tem aequius ferat, ut cum populo quoque jam notum sit, honorabile esse in omnibus conju­gium, adulteros autem, & fornicatores à Deo judicandos. Ibid. married before, may be ordained, and yet still keepe their con­jugall society, but also that such as are allready ordained, may afterwards marry, and yet still continue their Ministery; though Bellarmine doth call this an errour much more grievous then the other, that not onely before Ordination, but even after Ordi­nation it is lawfull to marry. But surely both Scripture and reason shewes this as lawfull as the other. And to returne to Cassander, hee testifies that marrying after Ordination is onely forbidden by humane statute; and that ancient examples doe shew that such Statutes are not precisely observed, but that when the necessity of the Church doth require it, they are dis­pensed with; and therefore so it ought to be now (hee saith) in this case, there being so great neede of it. And hee gives this reason why they that are ordained should be permitted to marry, because not onely no offence, but much benefit is to be expected by it. For that scarce one of a hundred is to be found, who doth wholly abstaine from women, and the people are so affected, that if a Priest be a fornicatour, or keepe a concubine, [Page 305] they will either altogether condemne his Ministery, or make lesse account of it, and will rather suffer a Priest that is married, it being now known even to the people, that Marriage is honorable in all, and that Whore-mongers and Adulterers God will judge. Wherefore (he saith) if ever it were time to change an ancient Quarè si un­quam tempus fuit antiquae alicujus con­suetudinis im­mutandae, certè haec tempora hujus quamvis prisci moris immutationem aliquam effla­gitate viden­tur, cum optimi quique, & religiosissimi sacerdotes, infirmitatem suam agnoscentes, & perpetuae scortationis faeditatem exhorrescentes, si publice non audent, certè privatim conjugium ineunt, &c. Cum igitur hoc tempore, eò necessitatis res propemodum redacta sit, ut aut conjugatus, aut concubinarius sacerdos sit admittendus, quis non videt, etiamsi quid in hoc conjugio sit in­commodi, minoris mali ratione potius esse eligendum? Ibid. custome, then certainly these times call for a change of this custome, though it be ancient, when as all most good and reli­gious Priests, acknowledging their weakenesse, and abhorring the filthinesse of continuall Fornication, if they dare not doe it publikly, yet privately doe marry. Hee concludes, that the matter being brought almost to this, that a Priest must either be married, or have a concubine, every one must needs see, that though there be some inconvenience in this Marriage, yet it is to be chosen as a lesse evill then the other.

This was the judgement of Cassander, a man of such note and eminency in his time, that two Emperours, viz. Ferdinand the first, and Maximilian the second, made choyce of him above all, as a man most meete to compose (if it might be) the differences betwixt Protestants and them of the Church of Rome.

Now whereas the Marquesse saith, that Protestants hold it unlawfull to make vowes of chastity; it is true, such vowes of chastity as are made & maintained in the Church of Rome, which (as hath beene shewed by the testimony of Cassander) prove snares, and occasions of much unchastity, such vowes (I say) Protestants doe indeed, and that most justly, hold unlawfull. None ought to vow that which is not in his power to performe; this is granted by all. Now it is not in every ones power to live unmarried, nor in the power of any, but to whom God is pleased to give it. I would that all men were even as I my selfe, (saith S. Paul) but every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 1 Cor. 7. 7. And when the [Page 306] Disciples said, If the cause of the man be so with his wife, it is good not to marry: our Saviour answered, All men cannot receive this saying, but they to whom it is given. Mat. 19, 10, 11. And againe v. 12. having said, There be Eunuches, which have made themselves Eunuches for the Kingdome of Heavens sake, hee addes immediately, He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Maldonate though hee would wrest the words another way, yet hee is forced to Ita ferè omnes exponunt, ac si sensus esset, Non omnes, quod dicitis, prae­stare possunt, i. e. uxore carere; quia non omnes castitatis donum habent, sed quibus datum est. Quam inter­pretationem adduci non possum ut sequar, &c. Maldon. ad loc. confesse that generally all do expound them thus, All are not able to performe that which you speake of, viz. to be without a wife: be­cause all have not the gift of continence, but onely they to whom it is given. And though any see no necessity of marrying for the present, yet they know not what necessity there may be of it afterwards; and therefore to vow against it must needes be rash and dangerous. The Apostle bids, to avoide Fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband, 1 Cor. 7. 2. And is it lawfull then for any to vow never to marry, when as they know not but that thereby they shall expose themselves to the danger of Fornication? Even as they of the Church of Rome by their vowes doe, very few being free from Fornication, as I have shewed before by the confession of Cassander, and so of the Glosse upon Gratian. So also againe the Apostle speaking to the unmarried, saith, If they cannot con­taine, let them marry; for it is better to marry then to burne. 1 Cor. 7. 9. But the vowes of chastity which the Romanists speake of, and contend for, presuppose that it is in any ones power to con­taine, and that there is no feare of such burning, as the Apostle speaks of. And whereas the Apostle would not have any under 60. years old to be chosen into the number of widdowes, though without any vow that wee reade of, 1 Tim. 5. 9. they of the Church of Rome allow as well young as old, of both Sexes, to vow to live unmarried.

