§. 1. The sense of the Euangelist S. Matthew; Chap. 12. v. 32.

1. AMONGEST sondry te­stimonies of holy writt, this one seemed (in mine opinion) to be of singular force; viz. VVhosoeuer shall speake a word against the holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiuen him in this world, nor in the world to come. For as this Text doth imply in the immediate sense thereof, that the Sinne against the holy Ghost shall neuer be forgiuen, so it doth imply farther a distinction of sinnes, some whereof are remissible, and some irremissible: some are pardoned in this world, and some in the world to come.

2. This interpretation is founded vpon a spe­ciall reason; because S. 3.2 [...]. Marke (intreating of the [Page 2] same matter) saieth, that blasphemy against the holy Ghost shall neuer be forgiuen [non in aeternum] and S. Matthew diuideth this space of eternity in­to seculum praesens, & seculum futurum, the world present, and the world to come, as being two seuerall, and distinct parts thereof; so that the same thing is noted by each Euangelist, but con­iunctiuely in the one, and distributiuely in the other.

3. The Protestants deriue this text after an other manner, and say, that S. Matthew is to be expounded by S. Marke, and so the intendment of this Scripture is precisely, and meerely to shew, that the great sinne (being irremissible in an eminent degree) shall neuer be forgiuen.

4. But this simple glosse could yeald me no satisfaction. For though it were the purpose of our Lord to declare that one sinne shall neuer be forgiuen, yet he expresseth himself by such a di­stinction, as doth manifestly inforce the remission of some sinnes in the future life. And foras­muchas S. Matthew dealeth more copiously herein then S. Marke, there is no reason why the first should be contracted by the second, but rather it is necessary to enlardge the second by the first.

5. Neither did it seeme a probable conceit vn­to me (though it be intertayned by many) that our Sauiour did not make a partition of sinnes (some to be remitted in this world, and some in the next) but vsed an exaggeration to shew the irremissibillity of one sinne, as if I should say, A barren woman shall not beare a child neither in this world, nor in the world to come: For though the WORD did speake, Io. 7.46. as neuer man spake (in res­pect [Page 3] of Maiesty, grauity, and power) yet he doth not so decline the accustomed manner of speach, as that he would speake against the rules of pru­dency, and morall vnderstanding; as this speach is, if it be sensed in this manner. And who would not esteeme him to be a ridiculous, and absurd Oratour that should say, This woman shall not beare a child in this world, neither in the world to come?

6. Wherefore seing that the Protestants expo­sition is formed against discretion, and that it is not warrantable by any other parcell of Scripture, which is to be interpreted in this manner, I was fearefull to be intangled by their collusions: and because I would deale vnpartially in a matter of such con­sequence, as this is, I held a very indifferent course, whereby I might not attribute any thing vnto mine owne iudgement, nor yet detract from their estimation; and therefore I remitted this point vnto the decision of the blessed Fa­thers; knowing well, that it is a precept of the Highest, Deut. 32.7. Aske the Fathers, and they shall tell thee; the Ancients, and they shall shew thee: and thus did D. To­by Matthew apply this Text, See D. Humfrey in resp. ad 5. rat. Edm. Campiani. when he flouri­shed in his concionall answere to remooue that disgrace, which Rat. 5. Edm. Campian had fastened v­pon him; and not vniustly, as many men con­ceiue.

7. Besides; since it is the monition of S. 1. Cor. 14.32. Paule, that the Spiritts of Prophetts, are subiect vnto the Pro­phetts, the rule of equity doth prescribe, that in the interpretation of holy writt, the fewest should yeald vnto the most, and the later vnto [Page 4] the former; they also being more competent Iudges to determine a strife, who neuer were Actours (personally) in the contention.

§. 2. The Fathers iudgement of this Scripture.

1. I Was assured by D. Of the Church pag. 170. Field that S. Augustine (I am bold to intreate his leaue to honour Augustine with the name of SAINT, howsoeuer he hath not once vouchsafed in his fower bookes to grace him, or any Father with this glorious title) is the greatest of all the Fathers, and worthiest Deuine, that the Church of God euer had since the Apostles times. Wherefore I was imboldned to rest securely in his excellent resolution, which here ensueth. De Ciuit, Dei l. 21. c. 24. ‘The prayer of the Church, or of godly persons is heard for some men de­ceased out of this world; but yet for such onely as (being regenerated in Christ) did neither liue so ill, that [...] they be made vnworthy of mercy; nor yet so well, [...] that they haue no need thereof. At the resurrection of the dead there shall be some found, to whom mercy shall be granted, that whereas their soules haue suffered Purgato­ry. paynes after death, they shall not be cast into euerlasting fire. Neque enim VERACITER diceretur &c. For it could not be said TRVLY of some men, that their sinnes should not be for­giuen in this world, nor in the world to come, vnlesse there should be some men, who though they are not pardoned in this world, yet they should be pardoned [Page 5] in the world to come.’ So he: in whose profound, and iudicious apprehension, there is a penall estate of soules temporally afflicted after their dissolution from the body, if there be any truth in the holy Scripture it self; which some Protestants haue bene more ready to abiure, then to relinquish their owne preiudicate opi­nions.

2. My second Authour, was that worthy Pope S. Gregory, sirnamed the Great; who as he was deare vnto me for many respects, so prin­cipally, because he was the Apostle of our na­tion; for S. Ber­nard de cō ­siderat. lib. 3. he destinated Augustine to deliuer the faith of Christ vnto the English: and hence our Venerable contrey man Eccles. hist. l. 2. c. 1. S. Beba feareth not to say, though he be not an Apostle vnto others, yet doubtlesse he is so vnto vs, for we are the seale of his Apostleshipp in our Lord. His sentence is this. Dialog. l. 4. c. 39. ‘We must belieue that there is a Purgatory fire before the day of Iudgement, because the Truth doth say, If any man shall vtter blasphemy against the holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiuen him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. In which saying we are giuen to vnderstand, that some sinnes may be released in this world, and some in the next. Quod enim de vno negatur, con­sequens intellectus patet, quia de quibusdam conceditur.’ For that which is denied of one, is conse­quently yealded of the other. So he; whose reason seemed very powerable vnto me in this behalf.

3. My third Authour was S. Isidore (Bishopp of Siuill) a reuerend person, wise, virtuous, learned, and alwayes accepted as an eminent Do­ctour [Page 6] of the Catholick Church. His iudgement is this. De diui­nis officijs l. 1. c. 18. Whereas our Lord saieth, that, ‘ VVhosoeuer sinneth against the holy Ghost, his sinne shall not be for­giuen in this world, nor in the world to come, he doth demonstrate, that sinnes shall be remitted vnto some men in an other world, and cleansed with the fire of S. August. in Psal. 37. calleth it the fire of emendatiō. Purgation.’

4. My fourth Authour was S. Beda, one of the principall ornaments of our nation, and renow­ned in the Christian world for his many, and learned volumes, which are extant at this day. His iudgement is this. Commēt. in Matth. 12. ‘Whereas our Lord de­nieth pardon [vnto him that despayreth] both in this life, and in the life to come, without all que­stion he doth declare, that there is remission of some sinnes after this life. Agayn. Commēt in Marc. 3. Whereas it is said in the Ghospell, that he who blasphemeth the holy Ghost, shall haue no remission in this world, nor in the world to come, we are informed, that some sinnes are remitted in this world, and some in the next. For that which is denied vnto one, is conse­quently granted vnto an other.’

5. My fift Authour, was S. Bernard, whom I did alwayes affect by a secret, and peculiar in­stinct. And though the common prouerbe goeth thus, Bernardus non vidit omnia, Bernard saw not all things, yet that was not otherwise intended of him, then S. Augustine writeth touching an ho­nourable Martyr; ‘ Cyprian saw not all things, that so some more excellent thing might be seene through him.’ And thus they are not abased, but aduanced rather; who though they were men of admirable value, yet they were not exempted from the er­rours [Page 7] of infirmity, attending vpon the condition of mankind.

6. The sentence of S. Bernard is this. Serm. 66. in Cantic. ‘Theis men [viz the Progeni­tours of the Waldē ­sian sect. Henricians &c.] do not belieue that there remayneth a Purgatory after death, but that the soule being separated from the body, doth passe immediatly either vnto rest, or vnto damnation. Let them aske therefore of him that saied, there is a sinne which shall not be remitted neither in this world, nor in the world to come, why he spake thus, if there remayn no forgiuenesse, nor pur­gation of sinne in the world to come?’

§. 3. My reasons to follow the doctrinall expositions of the Fathers (and chiefly where they consent) rather then of ZANCH. LVTH. ZVINGL. CALV. &c.

1. VVHen I had premised theis conside­rations, I could not approoue the censorious, and rash humour of Hierome Zanchy (an Authour, vnto whom I had dedicated no small part of my affection) who De Natu­râ Dei, l 4 c. 4. discoursing lardgely of prayer for the dead, concludeth thus: If the Fathers did intend, that some sinnes are remitted in the next world, which were not remitted in this, we may re­iect them all in this arcicle with a good conscience.

2. For I did conceiue first, that Zanchius (in the multiplicity of his reading) could not be ignorant [Page 8] of the Fathers resolution herein; and therefore his supposition [ if the Fathers &c.] was very friuolous. Secondly I considered, that in this dis­pute, or in the like, I could with greater reason, and better conscience admitt the interpretation of the Fathers, then of any late Professour in the reformed Churches (as they are stiled) and I was induced herevnto for three necessary respects.

3. 1 FIRST; because Iohn Caluin (whom certayn Pinczo­uiens. Ministers in Polonia do gloriously intitle, the Doctour of Doctours, the Diuine of Diuines, who alone is of more value, then an hundred Augustines; and hence it is, that in the lardge Imprin­ted at the Black Fri­ers. Table of Gods faithfull witnesses, he is extolled thus; No man could expound the Scriptures more His cun­ning herein is declared by D. Hun­nius (a Lu­theran) say­ing, that Caluin was an acute In­strument of the Diuell. cunningly then he) renouncing the iudgement of all the Fathers (yea of the first sacred Councell of Nice it self) and concurring with the damned Arrians in his exposition, saieth expresly, Commēt. in Ioh. 10.30. Ego & Pater vnū sumus. Scio veteros abusos suisse hoc loco &c. I know that the ancients abused this place to proue homousia, that is to say, the consubstantiality of the Father, and the Sonne. Wherefore (being so guided by his Spiritt) he geueth the Arrianicall glosse vpon that Text, and saieth, ‘that the Vnity whereof our Sauiour speaketh, is to be vnder­stood of Consent, and not of Essence.’ This rare im­piety in so great a Person (discouered vnto me first of all by D. Caluin. Iudaiz. Hunnius, the Professour in Luthers owne chayre) did treate with me more then two yeares ago (as some of my kindest friends in En­gland can beare me witnesse) to renounce my Al­lobrogian Apostle, and to be suspicious of new in­terpretations; but specially, which concerne [Page 9] matters of doctrine, and faith, as this particular doth. For, it may please you to consider with me, that though the Fathers err sometimes in their expositions, secundum analogiam loci, in respect of the analogy of the place, yet they are syncere, and res­pectiue to preserue the analogy of faith. And where their interpretatiōs agree, we may resolue infal­libly, This is the doctrine of the Catholick Church.

4. SECONDLY, because I saw the strandge muta­bility 2 of Luther himself (whose Ghospell was cast in the mould of a See the Orthodox Confession of the Ti­garines, who com­playn of his incon­stant hu­mours. variable fancy) in his iudgemēt of the Scripture. This is the mā (nay the Angell ra­ther) who is the first moouer of all late Euangelicall spheres. But when he is diuided into his three parts, it will appeare, that he was not the flying Angell mētioned in the 14.16. Apocalyps (as M. de Anti­christo; pag. 324. Gabriel Powell fancieth) but a lying Diuell, as captayn Tom. 2. contra L [...] ­theri Cōfess. Zuin­glius doth no lesse truly, then seuerely chastise him for his false doctrines, & intēperate deportment.

5. First; Martin Initiant, made an earnest protesta­tiō in his publik disputes at Lipsia, & sayd See Ec­kius in Ho­mil. Tom. 3. homil. 4. in die Animae­rum; circa med.; ‘I, who belieue strōgly that there is Purgatory, yea I am bold to affirme, I know that there is Purgatory, am easily perswaded that there is mētiō of it in Scripture.’

6. Secondly; Martin Progredient, was some what chandged from his former self, and now the An­gells feathers beganne to appeare by little, and little. Roffens. contra Luth. artic. 37. I do belieue (saith he) that there is Purgatory, and I do giue mē counsell to belieue it; but yet (o tender hear­ted man) I would haue no man compelled to belieue it; for I find no mention thereof in the Scriptures.

7. Thirdly; Martin Consūmated gaue this incourad­gemēt vnto a rebellious faction; in epist. ad VValdēs VVhereas you deny [Page 10] Purgatory, and condemne Masses, Vigills, Monasteries, Cloysters, and whatsoeuer was erected by this imposture, I approoue you altogether therein. Thus did M. Lu­ther behaue himself in this particular, and thus violently he reiected, what soeuer was distastful vnto his vncertayn, and misguided humour. Wherefore I perceiued now, that though the cen­sure of Zuinglius was very sharpe, yet it was gro­unded vpon equity, whereas he saith, ‘that Tom. 2. cōtra Luth. confess. Lu­ther is a false Prophet; an incorrigible Heretick; an Impostour; Antichrist; a Diuell; a foole; a brabler, and not a Diuine; one, whose bookes contayn nothing els in them, but a manifest oppression of the pure truth, and euangelicall light. &c.’ To which purpose he violated the holy Canon of sacred Scripture, & dispundged the This point is fai­rely aymed at by D. Field pag. 252. epistle of S. Iames with great contempt.

8. My last, and THIRD reason was taken from a consideration of Zuinglius, the first Pa­triarch of our late English Gospell. For he De subsid. Sacrum. ac­knowledgeth, 3 that he was informed by a certayn admonitour (in his sleepe) how in this proposi­tion [Hoc est Corpus meum] the verb est is put for significat; and saith; whether he were VVhite, or Black, I remember not. But In pro [...]m. Caluinist. Theolog. Many he­reticks ha­ue had cō ­trary Di­uells; as Ne­storius, En­ryches &c. Conradus (a great superintendent in Luthers gospell) sheweth that it was a black one; and no doubt but he was of the same colour as those companions were, by whom Luther was attended ( no vulgar Diuells, in his opinion) and ‘they propounded vnto me (saith See Iustus Caluinus, annotat. in praescript. Tertull. cap. 43. Luther) the arguments of the Sacramentaries (to wittt of Zuinglius, Oecolampad. &c.) but I ouer­came them all by the word of the Lord.’

[Page 11]9. Now let any Christian heart vprightly, syn­cerely, and feelingly waigh, whether finding this pride in some, this Diuelry in others (they being the first, & principal maisters in our gospel) and mutuall oppugnation of their owne senses in holy Scripture, I had not reasonable, yea neces­sary, and ponderous motiues to fly vnto the re­ligious, learned, and reuerend Fathers of the Catholick Church, to vnderstand the true sense, and purport of the aforesaid Scripture. They fa­uoured no Arrian heresy, they hated society with Diuells; they were guided by the sanctifying Spirit, and therefore, as I concluded then, so I conclude now; Let my soule rest with them in peace; theis are the men whose sense I will intertayn, rather then the new glosses of theis late Professours. Thus by the validity of this Text, I was led powerfully into the approbation of this doctrine.

§. 1. Triall by the Fathers.

1. MAny learned Protestants conceiue, that the cōtrouersies of theis vnhappy times [Page 12] will be extended without any measure, vnlesse Antiquity be made the vmpire in this quarrell. For the holy Fathers are witnessing Iudges, and iud­ging VVitnesses in this behalf. To this end, and pur­pose D. Lilly (a man of excellent literature) did al­leadge, In a sermon at Oxford within theis few yeeres. and applaud the wise, and necessary pro­cesse of Theodosius (a most Christian Emperour) against certayn insolent, and supercilious here­ticks, whose pride in Neque enim con­similiter singuli de veterum scriptis sen­tiebāt, &c. See Sozom. l. 7. c. 12. & compare this with the Prote­stants case. Citant & ipsi Patres: Deus bone, quâ fide, ete Gregor. de Valent. in analys. Fi­dei; pag. 18. Talis est phrenesis nostrorum Romanista­rum, & eò maior, &c. reiecting the Fathers did seeme a desperate disease; and to be cured rather by sharpe lawes, then by farther dis­pute.

2. For mine owne part; I protest freely from my heart, that I was secured to make a triall of this present cause by the worthy Fathers; being warranted thereunto, not onely by my priuate sense, but much more by the testimony of sondry Protestants, and specially of two, whose names were (sometimes) full of reuerence in my thoughts.

3. The first was D. HVMFREY; whose highly respected answere to Edm. Campian draweth to a conclusion with this sentence. ‘ Thrasilaus in his mad humour tooke all the shippes, which he be­held in the Attick hauen, to be his owne, though he possessed not any vessell. Such is the phrensy of our Romanists, yea greater also, because they see, and yet seing they dissemble, that they are destitute of all defence from the Fathers.’ Thus to cleare him­self from that folly, which Rat. 5. Edm. Campian obie­cteth vnto him, and vnto M. Iewell (his deare Achates) he stretched his stile, vntill it brake into a vast, and notable vntruth.

[Page 13]4. The second was D. FIELD, whose praise is in the ghospell of England; a man, vpon whom the eyes of our Oxford. Vniuersity are cast, as a sans pareill of this age for subtile dispute, and profound science. ‘ VVe reuerence (saieth pag. 148. he) and honour the Fathers much more then the Romanists do &c. Agayn. pag. 204. in marg. Though Luther, and the rest in the beginning did seeme to decline the triall by the Fathers, because the corruption of their writings were so many, as could not be discouered at the first; yet now ha­uing found out by the helpe of so many learned men both of our aduersaries, and amongest our selues (who haue trauailled in that kind) which are their vndoubted workes, and which are doubtfull, or vndoubtfully forged, Not [...]. VVe willingly ad­mitt triall by the Fathers.’

5. Though D. Field doth vntruly alleadge the cause why Luther, Zuinglius, &c. declined triall by the Fathers, and mitigateth their folly with a fayr pretense, that (forsooth) they seemed to do so; yet it was not my purpose then, nor now to employ my thoughts in dismaking the vanity of theis suggestions. It was, and is sufficient for me to consider; that as his assertion concer­ning a triall by the Fathers is playn, so it is coun­tenanced by the authority of him who is the great Metropolitan of our English Church. It pleased your Grace fauourably to approoue theis my poore pay­nes, &c. See the epist dedicat. to the Arch­bish. of Cānt. And therefore, such as professe themselues members of hir society, cannot renounce that position, which in the name of all, and in the authority of the chiefest, is so freely recommended vnto the world.

6. Finally; I concluded with that famous [Page 14] prescription of S. Contra Iulian. Pe­lag. Augustine, saying; ‘let vs referr our selues vnto the Ancients, who were offended neither with vs, nor you: but what they found in the Church, they retayned, and what they learned they taught, and what they receiued of their Fathers, they deliuered vnto their children.’ Thus the question is translated à Iure ad Factum, from the right vnto the fact; for all wise, and ingenious men will easily discerne that (in this case, and many like vnto it) the later which is more cleare, will lead vs vnto the former, which seemeth more obscure.

§. 2. Prayer for the dead is deriued from the blessed Apostles.

1. I Considered that one thing may haue a double proof; to witt, by Scripture, and by Tradition also. And hence it is that the most holy, and most blessed Irenaeus (as he is truly Epiphan. heres. 34. called) con­futeth the Valentinians first by the euidence of Scripture, and secondly by the tradition of the Apostles, but specially in the Romane Church; vnto which (as he Lib. 3. cap. 3. saieth) all Christians must necessarily repayr, because she is of more powerfull principallity then the rest. A poynt very remar­queable by the way; for (vpon my knowledge) it driueth the Protestants vnto many dishonest, and impertinent euasions.