Estius himselfe upon the place saith, that the Apostle requires that age, because Exigit hanc aetatem, quia in hâc aetate non solet esse periculum incontinen­tiae. Est. in 1 Tim. 5. 9. in that there useth to be no danger of incon­tinency.

[Page 307] But hee addes presently after, that in the Tunc nondum extructa erant mo­nasteria, seu claustra, quibus coer­cerentur faeminae continentiam pro­fessae, ne ad viros evagandi liberam potestatem haberent. Est. Ibid. Apostles time they had no Monasteries, or close places, to keepe Women in, professing continency, that so they might not freely wan­der abroad unto men. I doe easily believe that there were indeed as then no such places, nor yet any such profession neither, excepting such Widdowes as the Apostle speakes of, of whom more anon. But withall I suppose, that although wandering abroad may be an occasion of defilement, as the example of Dinah sheweth, yet walles and barres are not enough to preserve chastity. And howsoever this is nothing to those young Priests, that vow chastity, and yet are not shut up in that manner as their Nunnes are. That to be able to live a single life, is no common gift, and consequently that such a life is not to be so commonly vowed, as now it is in the Church of Rome, diverse of the Fathers doe informe us, though some of them went too farre in this kinde. Hilary speaking of those severall kindes of Eu­nuches In uno posuit naturam, in alterō necessitatem, in tertio voluntatem. Naturam in eo, qui nascitur; neces­sitatem in eo, qui ita factus est; vo­luntatem in illo, qui spe regni cae­lestis talis esse decreverit: cui nos similes esse, si tamen possimus [NB.] admonuit. Hilar. can. 19. in. Mat. mentioned by our Saviour, Mat. 19. saith, that one is so by nature, viz. he that is borne so; another so by necessity, viz. hee that is made so; and the third so by will, viz. he that in hope of the Heavenly King­dome hath determined to be so. And such (hee saith) Christ would have us to be, if (marke that) yet wee be able. Hierome, a man of excellent learning, and of great piety, of all the ancient Fathers seemes most exorbitant, as concerning Virginity; surely in his writings against Iovinian hee expresseth himselfe many times very harshly; as thus, If it be * Si bonum est mulietem non tangere, malum est ergò tangere. Hieron. con­tra Jovinian. lib. 1. Oro te, quale istud bonum est, quod orare prohibet?—Jubet idem Apost. in alio loco, ut semper oremus. Si semper orandum est, nunquam ergò conjugio serviendum: quoniam quoties­cunque uxori debitum reddo, orare non possum. Hieron. Ibid. good not to touch a woman; then it is evill to touch a woman. And againe, What kinde of good, I pray you, is that, which hinders from praying? So hee wrests the words of the Apostle, as if he spake of ordinary Prayer, taking no notice of fasting, which the A­postle joynes with Prayer, 1 Cor. 7. 5. The Apostle (hee saith) [Page 308] elsewhere bids pray alwayes. If wee must pray alwayes, then wee must never doe the office of married persons. For whensoever I render due benevolence to my wife, I cannot pray. And in the same manner againe, If wee must pray alwayes, then wee must al­wayes Si semper o­randum est, ergo semper carendum Ma­trimonio. Hier. Ibid. Vae pregnan­tibus, &c. Non hîc scorta, non lupanaria condemnantur, de quorum damnatione nulla dubitatio est: sed uteri tumescentes, & infantum vagitus, & fructus atque opera nuptiarum. Hier. ibid. Conside­randa vis verbi, Replete terram: Nuptiae terram replent, virginitas paradisum. Hieron. ibid. De Adam & Evâ illud dicendum, quòd ante offensam in paradiso virgines fuerint: post peccatum autem, & extra Paradisum protinus nuptiae. Hieron. ibid. be free from Marriage. And citing those words, Woe to them that are with child. &c. Mat. 24. 19. hee saith, Not harlots and brothelhouses are here condemned, of whose condemnation there is no doubt; but great bellies, and the crying of infants, and the fruits and effects of Marriages. Thus also doth hee wrest that spoken to our first Parents, Bee fruitfull and multiply, and replenish the Earth. Gen. 1. 28. Marriage (saith he) doth replenish the Earth; but virginity doth replenish Paradise. And he saith, that Adam and Eve before they had sinned, were virgins; but after the fall, and out of Paradise, they were Married.

Whereas nothing is more cleare in the Scripture then this, that God did joyne Adam and Eve together in Marriage be­fore the fall, when they were in Paradise. Diverse other such like inconvenient passages hee hath, being carried away with the heate of contention. Yet even Hierome himselfe in that very booke doth shew, that Rectè quidem sentitis, ait, quòd non expediat homini ad caelotum regna tendenti, accipere uxorem: sed dif­ficilis res est, & non omnes capiunt verbum istud, verùm quibus datum est. Hieron. ibid. Noli metuere, ne omnes virgines fiant, difficilis res est virginitas, & ideò ra­ra, quia difficilis.—Si omnes virgines esse possent, nunquam & Dominus diceret, Qui potest capere, capiat: & Apostolus in suadendo non trepi­daret, De virginibus autem praecep­tum Domini non habeo. Hieron. Ibid. to live unmarried, is no ordinary matter, nor for every one to undertake. This (saith hee) is a hard matter, and all doe not receive it, but they to whom it is given. And againe, Doe not feare lest all become Virgins. Virginity is a hard thing; and there­fore rare, because hard.—If all could be virgins, the Lord would never say, Let him that is able to receive it, receive it. Neither would the Apostle be so fearfull in perswa­ding to virginity, saying, Now concerning virgins I have no Commandement of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 7. 25.

[Page 309] And in his commentary upon Mat. 19. Unde & infert, Qui potest caperè, capiat: ut unusquisque consideret vires suas, utrum possit virginalia & pudi­citiae implere praecepta. Der se enim castitas blanda est, & quemlibet ad se alliciens: sed considerandae sunt vires, ut qui potest capere, capiat. Hieron. in Mat. 19. Christ (saith hee) inferres, Hee that is able to receive it, let him receive it; that every one may consider his strength, whether he be able to performe those things that are required of unmarried persons. For virginity of it self is pleasing, and alluring any one unto it; but mens strength is to be considered, that he that is able to receive it, may receive it. It's true, Hierome saith there a little before, that hee that askes it, and labours for it, may receive it: but that must be understood, if God see it to be for his glory, and our good. So is that to be interpreted, Aske, and it shall be given unto you. Mat. 7. 7. And so also that, What things soever yee desire, when yee pray, believe that yee receive them, and yee shall have them. Mar. 11. 24. The Lord will give grace, and glory, as the Psalmist saith, Psal. 84. 11. And so con­sequently he will give all things that have a necessary connexion with grace and glory; such things may simply and absolutely be prayed for. But virginity is not of that nature, and therefore there can be no such assurance of obtaining it, although we pray for it.