2. I might giue instance in sondry doctrines, which admitt this double proof; and therefore I was desirous to vnderstand; why D. Pag. 240. 241. Field [Page 15] (amongst other particulars) should esteeme it a folly, and an inconstancy in his Romanists to say, ‘that Purgatory is holden by Tradition, and yet it is prooued by Scriptures also.’

3. But forasmuch as I saw that his desire to contradict, doth transport him beyond his rea­son to conceiue, I passed ouer this matter, and I came vnto an other sentence (fitt for my pur­pose) which he affordeth with greater equity, and moderation; viz. Pag. 232. It is not the writing which giueth things their authority, but the worth, and creditt of him that deliuereth them, though but by word, and liuely voyce alone. And; the Papists haue good reason to equall their traditions vnto the written word, if they can prooue any such vnwritten verities. Wherefore it was my desire (vpon the security of such grounds) to find out the fountayn, and origin (at least in the time of the Ghospell) of prayer for the dead. And here diuers testimonies presented themselues vnto me, and specially two, which rested my searching thoughts in good tranquillity, and peace.

4. The First was taken from S. Chrysostome (the principall Father of the Greeks) who in a Homil. 75. ad Pop. Antioch. sermō vnto the people, deliuered this proposition; ‘It was not vnaduisedly decreed by the Apostles, that in the fearefull mysteries [Sacrifice of the Mas­se] there should be a commemoration of the dead: For they knew that the dead receiue great benefit, and vtility thereby.’

5. The Second was taken from S. Augustine; In Instit. who being the chieftayn of Diuines (as Caluin doth agnize) and the hammer of hereticks (as he is confessed by [Page 16] the publick voyce of the Catholick Church) ga­ue me this solid, cleare, and ponderous informa­tion Serm. 32. de verb. Apost.; ‘ There is no doubt, but that by the prayers of holy Church, and by the healthfull Sacrifice, and by almes, the soules of the dead are relieued; that God may deale more mercifully with them, then their sinnes haue deserued. For this (being de­liuered by our Fathers) is obserued by the Vniuersall Church.’

6. Here I considered with my self, that whe­reas Traditions haue a quadruple distinction; first from their Authours, into Diuine, Apostolicall, and Ecclesiasticall; secondly from their Matter, into Do­ctrinall, Morall, and Ceremoniall; thirdly from their Place, into Generall, and Particular; fourthly from their Time, into Perpetuall, and Temporall: that S. Au­gustine doth intreate here of an APOSTOLICALL Traditiō, doctrinall, general & perpetuall. And the rea­sons which perswaded me to conceiue so, were many, but principally theis three, which here en­sue. FIRST, because he doth not say, inuentum, but Tradere tradita (by a perpetual succession) is an infal­lible note of the Ca­tholick faith. traditum; not inuented, but deliuered by our Fa­thers; according to the sweet, and sure prescri­ption of cap. 27. Vincentius Lirinensis in his little, golden booke against the innouation of profane here­sies; 1. Tim. 6. Custodi depositum, &c. Keepe that which is committed vnto thee. And what is this depositum? ‘That which thou hast receiued, and not deuised; that which is brought downe vnto thee, and not brought forth by thee; that, wherein thou art a scholler, and not a maister; a follower, and not a guide, &c.’

7. SECONDLY; because the rule of S. Contra Donatist. de Baptis­m [...] l. 4 c. 24. Augustine [Page 17] (which D. pag. 242. Field himself doth accept) was so cleare, and waighty, that I could not resist the power thereof; viz. VVhatsoeuer is frequented by the Vniuersall Church, and was not instituted by Councells, but was alwayes held, that is belieued most rightly to be an Apo­stolicall Tradition. Such is the custome of Prayer for the dead. For first; It was practised in all ages, and in all places, as the most venerable Authours do constantly, and vniformely teach. Supplications for the soules of the dead, were powred foorth by the Vniuersall Church in de curâ pr [...] mort. cap. 1. S. Augustines time; and the like testimo­nies were affoorded vnto me by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church; namely, S. Epist. 1. It is men­tioned by Concil. Va­sens. 1. c. 6. Clemens the Martyr, in the yeare of our Lord 110; de Coron. Milit. Tertullian in yeare of our Lord 210; who de Mono­gam. prescribeth (ac­cording to the doctrine of the Catholick Church) vnto the wife, that she should pray for the soule of hir husband, to procure his rest, and ease. Secondly; I could not possibly designe any Coun­cell, Oecumenicall, Nationall, or Prouinciall; any Bi­shop, Supreame, or Subordinate, by whom this custo­me was brought into the Church. And here I considered, that heresy doth alwayes spring from some certayn Person, Time, and Place; Vincēt. Lir. and so it is dis­couerable by theis circumstances. But if the Au­thour cannot be specially named (which is a rare accident) yet this was sufficient vnto me, to con­ceiue; that as Catholick Religion implieth three things, viz. Antiquity, Vniuersality, and Consent; so Heresy (being opposite thereunto) implieth ne­cessarily the three contraries, viz. Nouelty, Particu­larity, and Distraction.

8. My THIRD reason to belieue that this is an [Page 18] Apostolicall Tradition, was deriued from the liberal­lity of D. pag. 242. Field himself. VVhatsoeuer all, or the most famous, and renowned in all ages, or, at the least, in diuers ages, haue constantly deliuered, as receiued from them, that went before them (no man doubting, or contradicting it) may be thought to be an Apostolicall Tradition. This rule was very appliable vnto my purpose. For first; I had many pregnant demonstrations, and confor­mable testimonies of the most famous, and renowned in all ages, constantly deliuering this thing, as receiued from them that went before. See the 2. Part; chap. 2. And secondly; I found that no man did contradict, or doubt herein, but such onely, as were damned hereticks, and are so recognized by the publick voyce of the Church. Wherefore I concluded ineuitably (by D. Fields allowance) that Prayer for the dead may be thought to be an Apostolicall Tradition; and Decad. 4. serm. 10. Bullinger himself feareth not to say, that this is the iudgement of the Fathers. Whēce I was compelled to inferre, that D. against D. Bishopp; part. 1. pag. 80. Abbott doth willingly deceiue himself, saying; that Prayer for the dead is a Tradition, and an ordinance of the Church; to which purpose he misinforceth the testimony of Hares. 75. Epiphanius, whereby he would exempt Aërius from the crime of heresy, iustly layed vnto his chardge by S. Hares. 53. Augustine, and many others. Lastly, I was compelled to disallow the groundlesse opinion of de Natu­râ Dei lib. 4. c. 4. Zanchius, and some others, who referr the origin of prayer for the dead, vnto humane af­fection, and imitation of the Gentiles.

§ 3. The mutuall dependency of Purgato­ry, and Prayer for the dead.

1. VVHen I had thus ascended vnto the fountayn of Prayer for the dead, I re­flected vpon my self, and demanded of mine own heart, saying; but what is this vnto PVRGATORY? For that was the issue, vnto which my thoughts did finally incline.

2. Wherefore, for better illustration of this matter, & information of the Reader, I will here lay downe a necessary point, deriued out of the testimonies which ensue in the next section of this chapter; and so you shall clearely perceiue the connexion, and dependency of theis things.

3. Though Purgatory, and Prayer for the dead, are things seuerally distinguished in their nature, yet they are so inseparably tied in their bond, that each doth mutually prooue the other. Prayer for the dead prooueth Purgatory per modum signi, by the way of a signe, or declaration; for it doth presup­pose a penall estate, wherein some soules are affli­cted temporally after this life. Purgatory prooueth the necessity of prayer for the dead per modum cau­sae, by the way of a cause; for we are obliged by the law of Charity to make supplication vnto God in behalf of our brethren of the Church Patient in Purgatory, Qui securi estis de vo­bis, soliciti est [...]te de nobis. S. Au­gust. medi­tat. cap. 24. as they being translated into the Church Triumphant in Heauen, are led by the abundance of their charity, to make inter­cession for vs, of the Church Militant in Earth. [Page 20] Which triple distinction of the Church I did embrace willingly, forasmuch as it was confessed solemnely by Sir Iohn Oldcastle himself; howbeit M. Fox seing that this was no small disreputation vnto the faith of our trayterous Martyr, min­gleth a if any such place [as Purga­tory] be found in the Scrip­ture. few wordes to abate the force of his confession. This poore subtility of Fox is dis­masked in the Part. 2. chap. 9. num. 18. three Conuersions of England.

4. Thus I considered that not the Name, but Thing, and that things, not accidentall, but essentiall were to be inquired by me in this dispute. I ob­serued farther, that men are not the Authours to make, but Expositours to declare their faith. And as we do penetrate more excellētly into the know­ledge of any thing, so we are inabled accordingly to expresse the same in proper, and significant words. For as the imposition of words ariseth from the freenesse of our will, so the aptnesse of their im­position floweth from the clearnesse of our vn­derstanding.

5. Finally; I called vnto remembrance, that the Church of God hath drawen many lardge do­ctrines into compendious names; as Trinity, Sacra­ment, and the like, Thus the doctrine of Homousia, or the cōsubstantiality of the Father, & the Son­ne, Io. 10.30. is really contayned in the holy Scripture [ I, and my Father are one: See before; Chap. 1. §. 3. num. 3. a playn Text; howsoeuer it be Arrianically violated by Caluin] but the word it self was established by the first sacred Councell of Nice. Thus also I saw that (in the opinion of the Papists) the doctrine of Metousia, or Transubstan­tiatiō in the Sacramēt, is implied in the Scripture [ This is my body: which little sentence is distracted [Page 21] by vs Protestants into 9. are no­ted by Bel­larm. de Euchar. l. 1. c. 8. You shall find 84. noted by Claud. de Sainct. in lib. de Euchar. Repetit. 1. cap. 10. many interpretations] but the word it self was confirmed by a 3. Laterā. gene­rall Councell, not inuenting a new faith (for the whole Church past, and present consented there­in) by an audacious decree, but expressing the old by a significant name. For it is iudiciously ob­serued by Part. 1. Serm. pro viago Re­gis Rom. se­cūda parte principali. direct. 3. Gerson (against the innouatiōs of VVick­liffe and Husse) that in the Church we must keepe a certayn forme of speach, and that it is an euill liberty to speake erroneously, and amisse. Wherefore as the holy Councell of Nice did wisely restrayn all men to acknowledge the word Homousia, so the Catholiks in the Ariminian Councell saw (too late) the great inconuenience in leauing men vnto a liberty of speach in this behalf; For the world did sigh (as S. contra Lucifer. Hie­rome saith) and wondered to see it self become an Arrian; not by any hereticall decree (as M. Cathol. doctrine of the Church of England pag. 114. Roger's doth vntruly insinuate) but by permitting such a free­dome, as we Protestants affect; viz. to define [as we see cause] in matters of faith, according vnto the Scriptures; whence they, & we gayn aduantadge to erect our owne fancies.

§. 4. The Ancient Catholick Church in hir Prayers for the dead, in hir Oblations &c. did intend (precisely) to relieue soules, afflicted temporally in a penall estate.

1. VVHen I had thus deriued prayer for the dead by a perpetual line frō the holy Apostles, I proceeded farther to examine the pur­pose, & intēdmēt of the Catholick Church in this religious act; for I could not cōtent my self with [Page 22] this simple glosse of Tom. 1. Epicher. de Canou [...] Missa. Zuinglius; viz: If it be so as Augustine, and Chrysostome affirme, that prayer for the dead is referred vnto the Apostles, I think that the Apostles did onely permitt it vnto the infirmity of some Chri­stians, &c.

2. This seemed vnto me an heathenish eua­sion, and iniurious vnto the syncerity of the Apo­stles. Besides; was Aërius the onely man, filled with the spirit, to impugne this thing, which suffered no contradiction vnto his time? Wherefore ha­uing many reasons to amandate Zuinglius with his black admonitour, I repayred vnto them who were of more candid, and honourable disposi­tion. And here I singled foorth two Fathers, the one of the Greek Church, the other of the Latin; esteeming this a sure, and conuenable meanes to leade me into a solid apprehension of the truth.

3. The FIRST was S. Cateches. mystagog. 5. Cyrill Arch-bishopp of Hierusalem; who, in his instructions of the peo­ple (whom he was carefull to informe herein ac­cording to the simplicity of the Catholick faith) hath this ponderous, and effectuall sentēce: ‘When we offer vp the Sacrifice [commonly knowen by the name of Masse; a thing which should not be in­grate vnto vs Englishmen, See Beda in his Eccles. histor. lib. 1. c. 26. forasmuch as it was a part of that Christian faith, which we receiued in our first conuersion] we make mention of all them, who are fallen asleepe before vs. First of the Patriarchs, Apostles, and Martyrs, that God by their intercession may receiue our prayers. Then we pray for our deceased Fathers, and Bishoppes, and fi­nally for all men departed amongst vs (viz. in the See S. Au­gust. de cu­ra pro mort. c. 4. Catholick communiō) For we belieue that this is a ve­ry [Page 23] great helpe for the soules of them, in whose behalf we offer that holy, and fearefull Sacrifice, which is layed vpon the Altar.’

4. A powerable testimony. But he goeth yet farther, and saieth; ‘ VVe offer vp Christ once slayn for our sinnes, that so we may make him, who is most kind, to be A propi­tiatory Sa­crifice. propitious, and mercifull vnto the quick and dead.’ This is one of those deadly heresies (as M. de Anti­christo, pag. 254. Powell is pleased to affirme) which was deuised by the Pope himself, and a parcell of his Anti-christian doctrine.

5. But as Vincentius Lirinensis testifieth of himself, Contra hae­res. in prae­f [...]t. that he came forth nō tam Authoris praesumptione, quàm Relatoris fide, rather by the fidelity of a relatour, then by the presumption of an authour, so this Catholick Archbishopp (a professed, and zealous enimy of all hereticks, as his owne Catech. 6. circa med. &c. sayings may witnesse vnto vs) propounded this doctrine vn­to his owne flock (whose saluation was deare vnto him) not by his peculiar authority, as being a father of his children, but by the warrant of hir, whose sonne he was, and which is pia mater commu­nis (as S. de curā pro mort. cap. 4. Augustine speaketh) ‘the pious, common Mother of vs all, and prayeth for all the depar­ted, by a generall commemoration.’

6. For this cause he saieth, WE offer; WE pray &c. intending hereby to expresse the custome of the Vniuersall Church, whose doctrine was famous, & renowned in this behalf. And though we Pro­testants do often venditate the priuate conceipts of some, & vayle them vnder the pretēse of a ge­neral cōsent, viz. WE say thus; WE think thus; So D. Mor­ [...]on in Ca­thol. Apol. Part. 1. lib. 1. in quaest. ac descensu Christi ad inferos, pre­tendeth thus: WE cōfesse that Christ wēt [truly] into hell; viz. in soule, as Bellarmine himself doth teach &c. Many such false protestatiōs are vsed by him, by D. Field, and others. As for the vanity of D. Morton herein, it is abundantly refuted by that, which M. Rogers himself de­liuereth in his Cathol. doct. pa. 16. WE do thus &c. (which is a meere toy; for the very [Page 24] nature, and fundation of our Religion is such, that, as euery one conceiueth by his spirit, so he is in trauayle to bring forth his owne Church) yet S. Cyrill, and the religious Fathers were more respectiue in their words; waighing them in the ballance of a good conscience, and a sober heart.

7. Wherefore addressing my thoughts vnto a se­rious meditation of theis things, I beganne more sensibly to discouer, how vainely, and foolishly I had bene terrified by the spectrical names of Pope­ry, Papists and the like (the late inuentiōs of an apo­statical Friar) inasmuch as the best, the wisest, the most learned Fathers, did speake, and write, and practise directly herein, as the Papists [Catholicks; for popery, being translated out of S. Sainted by M. Po­well, de Antich. pa. 68. Luthers lan­guage, signifieth the Catholick religion] do speake, and write, and practise at this day.

8. The SECOND Father, was S. Augustine (I was desirous to seeke after no more, because I was assured that I could find no better) vnto whom I did appeale, as vnto the best, and most faithfull witnesse of antiquity. For so he is approoued by Iohn Caluin himself (and this opened the way vnto the con­uersion of Apol. p. 5. Iustus Caluinus, as he hath testified vn­to the world) how beit, as Suet. [...]o Ner. c. 56. Nero had little respect vnto his Gods, saue onely vnto his Goddesse Sy­ria, and yet he defiled hir idoll with his vrine; so Ioh. Caluin doth frequently make his repayr vnto S. Augustine (with neglect of other Fathers) and yet Instit. l. 3. c. 5. § 10. c. 11 §. 15. l. 2. c. 3. §. 7. &c. he asperseth his name also with no small disgrace. But resting my self vpon that commen­dation, which it pleaseth Iohn Caluin in his liberal­lity to affoord vnto S. Augustine, I referred the [Page 25] matter vnto his exact decision; knowing well, that his ability to conceiue, and fidelity to relate the truth, were sufficient to put an end vnto my laborious disquisition thereof; and specially, be­cause that wise counsaile, which he gaue vnto his seduced friend, seemed to appertayn also vnto me, viz. De vtilit, credendi, cap. 8. ‘Yf thou art now sufficiently tossed in thine owne opinion, & wouldest finish this tra­uayle, follow the way of the Catholick doctrine, which euen from Christ by his Apostles is descended vnto vs, & from vs shall descend vnto our posterity for euer.’ Which sentence did prepare my heart vnto a serious de­liberation in this particular, forasmuch as I saw, that Prayer for the dead hath descended lineally vn­to the Papists, howsoeuer it is abandonned by our Euāgelicall Churches; whence it followeth clea­rely, either that the Catholick doctrine did not de­scend vnto S. Augustines Church, or els, certainly our Church is not Catholick, which hath renoun­ced that poynt of ancient faith, & many more.

9. Amongest an Oceā of testimonies, which pre­sēted themselues vnto me in S. Augustines workes, I selected two, which I will here tēder vnto your wise considerations. The FIRST was in his Cap. 110. ma­nuel directed vnto Laurentius (and it is repeated in his resolutions which he maketh vnto the Quaest. 2. que­stions of Dulcitius) where he randgeth the dead into three orders. ‘ Some liue so well as that they need not theis helpes [Sacrifice, Prayers, Almes] Some liue not so well, as that they need them not; neither yet so ill, as that they can receiue no be­nefit thereby. Some liue so ill, as that they are made incapable of any such relief.’

10. Now, since there is this triple estate of men [Page 26] deceased, I was driuen perforce to conclude, that the First are in Heauen; the Second in Hell; the Third in some temporall payn. For though S. Augustine doth professe Hypognost. l. 5. this pla­ce is cited by D. Abbot against D. Bishopp; p. 1. pag. 89. To the same effect is a sentence in S. Aug. de peccat. me­rit. & re­miss. lib. 1. c. 28. cited there also by D. Abbot. elswere, that there is no third place besides heauen, and hell, yet I con­ceiued that there are 5. differences in this case. First; because the Pelagian hereticks (against whom S. Augustine doth purposely dispute) assigned a third place vnto children dying without baptis­me; but as S. De Ciuit, Dei lib. 21. c. 16. Augustine teacheth that baptized In­fants suffer not the paynes of Purgatory at all, so he af­firmeth likewise, that De Genes. ad lit. l. 10. c. 15. Infants vnbaptized, are exclu­ded out of the heauenly kingdome &c. and so they suf­fer the payn of losse for euer. Secondly; because the Pelagians place is perpetuall, but Purgatory is tēporall: for though the same space shall alwayes remayn in nature, yet not in the same vse. Thirdly; because the Pelagians supposed place is full of delights, but Purgatory is ful of payn outwardly, howsoeuer there may be great cōfort inwardly, in the security of saluation. Fourthly; because the Pelagians place is on earth, but Purgatory is subterranean, according to the most common, and receiued opinion. Yet I rather followed the iudgement of Dialog. de particulari iudicio ani­mae; cap. 30. See Gerion, Parte 4. serm. 2. de defunct. Dionysius the Carthusian saying, that by ordinary designation, there is one generall place of Purga­tory; but by speciall dispensation of the Iudge, there are many places. And this may be testified by sondry examples in the dialogues of S. Gregory, and other venerable authours. Fiftly; because the Pelagians imagined place is to be after the generall Iudge­ment, and not before; but Purgatory is before, and not after; as S. De Ciuit. Dei. l. 21. c. 13. Augustine witnesseth, saying; ‘ [Page 27] Some men suffer temporall punishments onely in this life; Some after death; Some both now, and then; but yet, before the last, and most seuere Iudgement.’

11. I proceed vnto the rest of S. Augustines for­mer discourse, which hath bene interrupted, as you see, by a pertinent, and necessary digression. As the Offices for the dead are three in number [ Sa­crifice, Prayer, and Almes] so, in reference vnto the estate of men deceased, S. Augustine distinguisheth them into three kindes; Propitiations, Consolations & Thanskgiuings.

12. The application is this. First he saieth; ‘for men very good, theis things are THANKSGIVINGS vnto God; to witt, for their felicity, and ioy.’ And here I remembred the testimony of Haeres 75. Epi­phanius (whom S. Epist. ad Quod. vult D. praefix. Tract. de haeref. Augustine reuerenceth as an holy man, and famous in the Catholick faith; howsoeuer it seemeth good vnto D. Against D. Bishopp. part. 1. pag. 86. D. Abbot. pag 8 [...] per­uerteth the sense of Epi­phan. as though the Church had prayer for the Saints &c. Abbott to iustify Aërius, a damnable heretick, against him) reporting, that when wee make a memoriall of Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles &c. VVe separate Christ from the order of men by the honour, and adoration which we performe vnto him; that is to say, we do not offer thankes for him (as we do for some other men) but vnto him, as being God of equall maiesty with his Father. ‘And thus it is a great honour for the Martyrs (saieth S. Homil. 21. in Act. Chrysostome) to be named in the presence of their Lord. For now [in the holy Sacrifice] Angels stand before him, and tremble in his sight:’ Yea they adore him there (like true Popish I do­laters) as S. De Sacer­dot. l. 6. c. 4 [...]. Chrysostome doth elswhere very ex­cellently declare. A poynt which conuinced me [...] [Page 26] [...] [Page 27] [Page 28] to the full; for I was compelled to renounce all my former Protestanticall expositions As name­ly his hy­perbolizing, &c. of S. Chrysostome, when I was strongly pressed with this testimony [in England] by a learned, & virtuous Priest.

13. Secondly he saieth, that for men very euill theis things are not helpes, but yet they may be some CONSOLATION vnto their suruiuing friends. This particular I found exactly treatised by him in sondry places, & namely in his incomparable work Lib. 21. cap. 24. de Ciuitate Dei, where he maketh this de­mand: ‘If any men haue an impenitent heart euen vnto death, and be not conuerted from enimies into sonnes, doth the Church now pray for such men, that is to say, for the Soules of men thus deceased?’ He resolueth, Some pri­uate men were ledd into an er­rour here­in: but (saith S. Aug.) the Church was not. no; that is not the intention of the Catholick Church. For S. Augustine doth there well obserue, that in this life we pray for all men, and yet we haue a reference (precisely) vnto such, as pertayn vnto the secret election of God. Likewise in prayer for the dead, the Church maketh a S. August. de cura pro mort. cap. 4. generall commemo­ration of all, that so they, who want friends, or kinsmen to performe this duty on their behalf, may be partakers of this benefit, by the meanes of hir, who is the pious, and com­mon mother of vs all. and yet hir purpose in this generall commemoration is restrayned particularly vnto such, as are conceyued to stand in exigence of hir relief. For, of some mens good estate she hath a certayn euidence; of some, a probable reason; of others, a comfortable hope. But if she haue singular, and playn inducements to perswade hir otherwise, she affordeth not this kind of piety vnto incapable persons. And here [Page 29] I remembred a domesticall example (which I had lately read in our venerable contreyman S. Eccles. hi­stor, l. 5. c. 15. Beda) ‘of a certayn Brother, who liued an igno­ble life in a noble monastery, and deceased without repentance: for which cause, no man durst presume to celebrate Masse, nor to sing psalmes, nor to pray for him after his decease.’ Wherefore I conside­red, that though S. Enchirid. ad Laur. cap. 110. Augustine pronounceth thus; ‘Whom theis things do profitt, it is vnto this ef­fect, either that there may be a full remission, or a more tolerable damnation;’ yet he doth not intend, that the soules of Reprobates haue vtility by theis things (for then he should oppose the Ca­tholick Church, whose iudgement he doth often relate to be otherwise; yea he should here also ab­surdly contradict himself within the compasse of three lines: for he saied immediatly before, that theis things are not helpes for mē very euill) but such onely as suffer temporall DAMNATION; for, to want the ioyes of heauen, and to endure the sharpenesse of Purgatory, it is poena Damni & poena Sēsus, though each be for a little time. And thus it is true, that theis things do auayle vnto a full remission, or vnto a more tolerable damnation; because the temporall payn of some soules [in Purgatory] is thereby ei­ther shortened in time, or lessened in degree.

14. Thirdly he saieth, that for mē not very good, nor very euill, theis things are PROPITIATIONS; that is to say, certayn meanes which we adhibit to intreat mercy at the hāds of the souereigne Iudge. They are propitiations, not by the payment of the price of sinne (for that is 1. Ioh. 2, 2. proper onely vnto that bloud, which was of inestimable value) but through [Page 30] application thereof, Mater mea desiderauit memoriam sui ad alta­re tuum fie­ri, vnde sci­ret dispen­sari victi­mam san­ctam &c. S. Augustin. Confess. lib. 9. cap. 13. ministerially by the Priest, and effectually by our Lord; for the first vseth his petition, and the second bringeth his per­formance. This I knew to be the doctrine of the Papists; for thus I found it expressed long since by D. Answ. to M. Iewells challendge; Artic. 19. Harding, our contreyman of great esteeme.

15. Thus farr I proceeded in the First testi­mony of S. Augustine. And though it were cleare, and ponderous (in mine opinion) yet it was in­feriour vnto that, which now ensueth; for I must freely confesse, that it sealed vp my heart, and left no place vnto any farther doubt.

16. The SECOND testimony is this. Serm. 17. de Verb. A­post. See also Tract. 84. in Ioh. The faith­full [because I desired to be in the number of the Faithfull, therefore I was mooued powerfully with this consideration] do know, according to the instruction of the Church [therefore it was not a new, nor a priuate opinion; and this I considered dili­gently with my self] that when Martyrs are recited at the altar of God, this is not done with intention to pray for them (it being an iniury to pray for a Martyr, vnto whose prayers we ought to be recommēded) but we pray for Theis [o­ther] were not knowen to be in the same ac­ctual blisse with Mar­tyrs: other­wise, the Church would haue prayed for thē no mo­re, then she prayed for the Mar­tyrs. other deceased men, whose commemoration is there made. Oh how vnlike a Protestant doth S. Augustine speake, and how much Popery (as the vulgar hath it) is contayned in this little passadge? Where could I find any euasion against so manifest a testimony as this is? Should I renounce the instruction of the Church? It were intollerable pride. Should I say vnto S. Augustine, thou art a foolish Papist, and thou knowest not the instruction of the Church in this behalf? It were a miserable conceipt.

[Page 31]17. This was the secrete dispute of mine owne heart, which now (beloued Contreyman) I present vnto thy Christian view; that so either I may learne by thee, what answere is to be fra­med vnto this difficulty; or els thou mayest le­arne with me to follow the way of that Catholick do­ctrine, which descended vnto S. Augustine, See before num. 8. and vnto the Church in that blessed time.

§. 5. D. Fields collusion in deliuering the sense, and purpose of the ancient Church touching Prayer for the dead.

1. BEing now mightily conuinced in mine vnderstanding, I beganne to compare S. Augustine with D. Pag. 98. D. Field maketh the Ancients speake like Protestāts. Field, who had informed me much otherwise in this particular; deriuing it in this manner. The ancients did name the names of the departed, at the holy Table, in the time of the holy mysteries, and offering of The Sacrifice is Eu­charisticall in respect of our tha­nkfulnesse performed therein vn­to God; but it is Propi­tiatory also in res­pect of his helpe in­treated the­reby for vs. Eucharist (that is, the sacrifice of praise) for them &c. The ancients kept (in this manner) a commemoration of the Patriarchs, Apostles, Prophets, yea of the blessed Virgin, at the Lords table: to whom they did not wish deliuerance from Purgatory (sith no man euer thought them to be there) but if they wished any thing, it was their deliuerance from death, which as yet tyranni­zeth ouer one part of them, to witt, the body &c. Here he quoteth the Liturgy of S. Chrysostome in theis wordes: VVe offer this reasonable seruice, that is, the Eucharist of praise, and thanskgiuing to thee, o Lord, for all [Page 32] that are at rest in the faith; euen for the Patriarchs, Pro­phets, &c.

2. But hauing now attayned vnto some expe­rience of M. Doctours vnfaithfull dealing, I could not suffer my self to be deluded by such pi­tifull cōceipts. Wherefore I directed my thoughts vto theis 4. considerations, which here ensue. FIRST; that it is a vanity in vs Protestants some­times to So doth D. Field here; and Zanch. de Natura Dei l. 4. c. 4. and others. accept this Liturgy, as composed by S. Chrysostome, and sometimes to So doth M. Iewell: & M. Powell de Antichr. p. 235. reiect it (for our owne aduantadge) because we can not iustly in­sist vpon the testimony of any Authour (by way of proof) which we our selues deny to be deliue­red by him. For though it hath force against him that admitteth it, yet it is of no efficacy for him that refuseth it. SECONDLY; that S. Iuuetur mortuus nō lachrymis, sed pr [...]cibus &c. Hom. 41. in epist. 1. ad Cor. Chrysostome did pray, and exhorted others to pray for the soules of the dead; and therefore (in all probabi­lity) his Liturgy, and his doctrine do conspire (substantially) in this issue. THIRDLY; I found, that when the Church offered the Sacrifice of our Lords body for the Apostles, Martyrs &c. it was by way of See Ga­briel Biel, lect. 85. in Can. Missae. thanskgiuing, not of petition; and this was confirmed vnto me by the testimony of S. Augustine; viz. The faithfull do know by the instruction of the Church, that we pray not for Martyrs, as we pray for other men; that is to say, the Martyrs are recog­nized by vs, as Citizens of the heauenly kingdo­me: but we pray for others, as being yet in tem­porall payn, or, at least, conceiued to be so by vs; and thus (to witt respectiuely vnto this end) we make our supplications vnto God in their behalf. Farther; as it is not absurdly deliuered (saieth [Page 33] Parte 1. lect. 2. super Marcum. See Biel. in the afore­said place. Gerson) by the learned Diuines ‘that there is an addition, or increase of accidentall felicity in the Saints,’ so it is not inconuenient, if, in this respect also, we recommend them vnto God in our de­uotions.

3. FOVRTHLY; though D. Field, in his greater wi­sedome, then integrity, doth conceale it (and so the Tempter made his assault vpon our Sauiour; cast thy self downe headlong, for it is written, Matth. 4. He shall geue his Angells chardge ouer thee, that thou dash not thy foote against a stone: but he omitted a principall poynt, viz. that they may keepe thee in all thy wayes) yet S. Chry­sostome in the same Liturgy, doth playnely refute his pretensed exposition of prayer for the dead. For thus he saieth: By the supplication of theis [Patriarchs, Apostles &c.] haue respect vnto vs o Lord; If D. Field will stand vnto this Liturgy (to gather the sense of An­tiquity by it) he must admitt al­so such an exaltation of the bles­sed Virgin, as will hardly stād with his liking. and he ad­deth immediately; Remember all the faithfull departed (who sleepe in the hope of resurrection) and make them to be at rest, where the light of thy countenance is seene.

4. Thus S. Augustine, and S. Chrysostome (if their sayings be fully related, and truly waighed) do hold a iust correspondency herein; and each of them (in the essentiall point) doth follow the in­struction of the same Church. Wherefore though Contra Henric. 8. Luther did basely esteeme of a thousand Augustines, and Cyprians if they were repugnant vnto his iudgement in the Scripture, yet I saw necessary reasons, why I should preferr one Augu­stine before ten thousand Luthers, Fields, and all such, as are exorbitantly caried against the strea­me, and course of the ancient Catholick Church.

§. 6. Reasons, which mooued me rather to belieue, and to follow S. Augustine he­rein, and the Catholick Church in his time, then D. Field, and his reformed Chur­ches. A conclusion of the first Part; with an admonition to all Caluinian Readers.

1. VVHen I had brought my discourse vnto this effect (as you haue alrea­dy seene) I considered seriously in my priuate meditations, that whereas we Protestants make a glorious shew of Antiquity, D. Field. pag. 47. as­sumeth that he will prooue the Papists NO­TES of An­tiquity, &c. to be really the same with ours. Vniuersality, Succession, &c. to iustify our Religion thereby, it would prooue a most ridiculous suggestion, if in this particular it self, we hold not conformity with the ancient, Catholick Church. Here also (by the way) I remembred that S. heres. 53. Augustine registring the heresies of Aërius (in the number whereof is his derision of Prayer, and Oblation for the dead) con­cludeth in the peroration of his treatise, that, ‘whosoeuer maintayneth any of the precedent opinions, he is not a Catholick Christian.’

2. How nerely this censure appertayneth vn­to vs Protestants, the See; boo­ke 2. Part. 1, chap. 2. sequele will declare. Mea­ne while, it may please you to obserue with me, how plausibly, and artificially D. Field demeaneth himself, to escape the pressure of that difficulty, which is to heauy for him to beare. ‘It is most cer­tayn (saieth pag. 98. he) that many particular men ex­tended [Page 35] the meaning of theis prayers [for the dead] viz. then he hath de­liuered be­fore. See §. 5. num. 1. farther, and out of their priuate errours, and fancies, vsed such prayers for the dead, as the Romanists themselues (I think) dare not iustify. And so it is true, that many of the Fathers were led into er­rour in this matter of Prayer for the dead, and not all; as if the whole Church had, FALLEN FROM THE TRVTH, as Bellarmine See. book 2. Part. 1. chap. 3. falfely imputeth vnto Caluin, who saieth no such thing.’

3. Now forasmuch as M. Doctour doth cleare­ly insinuate, that such Fathers, as extended this religious duty [prayer for the dead] beyond the nar­row compasse, which is assigned by Insi. l. 3. c. 5. Caluin, and pag. 98. & 139. himself, did follow a priuate errour, and fancy herein, and that they did fall away from the truth, I was desirous to know (without Lies, Obscuritie, and Circuitions; the best Sanctuaries of our euill cause) either from D. Field, or from any discreete Protestant in Christendome (howbeit I may contract my speach, and say; in Europe; for our new faith hath scarce peeped out of hir confines) whether S. Cyrill of Hierusalem, concurring ab­solutely with the Papists in this point, See before; §. 4. and whether S. Augustine conspiring with him; and whether S. lib. 1. de diuin. offic. c. 18. Isidore consenting with them both [Vnlesse the Catholick Church did belieue that sinnes are re­mitted vnto the faithfull after this life, she would not offer the Sacrifice vnto God, for their soules] & finally, whe­ther all others, ioyning with them herein, fell away from the truth, or not? And if they did, I was desirous to see, what one man there was (besides Aërian hereticks) in whom the truth was visibly preserued?

[Page 36]4. Here I gaue my self vnto a long, and ear­nest meditation; remembring a renowned sen­tence of S. epist. 118. Augustine, who saieth; ‘that, to call any thing in question which is frequented by the vniuersall Church, insolentissimae est insaniae, it is the part of most insolent madnesse.’ Which sentence applying it self clearely vnto my purpose, infor­ced me to conclude, that either S. Augustine was a prodigious asse in his cariadge of this matter, or els, that we Protestants are insolently mad, who partly in the violēt streame of passion renounce the in­struction of the vniuersall Church herein, and partly by sinister interpretatiōs, deriue it against hir knowen intention, expressed so abundantly by hir chiefest Doctours, Consuetudo est optima legis inter­pres. and perpetuated so emi­nently by a continuall succession.

5. Wherefore retiring my thoughts a little, and drawing them from their former meditations, I beganne to speake thus feelingly vnto my soule. Canst thou desire testimonies more graue then theis in respect of the Authours, more perspi­cuous in words, or more effectuall in waight? Where doth S. Augustine contradict this relation, or who did euer contradict him therein? Is Doctour Field a better witnesse, and more to be respected in this decision, then S. AVGVSTINE, who being greatly experienced in the customes of the Vni­uersall Church, hath (in his maturity of iudge­ment) left vnto thee a fayre, and euident prescri­ptiō in this behalf, neuer reuersed by himself, nor impugned by others, hauing also the voyce of all ages (both in doctrine, and practise) for its corro­boration, and strength? Truly if it were so, that in his ignorance, or malice, or some other obliqui­ty, [Page 37] and defect, he had exceeded the purpose of the Catholick Church herein, it is very probable, that this errour could not escape him vnespied in all his diligent Retractations. And if he were so vnhappy, that he had no friēd to informe him for his amendment, yet he could not be so happy, as that no enimy should note it for his disgrace.

6. Now therefore (dearely beloued contreyman) tell me, I pray thee, tell me in the vprightnesse of thy conscience, and in the presence of him who searcheth the heart, and reynes; to whose direction, guydance, and instruction, could I (in this case) committ a poore, afflicted soule (which I should endeauour to saue with care, since Christ died for it in loue) and whom could I follow herein, with more alacrity, and confidence; S. AVGVSTINE, or D. FIELD, with all the troupe of Lutherans, Caluinists, Protestants, Puritans, or others, howsoeuer they are distinguished in name, or diuided in opinion?

7. I saw antiquity in the first; nouelty in the second. I saw fidelity in the first; See the second Booke, Part. 1. vnfaithfulnesse in the se­cond. I saw profound learning in the first; very com­mendable also, but yet much inferiour in the se­cond. And though I perceyued that his owne booke doth iustly afford that censure against him, which is deliuered against Nestorius by a worthy Vincent. Lirinens. cap. 16. Authour; viz. Plussēper admirationis in illo, quàm vti­litatis, plus famae quam experientia fuit; yet I will ra­ther say, that the Bellar­mine is no wayes matchable with Cal­uin, and o­thers, in piety, or learning though he weare a Cardinalls hart. cōparisō, which pag. 149. he is pleased to make betwixt C. Bellarm. & M. Caluin, hath a mo­re due proportion betwixt S. August. and himself.