Veritas di­cit, Non omnes capiunt verbum hoc. Quod eo in­notuit sum­mum esse, quo denega­vit omnium: & dum prae­dicit quia dif­ficilè capitur, audientibus innuit, captum cum quâ cau­telâ teneatur. Greg. Past. par. 3. admon. 29. Admonendi sunt itaque, ut si tentationum procellas cum difficultate salutis tolerant, conjugii portum petant. Scriptum namque est, Melius est nubere, quàm uri. Greg. Ibid. admonit. 28. Sine culpâ quippe ad con­jugium veniunt, si tamen necdum meliora voverunt. Gregor. ibid. Gregory also saith, that those words of our Saviour, All doe not receive this saying, shew that all are not capable of it; and that it is a thing hard to be obtained. And hee saith, that they that are unmarried, are to be admonished to get into the haven of Wedlock, if they endure the stormes of temptation so as to endanger their salvation. And that because it it written, It is better to marry, then to burne. Indeed hee addes immediately, that it is no sinne for them to marry, if yet they have not vowed that which is better, hee meanes, to live unmarried. But the question is how such could lawfully vow a single life, not know­ing how unmeete they should be for it. And how obligatory such a vow is, wee shall consider anon.

[Page 310] But thus also Utinam magis turrim inchoaturi, sedentes com­putarent ne fortè sumptus non habeant ad perficien­dum. Utinam qui continere non valent, perfectionem temerariè profiteri, aut caelibatui dare nomina vererentur. Sumptuosa siquidem turris est, & verbum grande, quod non omnes capere pos­sunt. Bern. de Convers. ad Cler. cap. 29. Bernard complaining of the incontinency of the Clergy in his time, I wish (saith hee) that they who are about to build a Tower, would sit down, and count the cost, lest they prove unable to finish what they take in hand. I would that they who can­not containe, would be affraid rashly to professe perfection, and to give up their names to a single life. For it is a costly Tower, and a great Word, which all are not able to receive.

Now for the other charge against Protestants, viz. that they hold, that such as have made vowes to live unmarried, are not bound to keepe them; I answer, they hold indeed, that such vowes being made, and tending to the prejudice of a mans soule by exposing him to unavoidable danger of Fornication without using the remedy of Marriage, doe not binde, but are better broken then kept; even as it had beene better that Herod had broken his Oath then that he should keepe it so as for his Oathes sake to cause Iohn Baptist to be beheaded. That of the Apostle holds good in respect of all, To avoide Fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her owne husband. Quantò tolera­bilius tali fuls­set perjurium Sacramento? Amb. Offic. lib. 3. cap. 12. 1 Cor. 7. 2. And that v. 9. If they cannot containe, let them marry: for it is better to marry then to burne. As therefore none ought simply and absolutely to vow a single life, so if they have vow­ed, they ought to repent of their rashnesse, and not to adde sin to sin by keeping their vow whatsoever follow upon it, but ra­ther to marry then to burne with lust, or to commit Fornica­tion. The Glosse upon Gratian tells us, that in every Vow, or Oath, such generall conditions as these are understood, If God will, In omni voto vel Sacra­mento intelli­guntur hujus­modi gene­rales conditio­nes, Si Deus voluerit, si vixero, si potero. Gloss. in Caus. 22. Quaest. 2. cap. Beatus. In malis pro­missis rescinde fidem: in turpi voto muta deretum: quod incautè vovisti, ne facias: impia est promissio, quae scelere adimpletur. Caus. 22. Quaest. 4. cap. In malis. If I live, If I be able. And Gratian himselfe cites that of Isidore, In evill promises breake thy word; in a dishonest vow change thy purpose; that which thou hast unadvisedly vowed, doe not performe: it is a wicked promise, which is performed by wickednesse.

[Page 311] The s