8. Finally, I considered, that none of the Fathers resisted the first herein; but who doth assist the secōd? The doctrin of the first is now cōfirmed by [Page 38] the practise of that Church, which we phrase a Popish, Antichristian Synagogue &c. but the refor­med Congregation of D. Field hath no resem­blance of theis things. For though Contra Campian. pag. 262. D. Humfrey in his rhetoricall flourishes doth pretend, that in our Colledges we retayn the [ancient] cōmendation of the dead, yet I noted that the differences are many, and chiefly theis three. First; in respect of the PLACE; for the ancient commendation of the dead was at the In preci­bus Sacer­dotis, quae Domino Deo ad eius ALTARE funduntur; locū suum habet com­mendatio mortuorum S. Aug. de cura pro mort. cap. 1. Altar; but we haue none. Secōdly; in respect of the ACTION; for it was in the holy Sacrifice; but we contemne it. Thirdly; in respect of the INTENTION; for it was to relieue the soules of the dead; but we disclayme this doctrine. Besides; since our Zuinglian Communion is such a naked, and con­temptible feast, as See his Confess. Luther himself abhorred, and his disciple Conradus did tremble to behold (for they had a more religious estimation of our Lords Supper, then the Sacramentaries; who de­ride the LVTHERANS, because they absurdly, and super­stitiously attribute a sanctifying virtue vnto the Hoc est Corpus meum. words of Christ; as it pleaseth Decad. 5. Serm. 6. H. Bullinger to speake) I was desirous to vnderstand, how a piece of bread, and a draught of wine, may haue any power, & validity for theis purposes, vnto which the holy See S. Au. de Ciuit. Dei l. 22. c. 8. how one of his Priests, of­fering the sacrifice of our Lords Body in the house of a lay person, deliuered his family from the vexation of vncleane Spirits. Fathers did often referr the sacred Oblation (in the diuine Sacrifice of the MASSE) or how our Zuinglian Communion can be a reuerend, and dreadfull mystery (such, as wherein the holy Angels humble themselues vnto our common Lord) by the offering whereof, the mercy of God is intreated for the Soules of some men, deceased in Charity, and in the Catholick faith? For I must professe, that a serious [Page 39] consideration of theis things wrought a deepe impression in my heart.

9. This was the summe of my DOCTRINALL REASON, branched (as you haue seene) into two Parts; that is to say, deriued partly from Scripture, and partly from Tradition; in both which I fol­lowed the impeachable resolution of Antiquity, and with it I must either stand, or fall. It is my comfort (though it were sometimes my grief) to see, that as Dagon fell on his face before the Arke, 1. Reg. 5. so Protestancy suffereth vtter confusion, when it is presented before the Tribunall of the ancient Church. I deliuer this assertion faithfully, and iustly; I speake the truth in Christ, I ly not, my conscience bearing me witnesse in the holy Ghost. I haue tasted the wines of Caluin, and Augustine; I haue digested both; I haue iudged of both; and out of some ex­perience, which I haue had of both, I am bold to assure you (louing contreymen) who spend your pretious time, and exercise your noble witts in many froathy volumes, that if you will repayr discreetely, and conscionably vnto the blessed Fathers, you shall draw better wine at the latter end, then at the beginning. Then you will clearely dis­cerne, See before; § 1. num. 3. whether Doctour Humfrey had any reason to impute Phrensy vnto his Romanists, or not; then you will ingenuously confesse with the penitent Donatists, See S. Au­gust. epist. 48. and say; ‘ Nesciebamus hîc esse veritatem, nec eam discere volebamus, &c. We knew not that the truth was here, neither would we le­arne it. But thankes be vnto God, who hath taken away our feare, and taught vs by ex­perience, how vayn, and empty those sug­gestions [Page 40] are, which lying fame hath cast out against his Church. &c.’

§. 1. The FIRST Consideration; touching a visible Church.

I Considered First, that God hath promised vnto vs a perpetuity of his Church, both by his Sonne and Ser­uants. For thus saieth his onely begotten; Matth. 2 [...].20. I am with you alwayes, vnto the end of the world.

2. A comfortable saying ô Sauiour Iesus. I [not in body, but in Spirit] AM [yea I will be also; but Before Abraham I am. Ioh. 8.58. thus I expresse my self, because I am eternall, and immutable] WITH YOV [not in your persons onely, but in your succession for euer: and not inuisibly by grace alone, but visibly also in a syncere profession of the truth] AL­WAYES, VNTO THE END OF THE WORLD; my Church shall endure throughout all generations. Thus the promise [Page 42] of God made vnto Dauid (historically) concer­ning his seed, Psal. 88. &c. is referred (mystically) vnto Christ; in whose seed (to witt his Church) it is, & must be absolutely performed.

3. I had yet a farther assurance from God by his Seruants. Ephes, 4.11. For thus saieth S. Paule. He [Christ] hath giuen vs Apostles, Prophets, Euangelists [men of extraordinary vocation in the beginning] Pastours, and Doctours [men of ordinary vocation to the end] for the consummation of the Saints, for the worke of the ministery, for the edifying of the body of Christ, VN­TILL we all meete in the vnity of faith, and knowledge of the Sonne of God, into a perfect man, into the measure of the age of the fulnesse of Christ.

4. This Text of holy Scripture I knew to be diuersly, and preposterously sensed, as well by the M. Cart­wright a­gainst D. Whitgift. Presbyterians against the Formalists, as by the D. Sotelif­fe against D. Kellisō. Protestants against Cath. The first exclude Archbish. & the second (by the same reasō) exclude the Pope. But I secured my self in the true, and genuine in­terpretation thereof, which did infallibly, and clearely demonstrate vnto me theis two poynts. First; that the Church of Christ must perpetually subsist without decay. Secondly; that it must be vi­sibly extant without obscurity, and conceale­ment. For how can Pastours preach the ghospell, and administer the holy Sacraments, where peo­ple are not assembled to that purpose, and gathe­red into a society of faith?

5. As for the example of Eliah, I alwayes estee­med it a lamentable suggestion in this case. For his complaint [ 3. Reg. 19. I am left alone] extendeth onely vnto the kingdome of ISRAELL, wherein he [Page 43] then conuersed, and wherein he (with many others) was persecuted by Iezabell, vnder Ahab, hir infortunate husband. But at the same time, the law was read, the Sacrifice was offered, pure Re­ligion was professed, and protected in the king­dome of IVDAH, vnder Iosaphat a blessed Prince, 3. Reg. 22.43. walking in the good wayes of Asa his father. This Iosa­phat suruiued vnto the 4. Reg. 3.2. coronation of Ioram, the yonger sonne of Ahab; and so the example of Eliah can not be of any force to defend the opinion of many Protestants, concerning the inuisibility of the Church.

6. Wherefore, seing how D. Apolog. Ca­thol. part. 1. lib. 1. c. 14. Morton doth still reinforce this poynt (though cleared sufficiently by sondry Catholicks, euen in the confession of a learned Protestant in England, from whose mouth I receiued this instruction many yeares ago) as though the aforesaid complaint of Eliah pertayned likewise vnto the kingdome of Iudah, I did often, and greatly wonder that such a man, against his owne conscience, should deale so frau­dulently in this behalf. For first he saieth that Lombard doth giue this exposition; viz. ‘When the daughter of Ahab was married vnto The son­ne of Iosa­phat. The yōger sonne of Ahab was called lord likewise. Ioram the king of Iudah, then all the Iewes seemed to be, Idolaters;’ so that Eliah thought himself to be left alone: and vpon this authority of Lombard, the Doctour buildeth his exception against the former an­swere. Now, is this (I beseech you) an ingenious, and honest deportment in the Doctour, thus to presse the authority of Lombard, whom he knew to be singularly mistaken herein, and to err most playnely against the historical euidence of sacred [Page 44] Scripture? Secondly; the Doctour is pleased to co­lour, and cloake the said exposition of Lombard with the name of S. Ambrose; and for this purpose he frameth his quotation in the margent thus; Lombard in Rom. cap. 11. EX AMBROSIO. But I found, that as S. Ambrose hath not one syllable to iustify this exposition in the least degree, so Peter Lom­bard himself doth not assume it frō him, nor once vse his name therein; howbeit both before, and after, he gleaneth vp some sentences from that excellent Father. Is this a faithfull course in a Mi­nister of simple truth?

7. Renouncing the opinion of our Inuisibilists, as an impious, and contemptible fancy, I embraced a position of pag. 19. &c. D. Field, which, though it be min­gled with some corruptions, and vntruths in his discourse, yet, in it self it is very effectuall, & syn­cere. The Church can not be inuisible in respect of Profes­sion: and this Profession is knowen euen vnto the profane, and wicked of the world. Agayn. It can not be, but that they, Apply this rule to the Protestan­ticall Chur­ches. who are of the TRVE Church, must by profession of the TRVTH make themselues knowen in such sort, that by their profession, and practise, they may be discerned from other men.

8. For this cause S. Augustine saieth in a playn, and familiar kind of speach; See the 3. Conuersiōs of Englād. Part. 2. chap. 1. through­out. digito ostendimus Eccle­siam, we shew forth the Church with our fin­gers, in this place, and in that; here she is conspi­cuous, and thus she hath descended vnto vs by a fayr, and spectable succession.

9. Non sic Protestantes, non sic: as for the Protestants, it is not so with them: their Church was hat­ched in corners, and inclosed long in Cymmerian [Page 45] darcknesse. Wherefore, as the good sinfull woman complayned mournfully, saying; Ioh. 20.13. They haue taken away my Lord, and I know not where they haue layed him: so I was inforced to take vp a iust complaynt against all nouelizing hereticks, and say; They haue taken away the Church of my Lord, and I know not where they haue placed hir. They can not assigne vn­to me any persons, time or place, wherein their Sy­nagogue had a resplendent face, and a laudable dilatation.

§. 2. The SECOND Consideration; tou­ching a visible Church free from any damnable errour. The Protestants loosenesse, and confusion in their description of the Church.

1. I Considered Secondly, that this VISIBLE Church can neuer be taynted vniuersally with any errour, and specially if it be such, as ei­ther expressly, or implicitely indangereth the principles of saluation; for, in matters of the necessi­ty of saith, she is freed from the possibility of errour.

2. Hence it is that Part. 4. de Vnit. Grac. Considerat. 6. Iohn Gerson (a man highly See after­ward; c. 3. § 3. num. 4. &c. aduanced by D. Field) prescribeth this ensuing obseruation, as an infallible rule. VVhatsoeuer is determined by the Pope of Rome (together with his gene­rall Councell of the Church) in matters appertayning vnto faith, that is vndoubtedly true, and to be receiued of all [Page 46] the world. For this consideration is founded in the articles of our faith: VVe belieue that there is an HOLY, CA­THOLIQVE CHVRCH, which is exempted from errour in hir faith, &c.

3. As this position was credible with me for the Authours sake, and he vpon D. Fields singu­lar commendation, so I was induced farther, and more strongly perswaded to intertayn it, by the certayn warrant of him, who is TRVTH it self, and promised his Spirit vnto the holy Apostles, with assurance, Io. 16.13. that he should lead them into all Truth.

4. In quality, it is Truth without errour. In quantity, it is All truth, necessary, and expedient for them, or vs, in this peregrinant estate. For as this promise belonged then particularly vnto each Apostle, so it belongeth now generally vnto the whole Church; which, being taken either in hir latitude, as she is diffused ouer the world, or in hir representation, as she is collec­ted into a lawfull Synod, is priuiledged from er­rour in hir doctrinall determinations.

5. And this was clearely imported vnto me in a sentence of S. 1. Timoth. 3.15. Paull vnto his beloued Timothy, whom he instructed how he should behaue him­self in the house of God, which is the ground, and PILLAR OF TRVTH.

6. For howsoeuer it pleaseth D. Pag. 199. The church of Ephesus hath erred damnably in faith. Field to elude the grauity, and power of this Scripture, by restrayning the Apostles sense therein particu­larly vnto the Church of Ephesus, which was committed vnto the Episcopall care of Timothy; yet, as many reasons did preuayle with me to [Page 47] reiect his exposition, so I preferred the authority of S. Commen­t [...]r. ibid Ambrose, saying; that VVhereas the whole world is Gods, the Church is sayd to be his howse; of which [vni­uersall Church] Damasus [the Pope] is Rectour at this day. This Vniuersall Church is the Pillar of truth, sustayning the edifice of faith.

7. Herevpon Prascripe. cap. 28. Tertullian (deriding the hereticks of his time) esteemeth it a base, and grosse con­ceipt in any man to suppose, ‘that the holy Ghost, who was asked of the Father, and sent by the Sonne to be the Teacher of TRVTH, should neglect that office, vnto which he was designed, and that he should permitt the Church to vnderstand the Scriptures otherwise, then he spake by the mouth of the Apostles. And farther. Is it probable (saieth he) that so many, and so great Churches (if they did erre) should erre thus conformably into the same faith?’ VARIASSE debuerat ERROR doctrinae Ecclesiarum. Caeterùm, quod apud multos VNVM inuenitur, non est er­ratum, sed TRADITVM. Errour bringeth variety; but where vnity is, there is the truth. Thus the Churches are many in number, but one in faith; diuided in place, but ioyned in opinion.

8. Mine earnest meditation in this point taught me to lament the confusion of our Protestants, admitting innumerable sectaries, into our vast, and incongruous Church; Fox in Act. & Mon. See the 3. Con­uers. of En­glād. which is a very Chimae­ra, thrust together, and fashioned in specificall dis­proportions. But this was our necessity (hard ne­cessity) and not our choyce, to make such a pitifull delineation of our Church. For whereas we had not any certayn succession, to deriue hir descent, and petigree from the Ancients, we were com­pelled [Page 48] (in this respect) to deale liberally (like good fellowes) and take sondry hereticks, with incom­patible factions, into our society; least by the same reason, for which we exclude others, we should exclude our selues also from the communion of the Church.

pag. 137.9. Hence it is that D. Field (laying the fundation of his Babell) feareth not to say, that the Churches of Russia, Armenia, Syria, AEthiopia, Greece &c. are, and continue parts of the TRVE, CATHOLICK CHVRCH. A position manifestly repugnant vnto Reason, and Authority. Vnto reason; for if truth of doctrine be a Note of the Church (as we defend) how is that a true, Catholick Church, which impugneth the truth, and how is that one Church, which is distracted into many faiths? Vnto authority; for S. de haeres. in perorat. See the 3. conuers. of England; Part. 2. chap. 10. num. 10.15.16.17. &c. Augustine doth constantly affirme, that whosoe­uer maintayneth any heresy (registred, or omitted by him in his Treatise) he is not a CATHOLIQVE Christian; and consequently, no member of that Church, wherein (alone) we haue the promise of saluation. For as our Fides in Christum; faith in Christ must be TRVSTFVLL, liuely, and actiue, by a speciall applica­tion of his merits vnto our selues, so our Fides de Christo. faith of Christ must be TRVE, syncere, and absolute, by a iust conformity vnto the will of God, reuealed by him, and propounded by his Church. And therefore D. Fields Part. 4. de vnit. Grae­corum; considerat. 4. Gerson (intreating of peace, and VNITY in the Church) laboureth to draw all men into a communion of faith; and iudgeth it a great folly in any man to conceiue, that we may be saued in our particular sects, and errours.

10. When I had discouered (by an earnest pro­secution [Page 49] of this point) how naturally, and po­werfully our Protestāticall The Church may erre, Diuers Churches (though erring grosly in faith) make vp one Catholick Church; &c. doctrines conuaigh men into Laodiceanisme, and a carelesse neglect of vndefiled Religion (whence Atheisme must necessarily ensue) I resolued with hearty affec­tion, to vnite my self vnto that Church, which is pure, and single in Religion, wheresoeuer I should deprehend the same. For though I saw that the Protestants religion was false in some things, yet I had great hesitation, and doubt, whether the Papists were true in all: as S. Confess. lib. 6. cap. 1. Au­gustine spake sometime vnto his louing Mother; I am now no Manichee, nor yet a Catholick Christian. And so mine estate (as well as his) might be re­sembled vnto the case of that patient, S. Mark. 8.24. who saw men walking like trees, vntill he had a perfect restitution of his sight.

11. Wherefore resting my self a while vpon a profitable, and sound instruction of Lib. im­perfect. in Gen. cap. 1. S. Augustine; viz. God hath constituted a mother Church, and she is called CATHOLIQVE, because she is vniuersally per­fect, and halteth in Therefo­re, not in this particular of pray­er for the dead. nothing, I referred the successe vnto a future triall; hauing a constant, and vn­chandgeable purpose, neuer to decline, nor vary from this ground, which I haue here presented vnto your Christian examination.

§. 3. The THIRD Consideration; tou­ching the Protestants zeale in con­demning this doctrine of Pur­gatory, and prayer for the dead, as hereticall, blas­phemous, &c.

1. I Considered Thirdly, that this doctrine of Purgatory, and Prayer for the dead, as it is ge­nerally renounced by our Euangelicall congre­gations, so it is seuerely censured by many of our writers.

2. Hence it is that Pag. 79. D. Field himself chard­geth Purgatory with the disgracefull imputa­tion of HERESY; and yet he graceth it so farr, as to affirme, that Augustine gaue occasion vnto this heresy in the beginning.

3. Hence it is that M. Rogers in the Pag. 121.122. Catholick Faith of our English Church, spending his tem­pestuous phrases against the doctrine of Purga­tory, saieth, that hereby the Papists nourish most cursed, and damnable errours; and that Pag. 123. it teacheth vs to be our owne Sauiours.

4. Hence it is, that M. Powell (in his incon­siderate violence) assigning many goodly rea­sons why De Anti­chr. pag. 453 NVL­LVS, NVL­LVS (inquā) PAPICOLA SALVARI POTEST. no Papist can be saued, includeth Pag. 123. the figment of Purgatory in that number. Likewise (in the same kind of precipitation) setting downe 23. De Anti­chr. l. 2. c. 19. blasphemous opinions, deliuered by the Church of [Page 51] Rome against the doctrine contayned in our LORDS PRAYER, he inserteth this particular, viz. Pag. 457. She teacheth, that VVE MVST PRAY FOR THE DEAD.

5. But forasmuch as the glorious Emperour CONSTANTINE ( Great in birth, Greater in victory, and Greatest in Christian Religion; which, till his time, was planted in the conti­nuall effusion of bloud) buylding a magnificent At Con­stantinople. See Euseb. in vita Con­stant. l. [...]. c. 60. Church in honour of the 12. Apostles, did foresee (in his religious prouidence) that the people (mooued with the celebrity of that place) would flow thither, and there pray for him after his decease, whereby he should be partaker of their deuotions for the benefit of his soule, I was de­sirous to vnderstand here briefly by the way, whether this imcomparable Prince (following the instruction of the Catholick Church herein) and whether the Priests, together with the people, supplicating vnto God pro anima Impe­ratoris, for the D. Field talketh of naming na­mes &c. (see before▪ pag. 31) But it is euidēt, that the Catholick Church in hir best age prayed for the SOV­LES of the dead. And this exāple it self is an inuincible demonstra­tion there­of. SOVLE of the Emperour, after his death (as Ibid. cap. 71. Eusebius relateth; who was a reue­rend Bishopp, and in speciall grace with Con­stantine) were guilty of a blasphemous opinion against our LORDS PRAYER, or not?

6. And my desire to receiue full satisfaction vnto this point, was the rather enkindled within me, because our Soueraigne Lord the King (to whom all good Catholicks wish the happinesse of Constantine, in faith imitating his blessed Mother; a true Helena in hir virtues, though not in hir fortunes) made this just de­mand, according to the sublimity of his excellēt [Page 52] apprehension; See the booke of the Conferēce at Hamptō Court; pag. 69. ‘What? is it now come to passe, that we shall appeach Omnes nôrunt Cō ­stantinum fuisse admi­randum in Christianismo &c. Epiphan. hares. 69. CONSTANTINE of Popery, & superstition? If the Crosse in baptisme were then vsed, I see no reason but that we may still conti­nue it.’ Which royall sentence I applied duly vn­to this particular [of prayer for the dead] and how effectuall it was with me, the ingenious Reader may well perceiue, if he will vouchsafe to make a little experience therof in his owne respectiue meditations.

7. I returned speedily vnto my purpose; for I was not willing to eclipse the light of my dis­course with the interposition of M. Powells darke conceipts. Finally therefore remembring that M. CALVIN is the Ipse dixit in the purest Ghospell (in which respect it pleased In a ser­mon at S. Maries Church in Oxon. 4. yeares sin­ce. D. Airay to exhort his Auditours; perswading them very earnestly, and intreating them, that they would by all meanes defend the estimation of M. Caluin; and the rather, because he is the man against whom the And what think you of the Lutheransi doth not D. Hunnius himself beseech God to preserue his Church mercifully from th [...] infection of Caluin? See Caluin. Iudaiz. in fine. Papists do principally bend their forces) I contented my self with his s Eldershippes cen­sure; viz. PVRGATORY is a pernitious fiction of Sa­tan, disgracefull vnto the great mercy of God, euacuating the Crosse of Christ, dissipating, and subuerting our faith; pure, and horrible blasphemy against the bloud of Iesus Christ, &c.

8. Hence it is, that we Protestants haue sen­tenced Purgatory to be an Antichristian Do­ctrine; For And what think you of the Lutheransi doth not D. Hunnius himself beseech God to preserue his Church mercifully from th [...] infection of Caluin? See Caluin. Iudaiz. in fine. he is Antichrist, that denieth Christ to be come in the flesh. And we pretend, that howsoe­uer this doctrine doth not positiuely deny that Christ is come in the flesh, in regard of his [Page 53] Incarnation, and Nature as he is a MAN, Institut. lib. 3. cap. 5. §. 6. yet it denieth the same consequently, in regard of his Satisfaction, and Office, as he is a REDEEMER.

9. In which our specious venditation of reser­uing inuiolated honour vnto Christ, Epist. Ioh. 2. vers 7. I saw that we insist directly in the steppes of Nouatians, Ne­storians, and the like; The first pretended that they (forsooth) did exhibit See S. Ambros. de Poenitent. cap. 2. in initio. reuerence vnto God by their doctrine, inasmuch as they teach that he onely (and no man) can forgiue sinnes; The second could not en­dure that a woman should be stiled the Mother of [their] God. Thus also the infatuated Presbyte­rians glory in their excellent cause, saying; See M. Rogers in the Preface of his Ca­thol. doctr. num. 16. Our controuersy is, whether Iesus Christ shall be King, or no. The end of all our trauayle is to sett vp the throne of Iesus Christ, our heauenly King, &c. Which colourable piety, and popular zeale in ancient, or later He­reticks (aduancing their opinions, as Mounti­bancks extoll their wares) did mooue me vnto a just suspition of their integrity, because S. Cy­rill (Archbishopp of Hierusalem) gaue me this infallible prescription; Cateches. 4. ‘Hereticks hide the ve­nime of their opinions grato nomine Christi, vn­der the acceptable name of Christ.’ And as the dignity, the glory, the exaltation of Christ is the marke, whereat they all pretēd to shoote, so they will take their ayme from holy Scripture alone, Cap. 37. and (as Lirinensis doth well obserue) they spice, and sprinkle their heresies with innume­rable sentences of the word.

§. 4. The FOVRTH consideration; tou­ching the lardge diffusion of this doctrine, receiued by the vniuersall Church. VVhence it followeth, that either Gods PROVIDENCE hath fayled, and that he hath not performed his promise, or that this doctrine of Purgatory is not erroneous.

1. I Considered Fourthly, that this doctrine of Purgatory, and Prayer for the dead (things of mutuall dependency) hath bene spread ouer the face of the See befo­re, pag. 16. & 17. vniuersall Church, both Greek, and Latin.

2. For though I was informed by our D Field, pag. 99. D. Abbot a­gainst D. Bishopp, Part. 1. M. Rogers, Cath. doctr. pag. 120. &c. prin­cipall Authours, that the Greekes neuer intertay­ned this doctrine, yet I found that their sug­gestion was vntrue, inasmuch as the writings of the See after­ward; Booke 2. Chap. 1. §. [...]2. num. 6. Ancient Greeks, and the practise of the whole Church (including them in that gene­rallity) did testify the contrary vnto me, in most abundant manner. And if any prejudice could accrew vnto this doctrine, because it is denied by some men in the Greek Church, a greater inconuenience (by the Force of the same reason) must ensue vnto the doctrine of the Procession of the holy Ghost from the FATHER, and the SONNE, because this is more generally, and earnestly impugned; their heresy also herein being such [Page 55] (if we belieue the Creed of Athanasius, which is accepted by our * English Church, Artic. Re­lig. 8. though sometimes ill expounded) as excludeth men from the possibility of saluation.

3. But whereas my learned Authours do ex­tend the deniall of Purgatory generally vnto the Greeks, they erre, not knowing, See the Cē ­sure of the Orientall Church. or els dissem­bling the truth. For Ieremiah, the Patriarch of Constantinople, in his rescript vnto the Luthe­rans, deliuereth clearely, that the Greek Church prayeth for the dead, with intention to relieue some soules afflicted with temporall payn; and for a more copious explication of his mind, he remitteth them vnto an De fidel. desunct. oration of S. Iohn Damascē, wherein this matter is lardgely handled. For he testifieth, that in the vnbloudy Sacrifice, the Catholick, and Apostolick Church maketh a memoriall of the dead. Why? to relieue their soules. Agayn. God grant me so to fashion my life that I may not stand in exi­gence of theis helpes after death. But if my lyfe be in­tercepted, and cutt of before I can fulfill my duty, God grant that my friends may intreat his mercy on my behalf. And thus S. Chrysostome (the diuine Preacher) speaketh in theis golden words. If in thy life-time thou hast not so exactly composed thy soule as thou oughtest, giue comman­dement vnto thy friends to transmitt their helpe vnto thee, by almes, and oblations.

4. Wherefore I conceiued, that howsoeuer some Greekes, did not, or do not admitt the do­ctrine of Purgatory, precisely vnder this Quis nid haereticus negare au­dehit Tran­substāt, Pra­cess. Sp. Sā ­cti a P. & F. Purgator, quia apud priscos sub talibus NOMINIBVS non com­memoran­tur? Alfons. à castro, contra be­res. l. 8. tit­de Indul­gent. name, & with some other circumstances, yet the Church of Greece (generally) doth retayn the thing it self. And this was farther illustrated vnto me [Page 56] by the confession of the Greekes themselues in the Florentine Councell; for it appeareth by their publick protestation, that they agreed fully with the Romane Church in the essentiall doctrine hereof; howbeit they dissented from hir in so­me points, which are not absolutely pertayning vnto the necessity of faith.

5. Now concerning such as haue denied this doctrine as well in nature, as in name, in sub­stance, as in circumstance, I noted a great diffe­rence in the manner, and course, and reason of their deniall. For some denied it Secondarily, and by way of inference, that is to say, by reason of a precedent errour. Thus the Armenians, & cer­tayn Greekes haue bene devolued into a foolish imagination to conceiue, that the soule hath no sense of ioy, nor payn, vntill hir reunion with the body; and hence it followeth necessarily, that there is no Purgatory after death. Some haue denied it Primarily, and simply; that is to say, not in regard of any precedent errour infer­ring this deniall, but directly, and preci­sely in regard of the thing it self. Thus onely our Aërians, Henricians, VValdensians, and finally we Protestants (issuing from such Progenitours) haue reiected this doctrine, by a violent se­paration of our selues from the visible society of the Church.

6. But forasmuch as theis Henricians, and VVal­densians (in whom we glory; and Catholicks do not enuy vs this honour) were sometimes mem­bers, as truly, and really connexed vnto the Pa­pists, as any other men, and fell away afterward [Page 57] from their communion (as VVickliff also did) I intertayned my self a while in this considera­tion; viz. Since there was a time (yea many hundred yeares) when no VVickleuian, no VVal­densian, or Henrician did appeare; who did then deny Purgatory, & who did then oppose him­self against this heresy, this damnable, and blasphe­mous doctrine (as we call it) for many genera­tions? Wherefore as Tertullian doth excellently say; ‘There was a time when such, Praescript. cap 30. and such heresies were not knowen; Vbi tunc Marcion, vbi tunc Valentinianus? &c. where was Marcion, and where was Valentinian then? It is manifest that they themselues were sometime no hereticks, but that they obserued the Catholick Reli­gion &c.’ So I spake in my secrete thoughts, and sayd; there was a time, when our opinions were not knowen: where was Henricus, or VValdo then? It is manifest that they themselues were sometime no impugners of this doctrine, but that they did meekely, and dutifully obserue it as a part of the true, and Catholick Religion.

7. I proceeded yet a little farther, and consi­dered, that we Protestants could not possibly assigne so much as the shaddow of any one man (our Henricians, and VValdensians excepted) de­nying, or doubting of Purgatory, who was not hereticall in some other doctrine, euen such, as we our selues confesse to bring very great, and eminent danger vnto saluation. And what ad­uantadge, or defence could I take from any heretick, to secure my self in such a case? For if any man did please me in denying Purgatory, [Page 58] yet he did displease me also by some odious, and hatefull opinion, wherewith he was infected: and then I could not find out any true, and Ca­tholick Church, vnlesse I would distill it my­stically out of sondry persons, and compound their simples into one body of Religion. Which though it be such an ignoble, and an vn­godly deriuation of the Church, as tendeth vnto the great contempt, and ignominy of Religion, yea the pure subuersion, and annihilation there­of, yet necessity hath inforced vs Protestants vnto theis paradoxicall fancies; for thus, & no otherwise can we sustayn the essence, and exi­stency of our Church.

8. The conclusion, which yealded it self vnto me out of the former consideration, was this; Whereas there hath bene no visible Church, nor member thereof for many hundred yeares, which was not HERETICALL in an high degree (as our doctrines do clearely import) it 1 followeth, either that the PROVIDENCE of God 2 hath fayled, or that the true Church was inui­sible, 3 or els that the true visible Church may err damnably in faith. None but Atheists will affir­me the first: the learnedst Protestants deny the second; Scriptures, and Fathers conuince the third. Wherefore reflecting vpon our accusa­tion of this doctrine, I saw that it was vniust: and thus I resolued by a powerfull demonstra­tion (issuing from the premisses) that Purgatory is no heresy, nor Antichristianisme (as we pretend with greater violence, then reason) but a parcell of the true, ancient, Catholick, and Apostolick [Page 59] faith, as the Papists do confidently belieue.

§. 1. VVho were the first enimies of this doctrine, & what was their condition.

1. IT is a graue, & waighty testimony which S. Iohn Damascen deliuereth in his Oration concerning them who are departed in the faith. Our mer­cifull Lord doth appoynt (saith he) and gratefully accept our duty in that mutual relief, which we exhibit one to an other, both in our life, and after our decease. For other­wise he would neuer haue ministred this occasion vnto vs to remember the departed in the time of the holy Sacrifice, vnlesse this seruice were approoueable in his sight. Neither is there any doubt, if this were a ridiculous, and fruictlesse act, but that, whereas there haue bene many holy men (Fathers, Patriarchs, and Doctours) inspired with the holy Ghost, he would haue putt it into some of their minds, to represse such an errour. But there is none of them all, no [...] [Page 58] [...] [Page 59] [Page 60] not one, that euer intertayned a conceipt to subuert, or impugne the same.

2. As this laudable custome of prayer for the dead was thus perpetuated without any inter­ruption, opposition, or dislike of the best men in the best age (euen of Constantine himself) so the first enimy thereof [AERIVS] was an insolent, and gracelesse wretch, Anno Dō. 354. a disciple of the Arrian heresy, and such perfidious doctrines; as Contra Campian. pag. 261. D. Humfrey himself doth liberally confesse, though otherwise there are some things in Aërius, which were not distastfull vnto his palate.

3. But this rare illuminate did not contayn himself within theis limits. Wherefore preten­ding a farther accesse of heauenly light (as the na­ture of heresy did incline him; for it is full of va­nity, & Idē licuit Martioni­tis quod Martioni [Luthera­nis quod Luthero] de suo in­genio fidē innouare &c. Tertul. praescrip. cap 42. innouatiō; making poore seduced peo­ple to hunt counter in their owne fancies, and prescribing no certayn rule vnto the instability of their hearts) he vented three peculiar here­sies, deuised, and fabricated in the shopp of his owne brayn. The FIRST: that there is no dispa­rity betwixt a Bishopp, and a Priest. The SECOND: that it is a folly to pray, or offer sacrifice for the dead. The THIRD: that it is against Christian liberty to haue any generall, and appoynted dayes of fasting: for then we should seeme to be vnder the Law. &c.

4. Theis heresies are no small part of the Ge­neuian Ghospell; and therefore I haue obserued it diligently in our Authours (as a very remar­queable poynt) that howsoeuer they corrade, and heape vp sondry heresies, fiercely obiecting the same vnto the Papists, yet they are silent in [Page 61] three; Vigilantianisme, Iouinianisme, and The true Caluinists admitt the 3. heresies of Aërius; as we foe in France, Scotland &c. this Aërianisme whereof I now intreat. For theis are goodly starres in our firmament, and shine most brightly in our Sphere. Notwithstanding my learned Authours do exceede Aërius also, forasmuch as ‘he did not wholly impugne the dreadfull Sacrifice, but esteemed it vnprofitable for the the dead;’ whereas they reiect the thing it self, and this vse of it, with like contempt.

5. This Aërian heresy was extinct, and buried (some few, scattering fellowes ex­cepted) vntill the yeare of our Lord 1156; when it was raised, See after­ward, chap. 3. §. 4. and enliuened agayn by Henricus, a Frenchman (in whom our Pro­testanticall Religion did more spectably reare vp it self, then before) furbishing vp some old ragges of S. Sainted by D. Ful­lees autho­rity in his answ. to the Rhem. Testam. in 1. Timoth. 3. Annotat. 7. Vigilantius, and others, for the resplendency, and completenesse of his ghospell.

6. Nunc audi quis ille sit (saieih Ep. 240. S. Bernard vnto Hildefonse, the Earle of S. Giles) now it may please you to vnderstand, what was the quality, and condition of this Apostle. First, a Monk, and then an Apostata from his or­der. So was our S. Luther, Secondly; a pre­tendent of Apostolicall life. Such sheepebiters were our freese-gowne Preachers, whose do­ctrines enkindled the furious people, See the sta­tutes of King Rich. 2. &c. and sea­soned them with the principles of rebellion. Thirdly; a violatour of Chastity. So was S. Luther; euen M. Po­well de Antichr. pag. 324. Magnus ille Reformator, he our Great Reformer. An example vnknowen [Page 62] to reuerend Antiquity, and reserued vnto our ghospell, that a vowed Monk should conioy­ne himself in mariadge with a professed Nun­ne; which, though it be not adultery, yet peius est adulterio, it is tarr worse, in S. De bono Viduit. c, 11. Augustines censure; howsoeuer D. Field minceth it, and saieth, Pag. 153. Augustine MISLIKETH them that vow, and performe not.

7. Finally; I saw a cōnfluence of impieties in our French Apostle, whether I respected his Religion, or Conuersation. And therefore I could not withstand this iust sentence pronoun­ced by S Bernard, Ibid. saying; Non est hic homo à Deo, qui sic contraria Deo & facit, & loquitur; this man is not sent from God, who acteth, and speaketh things so repugnant vnto his will.

§. 2. God vseth no such instruments to reforme his Church.

1, HEre (inlardging my meditations) I considered more exactly, that the su­preame Maiesty of heauen, & earth, is respectiue of his honour, & the incolumity of his Church; and as it is against his gratious Prouidence, that the Spouse of his Sonne, and the Mother of the faithfull, should suffer a generall, and diuturnall eclipse in hir profession, so now it is farther against his high WISEDOME, that, when she wanteth a due reformation, he should not de­signe honourable, and condigne Instruments for such an excellent purpose.

[Page 63]2. Where is the difficulty, and impediment in this case? Is it in his Prescience, that he cannot foresee what is to come, or is it in his Power, that he cannot effectuate, what he desireth? Not in the First; for I haue his owne testimony by the mouth of Samuell, his prophet, saying; 1. Reg. 13.14, ‘QVAE­SIVIT &c. God hath sought a man according vnto his heart; to witt, Dauid, his seruant.’ What he sought, he found; and yet he found no good thing in Dauid, which was not his owne gift. Not in the Secōd; for I am ascertayned by the Forerunner of my Lord; Luc. 3.2. POTENS &c. ‘God is able, euen of theis stones, to raise vp children vnto Abraham.’

3. And if Caesar could say in the pride of his mortall heart; Inueniam, aut faciam viam, either I shall find a way, or I will make one; did it not concerne the VVisedome of God (to speake no more of his Prouidence; which we Protestants haue already destroyed, by inforcing a damnable errour vpon his vniuersall Church) either to finde out some man already indued with con­uenient gifts, or els to prepare some (in case no­ne were yet adorned by him) to vndertake such a royall, and incomparable work of REFOR­MATION?

4. For how can I suppose, or once imagin (without iniury vnto my Lord, & expectation of his reuendge) that any base, and detestable Caitifs (falling away from the sweete commu­nion of the Church into accursed heresies, and being therevpon the Prophetts of hell) should then also (and neuer before) be stirred vp, and [Page 64] excited by God to redresse his Church, the Pil­lar, & Firmament of truth? Is it probable, nay is it possible, that they, who remayned not in the duty of hir Sonnes, should be aduanced vnto the dignity of hir Fathers? Are men actually in­spired by God, and by the Diuell, to impugne, and to defend hir, to destroy, and to maintayn hir, to infect, and to preserue hir? Were hir sworne enimies more tender of hir good, then hir best friends, and were vile Rebells more respectiue of Gods honour, then his dearest Seruants?

5. You that haue the common instinct of morall reason, and the ordinary light of huma­ne vnderstanding, iudge, I pray you, iudge vn­partially in this case; Luther; thou art the scourdge of God &c. See Sir Th. More cōtra Luth. de Sacram. whether such disastrous Reformers as Henricus, Aërius, and the like, were not rather ministers to execute the Iustice of God, then counsellours to promulgate his will, and whether he doth not rather correct, then direct; punish, then prescribe by such men. It was a tyranny in Mezentius to bind liuing men vnto dead carcasses. But the VVisedome of God doth assure me, that he will not tythe liuing body of his Church, vnto the dead, and putri­fied members thereof.

6. The consideration of which poynt was of great power, and efficacy in my heart, to make me disclayme, and abandon the proceedings of our GREAT Reformer, M. Luther. in whom there was no true resemblance of a pious, and diuine Spirit. Witnesse, his furious declamations against Zuin­glius, and all Sacramentaries (the Patriarch, and [Page 65] Brethren of our ghospell) his rude, and vn­saintlike inuectiues against King Henry the eight, his hereticall, and grieuous assertions; his con­temptuous This is peremp­torily de­nied by D. Abbot (a­gainst D. Hill, pag. 307) with a marginall reference vnto VVhi­tak. answ. to Camp. But VVhi­tak. (in his answ. 10 Raindas c 7.) being better ad­uised in this matter, maketh so­me confes­sion there­of; howbeit he interla­ceth di­shonest euasions, and grosse vntruths. reiection of some Canonicall Scri­ptures: his beastly, and vnchristian positions, his light, and vayn imaginations; his familiar conuersation with Diuells. All which (and many more) odious things are extant in his owne workes; things incredible vnto such as do not yet know them, and fearfull vnto such as haue experience therein.

7. But I will omitt the work of our late Reformation (transacted by this boysterous Friar) and returne vnto my other reforming gentle­men, with whom I made this brief conclusion.

9. The admirable WISEDOME of God doth confirme, and ought to establish me in the do­ctrine of Purgatory, and Prayer for the dead, inas­much as the first aduersaries thereof were des­perately affected against his Truth, and exercised open hostility against his Church. There is an Aërius, and an Henricus; here is an Augustine, and a Bernard: the first deny it, & follow their peculiar imaginations; the second affirme it, & rely vpon the conformable iudgement of the Catholick [Page 66] Church: choose now, whom thou wilt follow in this case, and with which of theis thou wilt aduenture the eternity of thy soule.

9. Shall I answere, and say: I respect not, what the first, or second haue deliuered, but what the Scripture it self hath taught herein? A poore euasion: for the Scripture is clearely against me in this poynt, and I can not gainsay it, vnlesse I will come forth with a non obstante of mine owne sense; and yet I am bound (in all humility) to subordinate my vnderstanding vnto the instruction of my Superiours. But if in pride, and insolency (as S. Furiosus mente, cla­tus opinione &c. See E­piphā. haer. 75. The sa­me censure belongeth vnto the rest. Aërius, Henricus, Luther and others haue done) I should preferr mine owne iudgement before the learned Fathers, and renounce that due, and conuenient subiection which I should haue to­ward the ancient, Catholick Church (she that must, and shall iudge me, and all my Protestan­ticall Doctours) oh what monsters of opinion might I conceiue, and what certainty of truth can I bring forth? Truly, as Aaron formed many pretious iewells into the similitude of a calf, Exod. 32.4. so I might (haply) fashion vnto my self many foo­lish conceipts, by casting the pretious word of God into the mould of my priuate, and mis­guided fancy.

§. 1. The nature, and Vse of Miracles.

1. I Considered first, that as a Miracle is a Di­uine work in its nature, (because it can not be wrought without the speciall concurrency of Gods power) so in its vse, it is a Diuine te­stimonie, because it hath a reference vnto some truth; and principally, when it is exhibited vnto that purpose: for it procureth an inward con­uiction of the vnderstanding, A mystery is secret, & hidden; and so it diffe­reth from a miracle in respect of the VSE, though it agree with it in the NATVRE thereof. by an outward demonstration vnto the sense. In which respect I may truly say, that a Miracle is the broad Seale of Heauen, affixed vnto some writing, or eui­dence of Gods owne hand, bearing his image, and superscription.

2. I considered secondly, that though Hereticks, and Pagans, do often counterfait this broad Seale, yet their falsehood is discouerable by men of iudgement, waighing the Circumstances with due examination. Nay farther; though it please God that a true miracle shall be performed by them (as sometimes it hath come to passe) yet [Page 68] there is alwayes a certayn limitation therein precisely vnto this, of that As the maintenāce of Iustice; or some other such moral, and ciuill respect. 1. Cor. 10.13. peculiar end, so that it serueth by no meanes to giue assistance, and validity vnto their hereticall, or paga­nicall conceipts. For the end, and vse of Gods workes is alwayes good; besides; he is faithfull, who will not suffer vs to be tempted aboue our power.

3. I considered thirdly, that Miracles may haue a triple respect, according to the triple distin­ction of the Church. For the Church hath three estates; viz. of PLANTATION; of PROPAGATION; of REFORMA­TION.

De Ciuit. Dei lib. 22. cap. 8.4. In the first estate, there was a necessity of Mi­racles (as S. Augustine doth well insinuate) to this end, that men might belieue. For whereas our Lord did intend, that his Ghospell should be the ordinary meanes of saluation for euer, he thought fitt to gayn sufficient authority vn­to it by an extraordinary meanes in the be­ginning.

5. In the second estate, there was no such ne­cessity of Miracles; and therefore S. Augustine saieth very excellently; Ibid. The Pro­testants do frequently, & earnestly alleadge this sentēce but they cunningly s [...]ppresse that which followeth. I heartily request you to rea­de the whole chapter in S. Aug. ‘whosoeuer requireth miracles now to this end, that he may belieue, he is a miracle himself, forasmuch as he will not belieue, when the whole world belieueth.’ Notwithstanding in this estate also, there is an vtility of Miracles, for the glory, and splendour, and exaltation of the Church. Wherefore S. Augustine proceedeth farther, and speaketh to this effect: ‘My former answere [Page 69] may be sufficient for the conuiction of infidells; but I stay not here: Nunc quoque fiunt miracula; for now also (euen in this lardge propaga­tion of the Church) miracles are done in sondry places. Fiunt nunc multa miracula: Many miracles are done in theis dayes.’ Some he reporteth vpon his owne experience, others vpon cer­tayn information, and they are (generally) such, as wound our Protestanticall Religion to the death. And S. Augustine (as it were fore­seing the iudgement of Infidells, and Protestants, and what exceptions they would take against his report) is very earnest in the deliuery of theis things, adding in conclusion of one mi­racle; Some men will not belieue that this was so: but who are they? euen they, that belieue not, how our Lord Iesus was borne of a Virgin, and yet hir womb re­mayned entire; or that, he came into the roome, where his Apostles were assembled, and yet the doores were shutt.

6. In the third estate, Miracles are more If Luthers reformatiō were good why was it not gra­ced with so me euident miracles, & specially since so great a mu­tation hath followed ic as was ne­uer seene, in the Church of God? Nay, why are many mi­racles now done in that church which he renounced? Beda; hist. Eccles. l. 1. c. 21. Beda; l. 2. c. 2. ne­cessary then in the second, though not so neces­sary as in the first. For whereas it hath seemed good vnto the singular wisedome of God to adorne his Church with some miracles alwayes in the second estate, (euen when no heresy assaulted hir) it was very conuenable that he should much rather affoord this power in the third, for the extirpation of heresies, and for redresse of great disorders. Examples whe­reof were frequent in the dayes of our fore-fathers, & Britanny it self hath copious testimonies [Page 70] in this kind. For thus the holy Bishopp S. Ger­man confounded the Pelagians; and thus S. Au­gustine (our Apostle) reprooued the schismaticall Bishopps of Britanny, in the publick conspect of the people.

§. 2. A miracle wrought by S. Bernard, to the confusion of Henricus, and his doctrine.

1. THeis considerations being premised, I tooke a serious reuiew of an history, which though I had read long before, yet it did not preuayle with me so farr, as the dignity thereof did iustly require. For partly the vayle was so closely drawen ouer mine eyes, that I could not see the truth, and partly I passed ouer it with a negligent leuity, and carelesnesse, as many Protestants do; not willing to intertayn the knowledge of any doctrine, which sorteth not with the publick State, or their priuate for­tunes. Genes. 11.7. Howbeit I know, that as the tongues of the Babylonians were diuided, and one conceyued not what an other spake, so the tongues of many principall Schollers in England are diuided from their hearts, & they speake not what themselues conceiue.

2. I come vnto my history. S. Bernard hearing of the spoyles which Huius rei gratiâ, licet in multa corporis in­firmitate, iter arripui in has par­tes &c. Bernar. ep. 240. S. Bernard. ibid. Henricus made in the vi­neyard of our Lord, repayred into the parts of Tholouse which were greatly infected with his [Page 71] contagion (for now the Churches were left without people, people without Pastours, and Pastours without honour) and there, in a frequent assembly, he countermanded the fancies of this Apostata with learning, and grauity, and in the playn euidence of the Spirit.

3. At the end of his sermon, many of the audi­tors presented vnto him certayn quantities of bread, and requested his fatherly benediction. The deuout Abbot performed their desire with gladnesse, assuring them that they should discerne the truth of his doctrine, and the falsehood of Henricus, if their sick, and languishing friends should immediatly recouer their strength vpon the tast thereof.

4. A venerable Bishopp being there present, and fearing the successe, added this clause (by way of caution) si bona fide sumpserint, if they re­ceiue it with a good faith. But S. Bernard, being secure in the power of almighty God, answered publiquely, non ego hoc dixerim, no, I sayd not so; onely this I sayd, and this I proclayme vnto you, Let your sick people eate of this hallowed bread, and they shall be made whole; for hereby you shall know vs to be Viz. in the doctri­nes which he defen­ded against Henricus, in the na­me of the Catholick Church. TRVE Seruants of God. His word was ful­filled & the fame of this miracle was so dispersed in all the contrey, that the blessed man, declining the intolerable concourse of the people, returned home an other way.

§. 3. There is no euasion against the clearenesse of this Miracle.

1. THe exceptions, which my heart could apprehend in this case, were three; but when I had waighed them all in the ballance of my reason, I dismissed each of them suc­cessiuely with a part of Balthazars iudgement; Thekel Dan. 5.27. thou art waighed in the ballance, and art found too light.

2. FIRST, to deny the fact it seemed an vn­reasonable conceipt, because as it was done in a publick, and solemne conuenti [...], so it is recor­ded in very authenticall manner by a reuerend Gulielm. Abbas in vitâ S. Ber­nard. l. 3. c. 5. person, of S. Bernards familiar acquayntance.

3. If this be not sufficient, yet Epist. 241. S. Bernard himself did giue me such a pregnant intimation, as satisfied me abundantly in this behalf. For thus he wrote vnto the people of Tholouse after his returne. ‘Our abode with you was short but not vnfruictfull, inasmuch as the TRVTH was manifested by vs, not onely in speach, but in POWER also.’

4. Wherefore that excellent commendation wherewith M. Luther is aduanced by one of his Ioh. Au­rifaber, in colloq. men­sal. Luth. disciples (but very vniustly; since that notable Apostle, as Contra Pighium. Caluin stileth him, See Luth. in Esaiam. cap. 37. did neuer cure so much as a lame horse) doth iustly appertayn vnto this worthy Saint, viz. Vir potens erat in dictis, & factis, he was a man mighty both in word, and deed; as Prophet [...] erat, & o­perator mi­raculorum. Part. 2. Serm. de S. Bernardo, See Guliel. Abbas in vita S. Ber­nardi lib. 3. cap. 6. &c. Iohn Gerson himself deliuereth sutably [Page 73] to the same purpose.

5. SECONDLY; to impute this fact vnto sorcery, and incantations, it were a Iewish, and heathenish folly; so the miracles of Christ him­self, and of his Apostles, and Martyrs were traduced by their enimies. Besides; since all in­genious Protestants confesse, that Bernard was an holy man, and replenished with diuine grace (as his life, and his writings do contestify vnto the world) how could I stayn his honourable name with such ignominy, and disgrace?

6. No; I will leaue that humour vnto M. Centur. 14. c, 85. Bale; let it be an argument of his vngentle nature, and not of mine, to accuse this glorious Saint, and to crucify his name with bitter reproaches; ‘ Coecus, & blasphemus ille Bernardus; that blind, and blasphe­mous Bernard.’

7. But forasmuch as I knew very well, that M. Bale was imbued with a See the 3. Conuers of England. Part. 2. c. 5. num. 25. &c. 6. num. 32. &c. malignant disposi­tion against this, and other Saints (some of them being the honour, and crowne of our nation) I remitted him vnto the sweet, and modest answer of De Consi­derat. lib. 2. S. Bernard, saying; ‘If one of the two must needs be, that either God, or I must be re­proached, it is well for me, if he vouchsafe to vse me as his buckler. I do gladly receiue the darts of venimous tongues against me, that they may not come vnto him. I refuse not to be inglorious, if I may defend the glory of my Lord. It is my honour to participate with him that sayed; Psal. 68.11. Op­probria exprobrantium tibi ceciderunt super me.’

8. THIRDLY; to pretend, that howsoeuer (perhappes) some opinions of Henricus were ex­pugned [Page 74] by this Miracle, but not (precisely) this concerning Purgatory, and Prayer for the dead, it was the last refuge which I could make, and the fayrest suggestion, which I could conceiue; and yet as Ioab perished at the Altar (a place of pro­tection) so you will faile in this anchor of your hope. 3. Reg. 2.

9. My secrete dispute in this poynt, was so­mewhat lardge; but I will contract it as briefly as I may, because I am vnwilling to abuse your patience with any long, and tedious discourse.

§. 4. Two Considerations: the first, Ge­nerall; touching the Catholique ar­ticles, which HENRICVS im­pugned: the second Particular, touching Purgatory. The Protestants are con­uinced.

1. I Considered FIRST; that whatsoeuer Henricus disapprooued in the Church, he is imitated therein by Luther, or by some of his ghospell, which is branched into much variety, and difformity of sects. For a more exact de­monstration whereof, I layed downe a catalogue of the particulars impugned by Henr. (which I will exhibit here vnto your sight) and waighed euery one singly by itself.

• [Page 75]1. Purgatory; Prayer, and Oblation for the dead.
• 2. Inuocation of Saints.
• 3. Excommunication by Priests.
• 4. Peregrination.
• 5. Temples.
• 6. Festiuities.
• 7. Consecration of oyle, and chrisme.
• 8. Ecclesiasticall sanctions.
• 9. Transubstantiation.
• 10. Baptisme of Infants.

2. The VValdensians following the Henricians; the Albigensians (Professours of the same faith, and re­ligion, which we now professe, as D. Against D. Bishop▪ part. 2. pag. 55. Abbott testifieth to our great See the 3. Conuers. of England. Part. 2. c. 10. num. 2. &c. Also the Examē of Fox his Calendar-Saincts. chap. 3. nū. 17.18.19. &c. disreputation) following the Wal­densians; VVicleuians consorting with them all (though not in euery particular) do symbolize very much in their impugnation of theis things.

3. I descended vnto our later Churches (more euangelically ordered, and more speciously colle­cted then theis former were) and making a se­uerall inquisition touching the ten precedent articles, I found that the FIRST, and SECOND are contemned generally by all the Brethren of my Ghospell. In the THIRD there is no small difference amongst them. For Erastus &c. some wholly reiect that terrible censure. ‘Sondry Diuines also of good regard (saith Cathol. doctr. pag. 191. M. Rogers) conceiue that Christians (cleauing vnto Christ their fundation) are not to be excommunicated either for any errour, or misdemeanour whatsoeuer.’ The [Page 76] Presbyterians deriue the validity of this censure not from the Clergy, See M. Ro­gers, ibid. but from a Clero-laicall Con­sistory, the creature of Caluins imagination.

4. I considered farther, that as some amongst vs do intertayn a base conceipt of this high matter, so others do vniustly clayme the exercise of this power. For since it belongeth vnto spirituall iuris­diction, and since this iurisdiction belongeth vnto no Ordina­rily. man, who is not lawfully consecrated, and since we haue no consecration, but We plead so. such as came directly from the Pope, and since he is D. Fields rumbling phrases pag. 64. Antichrist, the child of perdition, with the foame of his impure mouth, and froath of his words of blasphemy &c. I could not perceiue, what iust title we can haue vnto theis celestiall, and diuine offices in the Church. For what communion is there betwixt Christ, and Antichrist?

5. The FOVRTH is cashiered by all, as su­perstitious, and profane. The FIFT article con­cerneth the Anabaptists, and Brownists most pro­perly, who detest all Churches, because they were polluted with Antichristian abominations of the God Maozim &c. And truly their opinion herein floweth naturally from our principles; for if the Pope be Antichrist, and if the Churches were the temples of such Idolatrie (as we pretend) then theis men do laudably hate the very place of such vntmachable impiety, and desolation.

6. The SIXT article pertayneth vnto the rigid, and syncere Caluinians, whose Congrega­tions are purified, and cleansed from the festi­nities of the ancient Chuch. Witnesse Scotland, France &c. where the zealous professours imitate [Page 77] their Forefather Aërius [of vnholy memory] and renounce the Christian feasts, as Epiphans de Aërdo; haeres. 75. Iudaicall fables &c.

7. The SEVENTH hath bene ridiculous vnto vs all; and yet some blessing (perhapps) was powred forth vpon that oyle, wherewith his MAIESTY receiued his first vnction, to be the King anoynted of our Land.

8. The EIGHT article is despised by such pure Caluins, and seuere Luthers, as mea­sure the truth of all things by the yard of their owne fancy. Hence it is that Luther reduceth the definitions of holy Concells vnto a popular approbation, and consent of the vnlettered people; ‘for (saith Tom. 2. l. 2. de rat. Iud. Eccles. he) they are the sheepe of whom our Sauiour testifieth, that they heare his voyce.’ Hence it is, that his Apostolicall self fea­reth not to pronounce; Contra Henric. 8. VVhen Bishopps arrogated power to enact Canons &c. without doubt theis were the cogitations of Satan: yea the first Councell of Nice (saith he) committed sacriledge, and impiety against the most euident, and inuincible scriptures of God. Hence fol­loweth the contempt of sacred Synods, and ne­glect of their decrees.

9. The NINTH is a damnable poynt in our eyes; and M. Powel de Antichristo; pag. 254. one of those deadly heresies, which was deuised by Antichrist himself. The TENTH, and last article hath speciall referēce vnto the Anabaptists who repu­diate the S. Aug. de Genes. l. 10. c. 23. tradition of the Apostles therein, as See M. Ro­gers, Catl [...]. doctr. pag. 169. the inuention of a Pope, yea of the very Diuell. So zealous are they against all things, not literally expressed in the word.

10. But, when I searched into the fountayn of [Page 78] this errour, I saw that a singular disgrace en­sueth thereby vnto the ghospell of our reformed Churches. For whereas S. Luther doth often couple the Anabaptists, and Sacramentaries in one string (protesting that they Defecerūt [...] nobis pri­mò Sacra­mentarij, pòst Ana­baptistae &c. See Luth. in 5. ad Galat. fell away from him; & therefore he often defieth them both, as hatefull, and execrable hereticks) I Staphyl. in lib. de Concord. Luther. & alij. found that he mi­nistred iust occasion vnto the formers vanity, by his vniust position, inasmuch as he taught, that Children haue ACTVALL Faith; and that other­wise they should not be baptized. Wherevpon some of his disciples (assuming that Childrē haue no such faith) inferred necessarily, therefore they are not to be baptized.

11. Thus the Anabaptisme of See the Examen of Fox his Calendar-Saints cap. 3. num. 43. Pacimontanus (a chick of Martins egges) was an infallible con­clusion, by a true negatiue of that, which Luther did falsely affirme. This poynt Cathol. doctr. pag. 170. M. Rogers aymeth at very fayrely, saying; ‘Some are of opinion that none are to be baptized, which belieue not first: and hence the ANABAPTISTS teach, Infants belieue not, therefore they are not to be baptized.’ Hence also the LVTHERANS teach [so it pleaseth M. Rogers to speak; and yet D. Field is driuen into a great passion against the Pope, because Bellarmine vseth theis Lutherās: Caluinist. &c. pag. 179. names of faction, and diuision] ‘ Infants do belieue, and therefore they are to be baptized.’

12. As for the principall SACRAMENTARIES (for thus the Zuinglians, Oecolampadians, Carolo­stadians &c. are commonly phrased by S. Luther; howbeit it pleaseth Pag. 170. D. Field to say, that Some mens MALICE called them so) I saw that great igno­miny doth attend them also in this behalf. For [Page 79] Tom. 2. de baptis­me. Zuinglius (our renowned, & military Patriarch) inuaighing against this doctrine, Baptisme confir­meth faith &c. sentenceth it to be a rash, and in­considerate opinion. Yea (saith he) for this cause it was to be expected, that some men should deny baptisme vnto Infants. And I do ingenuously confesse, that (being some­times deceyued with this errour) I thought it more safe, that they should be baptized, when they are come vnto a iust age.

13. Which Anabaptisme, though he disclaymed afterward, yet this heresy festered so deepely in his heart, that he alwayes esteemed the baptisme of children to be an externall, or ceremoniall thing, dispensable by the law of Charity, which the Church may well, and honestly vse, or omitt, as it shall seeme good for the edification of our neighbour. The same opinion was taken vp by Inter [...]p. Zuingl. & Oecol. l. 2. fol. 80. Oecolampadius, the See Bel­larm. de Notis Ec­cles. cap. 8. first [pre­tensed] Bishopp of Basill. Truly a fitt doctrine for a Bishopp of such a stamp.

14. This was the summe, and effect of my first, and generall consideration; viz. that all the innouations, which Henricus propounded vnto the Church, were such, as make vp a goodly messe to furnish our euangelicall table; and thus I saw no reason why the Miracle of S. Bernard should not be as sufficient a proofe of all, as of some, and why not as specially of Purgatory, as of any other point.

15. Wherefore I proceeded vnto a SECOND consideration, which is more peculiar, and which did more forcibly procure my firme resolution, and indubious assent.

16. For since our Lord did giue his owne testi­mony [Page 80] from heauen (and we know that his testimony is true) in defence of S. Bernard against Henricus, wi­thout all question, this doctrine of Purgatory was so included in the whole number, that it was no lesse clearely fortified by this miracle, then any other poynt. And my reason to conceiue thus, was, because as S. Bernard deliuered it, and the people accepted it no lesse freely then any other, so likewise God himself did concurr in the opera­tion of this miracle for a noble end; viz. the confusion of heresy, the manifestation of the truth, the honour of his name, the safety of his Church, the satisfaction of men present, and the instruction of succeeding ages.

17. Yea forasmuch as he that wrought this illustrious Miracle, did then, and there (in the voyce, and authority of the Catholique Church) publiquely teach, and earnestly perswade, and constantly defend this doctrine, how shall the witt of an Archangell distinguish, what was, & what was not confirmed by this Miracle, in case the glorious Saint, and the visible Church were erroneous in the See befo­re; num. 1. said opinions (as farr as the substance thereof extendeth itself) & principally in the FIRST, it being a chief article in that catalogue?

18. I concluded. As God will not (nay he can not; and this is a powerfull impotency in him) beare witnesse vnto any falsehood, so he doth neuer implicate, and obscure the truth in such manner, that we should be necessarily intan­gled with errour, for want of possibility to discerne it, and specially when the thing [Page 81] is such, as is hereticall in nature, and damnable in effect.

§ 5. An exception of D. Field against Miracles, refelled by the authority of GERSON whom he magnifieth, as a man that wished our Prote­stanticall Reformation.

1. I Loued, & sometimes esteemed the Church-booke of D. Field, as the best oracle of our dayes; and as the worke commended the Au­thour, so the Authour did reciprocally commend his work in my simple thoughts.

2. Amongst sondry positions which he there frameth, as bulwarkes of our Religion, and impregnable forts thereof, I applauded this, which here ensueth: viz. Pag. 185. ‘We say, that how­soeuer it may be, some miracles were done by such good men, as liued in the corrupt state of the Church, yet that is no proof of those er­rours [ Purgatory, Transubstant. &c.] which the Romanists maintayn against vs.’ For VVE PE­REMPTORILY DENY, that euer any Miracle was done by any man in times past, or in our times, to confirme any of the things, controuersed betweene the Papists, and vs.

3. In this resolution I was vndaunted, because I tooke it to be substantiall; & I embraced it as a necessary principle, because if it should fayle, then it followeth most euidently, either that God is not true, or that our Religion is false.

[Page 82]4. But now after my long, and serious discour­se concerning the aforesaid miracle, I was com­pelled to sound retreate, and to deny my perempto­ry deniall; for my reason did informe me that S. Ber­nard hath long since by miracle confirmed the doctrine of Purgatory; it being one of those things, which are controuersed betweene vs, and the Papists at this day.

5. Besides; since any man, who is meanely in­structed in the writings of the Ancient, doth know, that S. Gregory was a Papist (for which cau­se Cathol. Apolog. in Secunda Classi. D. Morton hath stalled him in the catalogue of Popish Doctours) and that S. Augustine (his messenger vnto vs) deliuered the same Popish faith in England (as Centur. 1. fol. 35. Iohn Bale confesseth, saying; Augustine the Ro­mane was sent as an Apostle from Gregory the first, to sea­son the English-Saxons with a popish faith; whence the same Bale is pleased to affirme that King Ethelbert died 21. yeares post susceptum papismum, after he had receiued Popery) & finally, that this holy, & blessed man (who came from farr to sing the Lords song in a strandge land) did worke many rare miracles, by cooperation of the Diuine Power (for this is euidēt by the testimony of Lib. 7. ep. 30. S. Gregory the Great; of Eccles. hi. l. 1. c. 26. 31. l. 2. c. 2. &c. V. Beda, and of sondry others; yea Act. & Mon. pag. 105. Iohn Fox himself can find no exception against this poynt, howsoeuer he participateth with the malignity of Contra Camp. Rat. 5. D. Humfrey, In his Reply pag. 185. M. Iewell, Centur. 1. Iohn Bale, &c. and thro­weth out his contumelies against so worthy a Saint, to disgrace the work of our happy Con­uersion from Paganisme vnto Christianity) I desired to vnderstand, whether we could truly deny (since we do PEREMPTORILY DENY) that none of those [Page 83] things were euer confirmed by Miracle, wherein the con­trouersy standeth betwixt us, and the Papists, at this day? For I argued thus in my priuate cogitations, and said. Did God concurr with our Augustine, and his assistents, by any FALSHOOD to strengthen the (supposed) heresies, which they did then, and Papists do now maintayn? No; for this were against his Truth; & I know that he neither deceiueth, nor is deceiued. Or did he concurr with them by CONFVSION, to strengthen some part, but not all that faith which they preached in the name, and authority of the Romane Church? No; for this were against the sweet disposition of his gifts, and workes; and I am assured, that he is the God of order, and not of confusion, as I see in the Catholick Church.

6. But there is yet an other euidence, which, as it is more particular, so it was more potent, and perswasiue vnto me then the former. And be­cause, as it was a key to vnlock my vnderstan­ding, so since it doth most highly import your selues (deare Contreymen) to take good notice thereof, I will here deliuer it vnto you, briefly and playnely; branching it into three conside­rations.

7. FIRST therefore it may please you to be in­formed by Pag. 171. D. Field, that TRANSVBSTANTIATION is one of the greatest mysteries of Popish religion, which all Papists at this day do most firmely hold, and belieue. Whence it followeth: if so speciall a Miraculū in Myste­rio. Mystery of Popish faith, as this is, were iustified by any Miracle, then all the Religion of the Papists is thereby confirmed, and established eminenter; [Page 84] that is to say, in a principall, or eminent manner.

8. SECONDLY, it may please you to be farther indoctrined by the mature resolution of Pag. 186. D. Field, and the graue iudgement of the Metro­politan himself (for this CHVRCH-booke was composed at his See D. Fields ep. dedicat. to the Archb. of Cant. direction, approued by his censure, and publicated by his authority) that there is NO BETTER proof of the goodnesse of our [the Protestants] cause, then that that, which we [Luther, Zwinglius &c.] haue done in the REFOR­MATION of the Church, was before wished for, expected, and foretold by the BEST men that liued (in former times) in the corrupt state of the Church. In the number of which best men, he recompteth GROSTHEAD, and GERSON; whom (with some others) he doth Pag. 85. elswhere intitle VVorthy Guides of Gods Church. But how good a proof this is, and how laudable our Reformation is, which standeth, and supporteth it self chiefly vpon the same, you may perceiue by the little Appen­dix, which ensueth in the conclusion of this Treatise. Which when you haue carefully perused, and discreetly waighed, then re­flect vpon this matter, and then speake in the vprightnesse of your consciences (betwixt God, and your selues) whether the Cause be not very bad, and the Patrones thereof much worse. Let that be an example vnto you for euer to see, what immoderate affectation of vntruth possesseth your most eminent Au­thors; and how miserable your Religion is, of whose goodnesse there is no better proof.

9. THIRDLY; and lastly, it may please you [Page 85] to vnderstand, that this worthy Guide of Gods Church, and one of our (pretended) Fathers, Part. 4. Serm. in festo Cor­poris Chri­sti. Iohn Gerson (the most Christian Doctour; as he is commonly stiled by the Church) discoursing vpon the aforesaid great mystery of Popish Religion, and re­proouing INFIDELITY [to witt of Berenga­rius, and, in him, of Caluin: for it is a memorable poynt to consider, that though Berengarius did abiure his errour against the Reall presence, and died See Ger­son ibid. penitently for the same; yea though the Centur. 11. c. 10. pag. 527. Lutherans of Magdeburge themselues do express­ly say, that Pope Leo the 9. did meritt great praise by condemning the heresy of Berengarius in a Synod at Rome, Admonit. vlta [...]d We stphilum. yet Iohn Caluin protesteth, ‘that he doth, and will follow Berengarius in his opinion; and it is cleare, that our English Church concurreth with them both]’ which brought many FRIVO­LOVS reasons [the very same, which we now produce, and alleadge at this day] against the blessed Sacrament of the Altar, deliuereth his mind herein fully, and saieth, that VVe ought to be­lieue this truth [Transubstantiation] and to giue creditt vnto Gods word without any pledges, or de­positions. as Miracles are. But if any man will" desire theis things for his assurance, he may" haue a thousand, and a thousand persons of most holy life, and profound knowledge, who haue te­stified this truth vnto death, by a thousand, and a thou­sand Some are remēbred by Claud. de Sainct. de Euchar. Also by Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 3. cap. [...]. MIRACLES.

10. Wherefore being thus incompassed on euery side, and hauing no possibility to escape the pressure of this difficulty, nor to withstand the singular, and effectuall power of [Page 86] this euidence (for one of the greatest mysteries of po­pish Religion is now confirmed by many Miracles, euen in Gersons testimony, which I was bound to admitt; because as his Person deserueth high respect, so it deserueth farr greater with them, that will so graciously applaud him) I was for­ced either to disclayme D. Fields booke, or to renounce my Protestanticall belief; but yet the later seemed a more reasonable course, because that Religion can not be good, which is so falsely, and absurdly defended by him, and all the chiefest Authours, that euer applied their paynes vnto this seruice.

11. What remayned now, but that I should conclude with S. AVGVSTINE (the D. Field. greatest Diuine, which euer liued since the Apostles time, and the Caluin. best witnesse of Antiquity) and say with De vtilit. credones cap. 17. him; ‘Since we behold such a speciall assistance of God, such progresse, and such fruict, shall we doubt to hide ourselues within the lapp of Not of Donatists, Aërians, Berenga­rians, Lu­therans, &c. that Church, which hath obtayned the height of authority, partly by the iudgement of the people, partly by the grauity of Councells, partly by the Ma­iesty of MIRACLES, and is descended by the suc­cession of Bishoppes in the APOSTOLIQVE Seate [of S. Peter at Rome; a poynt, which Velenus: Funccius &c. See Bel­larm. de Pontifice Rom. l. 2. c. 2. 4. &c. some men, filled with a spiritt of contradiction, deny without honesty, witt, or learning] frustrà cir­cumlatrantibus haereticis, the hereticks barking round about in vayn?’

12. Let your owne consciences (kind Readers) make a secret application of theis things in the closett of your hearts Which that you may more [Page 87] easily, and effectually do, I shall intreat you to cast back your eyes of consideration with me, and to reflect vpon the premisses (ingenious Aca­demicks) as it becommeth men that rather haue a care to see the truth, then a desire to impugne the same.

§. 1. Of the grounds, which I followed in this discourse.

1. FIRST I considered that the grounds, and authorities, vpon which I buylded my dis­course, were so cleare, and solid, that no witt could dissolue, or impeach their strength. For if I accepted the Fathers, they did conuince me; if I reiected them, my folly would be great, and my dispute vncertayn. And thus I saw that the iudgement of Ret. 5. Edm Campian must necessarily take place, viz. AEternam causae maculam coguntur [Protestantes] inurere, siue recusent patres, siue deposcant; nam in altero fugam adornant, in altero suffocantur. Which points I prosecuted yet farther (though briefly) in this manner.

2. If I ACCEPT the Fathers to be be my Iudges, as they are Churches VVitnesses, I haue the face of all Antiquity confronting me, and speciallly [Page 88] S. Augustine, whom, for some iust respects, I do specially esteeme. Was he a Protestant, and a Papist? then two different Religions are com­patible in one soule; whence must ensue as great a strife, Genes. 25.22.23. and colluctation, as Rebecca felt in hir womb, when two Nations contended in hir body. Or was he a Protestant, and not a Papist? why then is he so perspicuous against me in this matter? Or was he a Papist, and not a Protestant? why then do we so triumph, and glory in his name? Or finally; was he neither Papist, nor Protestant? Then both theis Religions (in all pro­bability) are false, and then (perhapps) none is true. Thus from an vncertainty, men runne into a nullity of faith, and so the end of heresy is Atheisme, because there can be no other issue, vnto which it doth finally propend. And ve­rily, who doth not conceiue (vpon due ponde­ration) that, if the CATHOLICK Religion, being so spectable in dignity, so continued in succession, so enlardged in diffusion, and so eminent in all respects, should notwithstanding seeme false, or dubious, by reason of some cauillations framed against it by hir enimies, it will rather come to passe, that no Reli­gion should be true, then that the Protestants faith, which hath such a late entrance, such base founders, such vncertayn grounds, such infinite diuisions, should be more credible, and probable then the said CATHOLICK belief?

3. I proceed. Since I was so powerfully expugned by the Fathers, as you haue seene, [Page 89] how could I elude the grauity of their testi­monies, which pressed, and oppressed me on euery side? Should I ( Alexander-like) cutt the knott insunder with violence, which I could neuer vntye with skill?

4. There remayned one principall shift for me, but yet it was of no value, or substance. For though later ages speake more copiously in this particular, and in many others, then the former, yet I saw, that it was by way of expli­cation, not innouation; of declaration, not al­teration; of exposition, not addition &c. For it is an excellēt prescription, which Lirinensis deliue­reth in this case; viz. Fides habet profectum, 1 Cap. 29.30. non per­mutationem: faith hath a progresse, or increase, but without any chandge. Matters of Ceremony are in their nature indifferent, and in their vse dispensable; and herein no priuate man may pre­scribe vnto the wisedome of the Church, or li­mit hir power. Matters of Doctrine haue their inlardgement, and amplification; but yet so, as that no other fundation be layed, then the same which we receiued in the beginning. Thus Pelagians may not complayn, if the doctrine of Grace were more clearely illustrated by S. Augustine, then euer it was discussed before. Thus the Arrians may not complayn, if the doctrine of Homousia were more fully explicated by the Fathers of Nice, then euer it was vnfolded vntill that time. Thus also we Protestants cannot iustly complayn, if the Catholick doctrine in this particular, were more abundantly expressed by S. Augustine, and by succeding ages, then euer it was resolued vnto [Page 90] his dayes. Lirinens. Intelligatur te exponente clariùs, quod anteà obscuriùs credebatur &c.

5. In REIECTING the Fathers, and recurrring vnto the Scripture alone, I saw that I should striue without successe; not because the truth wanteth defence in this kind, but because I feared, least I might sweare fealty vnto mine owne sense, and dwell therein, as a snayle taketh impotent san­ctuary in the shell, which hir naturall art hath fashioned out of hir proper stuffe.

6. Thus Iouinian (a worthy Progenitour of Lu­thers ghospell) did so wrest, and peruert the sacred writt to establish his sottish heresy concerning the equallity of Ioyes in Heauen, and Paynes in Hell, that Contra Iouinian. lib. 2. paulò post med. S. Hierome himself is forced to confesse, ‘ Quis ele­ctorum Dei non tentetur &c. who euen of Gods elect childrē may not be tempted with theis Scri­ptures, which this subtile disputer hath artifi­cially, and cunningly inflected vnto his purpose?’ In which scriptures Iouinian did so exult, and triumph, that, being construed by his owne spirit, they seemed inuincible in his conceipt.

7. But the desperate folly of such as renounce the iudgement of the Fathers, and dwell in their owne sense of holy Scripture, discouereth it self most playnely in the late Founders of our Gho­spell. For thought Tom. 1. in explanat. Art. 64. Zwinglius (declining the triall of Antiquity) saieth; whereas Papists cry out, Fathers Fathers; I answere, that neither Fathers, nor Mothers shall cary it away, but the word of God alone, & we will endure no other Iudge; yet euery simple fellow doth know that Zwinglius erred notoriously, and damnably in his exposition of the scriptures; whence Luther [Page 91] protesteth, that he was insathanized, persathanized, See the Tigurin Confess. See Luth. Confess. &c. and supersathanized; and in sondry places of his workes he challendgeth him for intolerable cor­ruption of the Scripture.

8. Howbeit Luther himself was not inferiour vnto Zwinglius in this kind. And hence it is, that In respon. ad Luth. Confess. Zuinglius biddeth all men to behold, & consider, how Sathan endeauored to possesse this whole man. ‘For whereas he doth erre very often, and is miserably deceyued in the sense of Scripture, he will compell God to excuse him, & to satisfy for him; deuising this refuge, and shift, viz. If I be seduced, Quàm cer­tum est Deum esse Deum, tam certus, & diabolicus mendax est Lutherus; saith Cam­panus a re­nouned Zuinglian. in colloq. lat. Luth. tom. 2. fol. 351. or mistaken, God hath seduced, & deceaued me, &c.’

9. Werefore, seing, and estimating vprightly, what immortall contentions, and intestine con­flicts passed betwixt our Founders, and how this hereditary warr is descended vnto vs with farther addition, and increase, how could I belieue them, or why should I not distrust my self hereafter in buylding my faith vpon that peculiar sense, which a new, and late Spiritt suggesteth contrary vnto the resolution of Fa­thers, and Councells, and the cleare consent of the Christian world? O how iustly, and fittly doth Prascript c. 17. Tertullian insinuate vnto vs the condition of wrangling Hereticks! He that is most exercised in holy Scriptures (saith he) may loose his voyce by con­tention with them, & purchase choler by their blasphemies. For if we affirme any thing, they will deny it; yf we deny it, they will affirme it; and thus the victory will be none, or very dubious, or not certayn by this course.

10. For theis, and many more waighty consi­derations, I setled my thoughts in this infallible [Page 92] position (not doubting to find the concurrency of all wise, discreete, and learned Protestants with me in this behalf) viz. See S. Aug. ep. 118. This epistle is often ci­ted against the Puritas & namely by D. Whitgift against T. C. No exposition of Scriptu­re is sound, and perfect, which is formed against the doctrine, or practise of the knowen, visible, professing Church. Whereunto I may add (in remembrance of M. Iewells challendge) this clause; viz. for the space of 600. yeares after Christ.

§. 2. Some chief points in the former discourse, to be obserued.

SECONDLY, I considered the particulars of this discourse, and waighed euery syllable as vprightly, as I could ballance it in my vnpartiall reason. For I did not favour the poore thing for the Authors sake; nay, I was more seuere vnto it in that respect.

2. The conclusion of all was briefly this; that the said discourse is TRVE or FALSE; and so consequently, either I must refute it, or it must conuince me.

3. If it be TRVE, then my faith is conquered absolutely in this point, and probably (at the least; if not necessarily) in all the rest; and spe­cially, wherein I haue dissented from the Romane Church.

4. For Charity, and Faith resemble each other in the nature of their processe. Charity is the common bond of the Decalogue, and tyeth all the precepts together. Whence Rom. 13.10. S. Paull sayeth, that Loue is the fulfilling of the law; and 2. 10. S. Iames testi­fieth, [Page 93] that VVhosoeuer breaketh one commandement, he is guilty of all.

5. Likewise, Faith is Ephes. 4.4. one; not in the matters belieued, but in the manner of belieuing; not in the object, but in the habit. All the Articles of our Creed, all the doctrines of Christian Reli­gion haue a iust connexion in the order, course, & assurance of our belief; whence morall reason doth dictate this rule vnto all mens vnderstan­dings, that the certainty of errour in one point of faith, doth prooue the vncertainty of truth in all; euen as an errour in any one parcell of the Kings Patent, maketh a nullity in his whole grant.

6. I noted farther, that as this Rule is infallible in all points of my faith [a negative faith; buylt, for the most part, ex destructione veritatis, as Praescript. cap. 42. Ter­tullian speaketh of the heresies in his time] so principally in this, which consisteth in the im­pugnation of Purgatory, and Prayer for the dead; because I conceiued, Nota. that the Papists doctrine herein was no lesse weake in fundation, then it seemed dangerous in consequence.

7. For which respect, I promised a certayn victory vnto my self, when first I singled forth this matter to be the subiect of my With a Catholick in England. dispute; relying more vpon the weakenesse of mine ad­uersaries cause, then vpon the confidence of mine owne strength.

8. If it be FALSE, then the contrary vnto it must needs be true. For as there is a Truth in all things (though more difficill, and obscure in some, then in others) so it is but one, and simple. Yea truth, and falsehood are so diametrically [Page 94] opposed (the one affirmative, the other negatiue) that, where all due circumstances are obserued, there a Contradiction must necessarily ensue.

9. Here I attempted, as fairely, and substan­tially, as I could deuise, to oppose a CONTRARY assertion vnto each particular going before. For I conceiued, that as this was a syncere, and per­fect way for me to discouer falsehood, and to discerne the truth, so, if any one man (perhapps) would make a full, and satisfactory answere vnto me (in case I should obiect the said particulars vnto some Caeteri e­orum, in quos fortè incurtislem illum [Fau­stum] mihi. promitte­bant &c. S. August, Confess [...] l. 5. c. 6. So theis men turned me ouer to D. Field &c. of whose collusions I. had too great ex­perience before. learned Ministers; as truly I did; pretending, that the schedule which I offered vnto them, was directed vnto me from a Semi­nary-Priest) he must follow the same method: and whatsoeuer he will oppugne therein as false, he must prooue, that the Contrary vnto it is true: Otherwise, he shall throw dust into the ayre with more contention, then profitt. And truly nothing is more common, and triuiall in our Authours, then to bumbast their leaues with im­pertinent stuff, contayning an vncertayn sense of matter in an empty sound of words.

10. Now for the better instruction of the good Reader, I will expresse my meaning familiarly, by some few particulars in this discourse. As for example; Whereas I had deduced the custome of Prayer for the dead from the holy Apostles [during the time of the ghospell; for the Iewes, who are most strict in the obseruation of their law, pra­ctise it by an euerlasting Tradition of their Fa­thers] I sayd, no; it came not from the Apostles. But how could I iustify, and maintayn this [Page 95] assertion; and why should I creditt my priuate opinion, or the iudgement of Luther, and his compeeres, against the testimony of the Fathers, and prescription of all ages? Or why should I think, that any damnable errour, springing from naturall affection, and imitation of the Gen­tiles, could thus inuade the vniuersall Church, without any resistance?

11. Whereas I had inferred Purgatory from the perpetuall custome of Prayer for the dead, I sayd, no; the Catholick Church had no purpose in the commendation of the dead, to free their soules from any temporall payn. But how could I defend my conceipt herein against the cleare, and irrefragable authority of See befo­re pag. 35. S. AVGVSTINE, ISIDORE, CYRILL, & others; whose It goeth hard, if for a matter of history, the Fathers can find no better credit (saith D. Bancroft in his Sur­uay, pag. 338.) with the Presbyteriās. The Fathers should know, as well as Cartwright what was then in fact &c. The like did I conceiue also in this case. report was strengthened by the conformable practise of all, and impeached by the contrary assertion of none?

12. Whereas I had declared, that none but Hereticks did reiect this doctrine, I sayd, no; they were not hereticks at all, or els they were not hereticks precisely in this poynt. But I saw that the same Catholick Church which reputed them [ Aërius &c.] hereticks in other things, con­demned them likewise in this, and there was no possibility for me to defend Aërius from the crime of heresy, but by imputing it vnto S. Au­gustine, Epiphanius &c. which were a desperate attempt.

13. In a word. Whereas I had noted the vir­tues, and manifold graces, which shined in those Fathers, by whom this doctrine was propugned, [Page 96] I could not prooue the contrary. Whereas I had described the vile, and contemptible estate of Aërius, & Henricus by whom it was impugned, I could not prooue the contrary. Whereas I had informed my self, how Henricus was confoun­ded by a singular miracle of S. Bernard, I could not prooue the contrary; neither could I learn, that he, or Aërius, or Luther, or Zwinglius, or Caluin or any other Mint-maister of our late ghospell, did giue the least resemblance of any rare, and di­uine work, whereby I might perceiue, that God did concurr with him for the approbation of his new-coyned faith, and warrant of such in­ordinate proceedings.

§. 1. S. GREGORY abused by D. Field. A note concerning S. BERNARD.

THE substance of D. Fields discourse concerning the CHVRCH (the greatest, and most ponderous subiect in all religious disputes, as he affirmeth In his epist. to the Archb. saying; ‘that men, desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence, as the matters, now controuersed, are, must dili­gently search out the true Church; that so they may embrace hir communion, follow hir dire­ctions, and Nota. rest in hir iudgement) consisteth prin­cipally in this issue;’ to witt; that the opinions, wherein the Papists dissent from the Protestants at this day, were not the doctrines of the Church, See his third booke. chap. 6. 7. but of a faction onely, predominating in the same.

2. Now forasmuch as the copious declaratiō of [Page 102] this poynt would exceede the conuenient quan­tity, Chap. 7. or compasse of that chapter, wherein the seuerall differences betwixt the Papists, and Protestants are briefly (and See one example afterward; chap. 4. falsely also, in some part) sett downe, it pleased him to frame a certayn Appendix, which he annexeth vnto his third booke, and therein he vndertaketh to iustify the aforesayd position, by the testimonies of sondry Fathers, & Schoole-authours, whom he there calleth wor­thy, and learned men. For so he is accustomed to speake honourably of his enimies for his owne aduantadge.

3. Descending vnto the controuersy, Chap. 20. VVhether any sinnes be remitted after this life, or not, he vseth this pretense; viz. ‘Whereas Lombard, and others do say, that some veniall sinnes are remitted after this life, we must so vnderstand their sayings, that therefore they are sayd to be remitted after this life, because they are taken away in the very moment of dissolution; and the last instant of life, is the first after life &c.’ This is the summe of that exposition, which he maketh of Lombards, and other mens opinion concerning the remi­ssion of sinnes after this life; wherein how syn­cerely, and exactly he dealeth, I will not now dispute.

4. I come vnto his proof (brought forth by him, to corroborate the aforesaid exposition) which I will here relate, word, by word, as it standeth in his booke. ‘Hereunto seemeth Dialog. l. 4. cap. 46. GREGORY to agree saying; that the very feare, that is found in men dying, doth purdge their soules, going out of the body, from the lesser sinnes. Seeing therefore, as [Page 103] In Psalm. Qui habitat ser. 10. BERNARD sayth, if all sinne be perfectly taken away, which is the cause, the effect must needs cease, which is punishment; it followeth; that seeing after death, there is no sinne found in men dying in state of grace, there remayneth no punishment, and consequently, no Purgatory.’ So he.

5. But when I viewed the Author himself, I found that the sentence of S. Gregory doth beare much otherwise, then it is here deliuered by M. Doctors pen; for thus it soundeth in a true, and faithfull translation. FOR THE MOST PART very feare alone doth purdge the soules of IVST men going out [of their bodies] from their LEAST sinnes. Wherefore I noted three poynts of fraudulency committed by the Doctour in a few words. First; by an Omission: for whereas S. Gregory sayth, PLERVMQVE, for the most part it is so, he cashiereth this particular, and vouchsafeth it no mention at all. Secondly, by his Reddition; for whereas S. Gregory saieth, MINIMIS, the smallest sinnes, he chandgeth the degree, and translateth lesser sinnes; which was no little deceipt in him, that had a purpose to collude. Thirdly, by an Extension; for whereas S. Gregory saieth, IVSTORVM, the soules of iust men, he rendreth the speach in a more generall, and vnconfined manner; viz. the soules of men dying: and thus he mangleth a cleare sentence, to deriue a conclusion from it, Many such tricks were discouered by the B. of Eureux in the wri­tings of the L. Plessis. See the de­fence of the Relation of a triall con­cerning Re­ligion in France. It is annexed to the Exa­men of Fox his Calen­dar-Saints; Part. 1. a Cathol. doctr. pag. 121. contrary to the purpose of the author there, and his doctrine in other places.

6. For, if not all light sinnes, but the LEAST; in the soules of IVST men, to witt such, as are of singular sanctity (and not generally of men [Page 104] dying in state of grace) are FOR THE MOST PART (and not alwayes) purdged out by feare, at the time of their death; then it followeth by ineuitable deduction, that some sinnes are purdged in an other world, and consequently there is a Purgatory for this vse. This is the in­tendment of S. Gregory: and therefore a M. Rogers (that Catholick Authour) dissembleth not this matter in S. Gregory, but sayth plainely, as the truth is (which fault he is not much subiect vnto) Some Papists [viz. Gregor. dialog. l. 4. c. 39.] do think, that onely veniall sinnes are purdged in Purga­tory.

7. In which passadge three things offered them­selues vnto my consideration. First; the limita­tion of his speach, SOME; a particle meerely superfluous. See after­ward Part. 2. chap. 1. §. 2. For all Papists are of this opinion, viz. that no sinnes, but veniall onely, shall be ex­piated in Purgatory fire. Secondly; the imputa­tion of POPERY fastened vpon him, from whom we English-men receiued our first instru­ction in the faith. This was a good motiue vnto me, to embrace Popery (as passionate Sir Martin Lu­ther phraseth the Catholick Religion; whom I might more justly call a foule mouthed dogg, then Against D. Bishopp Part. 1. D. Abbott bestoweth this homely courtesy vpon a very learned T. W. Priest) since we were translated immediately from Paganisme vnto this belief, by the wonderfull, and gracious operation of al­mighty God. Thirdly; his confession of S. Gre­gories judgement concerning the remission of some sinnes after this life; which D. Field would infrindge, as you see, by misinforcing his testi­mony [Page 105] against his euident purpose in that Lib. 4. dial. 39. place, and his resolution elswhere.

8. For in his exposition of the penitentiall Psal­mes, he deliuereth, in Psal. 1. & 3. in the be­ginning of each. two seuerall places (and strengtheneth himself in the first, with the authority of S. AVGVSTINE, whom he there expressly nameth) that some men passe into heauen by the fire of purgation, and are expiated thereby, in the future life. Could I desire a more copious satis­faction in the truth of this matter? Or could I wish a more abundant redargution of D. Fields falsehood, in traducing the Testaments of the dead (for so their works are) to establish that doctrine, which they did wholly disclayme?

9. Now a word, or two, concerning S. Bernard, whom he coupleth very plausibly with S. Grego­ry (as you may see) to inferr a conclusion against that faith, which they both professed. I turned vnto the place in S. Bernard; which, truly, can by no meanes admitt such an interpretation, as M. Doctor doth colourably pretend. For it is not the meaning of S. Bernard to deny, that God doth at any time inflict a temporall payn after the re­mission of the guilt of sinne; because this posi­tion were extreamely repugnant vnto Scriptures, and Fathers, and Reason (as I shall briefly declare Part. 2. chap. 1. §. 2. afterward) and vnto the very condition of the Sacrament of Pennance it self, wherein S. Bernard knew right well, that sinne is remitted, and yet all future punishment is not thereby taken away. This was the conforme doctrine of the Catho­licks in his time: and who is so meanely skilled in S. Bernards faith, as to conceiue, that he would [Page 106] oppugne a matter of such sublimity, and so cor­respondently intertayned by the Church?

10. But the truth is this: S. Bernard perswadeth men to flye from the contagion of sinne, the effect whereof is such, that as by naturall death it seuereth the soule from the body, so by spi­rituall death, it sundreth God from the soule. And as sinne brought forth punishment, so the cessation from sinne preuenteth punishment; because no punishment doth follow, where no sinne is gone before. What then? doth no effect of sinne re­mayn, where the guylt of sinne is remitted? S. Bernard He estee­meth death it self to be a punish­ment of sinne, as you may see by the sequele. denieth it; and therefore shewing in what sense he there intendeth, that VVhen ALL sinne shall be Prorsus. D. Field himself cō ­fesseth (pag. 98.) that Death ty­rannizeth ouer the body &c. Serm. in [...]bitu Hu­berti. VVHOLLY taken out of the way, then shall no effect of it remayn, he subnecteth this sen­tence in his sweet, and diuine manner; viz. Happy is our expectation, and blessed is our hope, whose Resurrection shall be much more glorious, then our first estate [of creation, before our fall] forasmuch as neither sinne, nor punishment; neither euill, nor scourdge shall raigne, or dwell, or haue possibility to raigne, or dwell, either in our bodies, or soules.

11. To conclude; it may please you to read, and to ponderate this one, little saying of S. Ber­nard, by which you may take an estimate of his iudgement in theis matters. My brethren; while you think to auoyd a very small punishment in this world, you incurr a greater in the next. For you must vnder­stand, that you shall pay an hundred fold in In purga­bilibus lo­cis. Purgatory for those things, which you neglect in this life.

12. I know (most kind Readers) that you meruayle no lesse now, then I did, by what art [Page 107] D. Field can distill his Church out of the wri­tings of theis worthy, and learned men; or how their authorities may be honestly alleadged to prooue, that Papists are nothing els, but a faction in the Church; forasmuch as those Authors (generally) whom he produceth in his glorious Appendix, are really interessed in that faction, and enimies of our Protestanticall Church. Wherefore I did now sufficiently vnderstand, that we Protestants, assuming the name of Israell vnto our selues, and imputing the name of Philistims vnto the Papists, could not iustify our affectation therein, by any better resemblance then this, viz. As the poore, 1. Sam. 13.19.20. distressed Israelites were constrayned to repayr vnto the Philistims for the sharpening of their dulled tooles; so we miserable Protestants (hauing no better meanes) are inforced to go vnto the Papists, to procure some weapons, for our defence, from them, which we turne vn­gratefully, and vniustly against their owne bowells.

§. 2. S. AVGVSTINE abused by D. Field.

1. YOu haue Pag. 13. seene the goodly pretense of D. Field, assuring you, ‘that the Protestants honour, and reuerence the Fathers much more, then the Papists do.’ Which venditation if it did proceede from a syncere heart, then D. Field should not stand in need of his inflexions, and corruptions, to sustayn his cause with their [Page 108] disgrace, and much lesse with infaming the greatest of them all in this manner, which I will here represent vnto your Christian view.

2. ‘The Romish manner of praying for the dead (saith Pag. 99. he) hath no certayn testimony of Anti­quity; for NO MAN euer thought of Purgatory TILL Augustine, to auoyd a worse errour, did DOVBTINGLY runne into it; And none before? that is false. after whom And not all? that is false. many in the Latin Church embraced the same opinion, but the See befor pag. 54. Greek Church neuer receiued it to this day.’

3. He is yet more seuere vnto S. Augustine, vnto the Papists, and vnto this doctrine; saying; ‘that Pag. 79. Augustine doubtfully broached that opinion, which gaue occasion to the Papists of their HE­RESY touching Purgatory.’ This imputation [of heresy] doth cleaue as strongly vnto the Fathers (whom he pretendeth to honour, and reuerence) as vnto any Papist at this day; for what should I speake of Part. 4. Serm. de defunct. & in Querelâ defunct. GERSONS heresy in this point, whom he honoureth, and reuerenceth so farr, as to in­title him a Pag. 85. worthy guide of Gods Church? &c.

4. Now, though I obserued many vntruths, which are sparsed in theis little sentences of D. Field, yet I will exhibit the chief onely vnto you at this time; reducing the said accusation vnto threc, particulars. The first noteth the TEMERITY of S. Augustine, as though he had bene the Authour of a new fancy. The second noteth his IRRESOLVTION, as though he had bene vn­certayn, and dubious in this conceipt. The third noteth his FOLLY, or want of judgement, as though he had runne (inconsiderately) into an [Page 109] errour in this point, to auoyd a worse in some" other. Concerning each of theis particulars, I will offer vnto you the fruicts of my late Pro­testanticall meditations.

5. In the FIRST branch of this accusation, I found the dealing of D. Field to be so corrupt, and vncapable of defence, that thereupon I con­ceiued an extraordinary detestation of my cau­se, which, surely, is so euill, that our greatest Di­uines fall from a good conscience, while they employ their art to sustayn it from falling; and no doubt, but, if D. Fields aduantadge against Cardinall Bellarmine (worthy of immortall ho­nour) were sutable vnto this, then his censure were not vnjust, which Pag. 1 [...]7. he deliuereth in theis words; here Bellarmine sheweth Diuide that word for D. Field [...] owne vse. plainely, that his impudency is greater then his learning.

6. The suggestion of D. Field against S. Augusti­ne in this particular, discouered it self vnto me to be vayn, and empty, for two respects. First, because our owne writers teach the contrary; & secondly, because the Fathers themselues, both Greek, and Latin, are cleare witnesses against him in this behalf.

7. For first, I was informed by M. Rogers in his Pag. 120. See M. Per­kins in his problem. pag. 185. Catholik doctrine, ‘that the Papists are new, and renewed Hereticks, forasmuch as they consort, in the doctrine of Purgatory, with the old Montanists, who thought that there was a purdging of soules after this life.’ Likewise M. Gabriell Powell (patching together a fardell of heresies, and laying them vpon the Popes back) sayth, that De Anti­christo pag. 243. the Pope hath taken Purgatory from [Page 110] Montanus; a miserable heretick in the ancient, primitiue Church. But here I would be instru­cted by theis gentlemen Catholicks; why neither Haeres. 26. &c. S. Augustin, nor Epiphanius (promising to deale Haeres. 48. propè sinem. exactly in registring the heresies of Montanus, and others) nor any Catholick Authours (who were carefull to obserue the entrance, and progresse of heresy) did neuer reprehend this (supposed) he­resy in Montanus, nor in Tertullian (whose testimo­ny my Brethren haue alleadged) but did recei­ue, embrace, and deliuer the same (really) as true, legitimate, and Apostolicall doctrine? Euery thing is not heresy which an heretick doth maintayn, but that precisely, wherein he dissenteth from the conformable opinion of the Church. I proceed.

8. The Magdeburgian Centur. 3. Centuriatours seeme to lament, that the seeds of Purgatory are dispersed in the works of Origen; but as for Prudentius, Lactantius, and S. Hierome, they accuse them in expresse termes, as men wholly imbued with this conceipt.

9. I came (secondly) vnto the Fathers, as well of the Greek, as of the Latin Church, and was fur­nished by each, with singular, and abundant proofes; some small parcell whereof I will here tender submissiuely vnto your view. S. In Esaiam c. 9. Basill, sirnamed the GREAT, saith, ‘that God doth inti­mate vnto vs an expurgation according to the sen­tence of the Apostle; 1. Cor. 3.15. if any mans work burne, he shall be safe, but as it were by fire. Likewise S. Serm. de defunct. Gre­gory Nyssen (an holy Bishopp, and most worthy, in the judgement of Cap. 42. Vincent, Lirinensis, to be the [Page 111] brother of Basill, in respect of his faith, conuer­sation, integrity, and wisedome) writeth co­piously of this matter, and teacheth, that the fire of Purgatory shall cleanse the soule, and purify hir, before she take possession of eternall ioy.’

10. This noble payr was of some more anti­quity then S. Augustine; for S. Gregory Nazia [...]z. (the See G. Nazianz. in orat. fu­neb. companion of S. Basills labours) was the instructour of S. Hierō. in apolog. aduersus Ruffin. S. Hierome; and S. Hierome himself was a venerable old man, when S. Augustine was in his flourishing age, as the sequele shall more amply declare. Now though S. Basill, and his brother may be sufficient witnesses in this behalf, yet because the Deut. 19.15. Scripture saith, that in the mouth of two, or three witnesses euery word shall stand, I will adioyne a third, to witt Homil. 3. de Epiph. Euseb. Emissenus (more ancient then them both) who affirmeth, that such as haue committed things worthy of temporall punishment, shall passe through fire, and shall there pay the vttermost farthing, &c.

11. The Latin Fathers conspire with the Greeks herein. For S. Hierome, who was well striken in yeares, when S. Augustine was in his strength (whence it is, Vid. epist. Aug. 11. & 14. that he taketh vp this prouerb against him; A wearied oxe treadeth sure; and vseth this complement vnto him; Farewell deare friend, my sonne in yeares, my father in dignity) sayeth, without all ambiguity; that some soules shall be afflicted with temporall payn after this life. But I will referr this point vnto the next section, where S. Hieromes name must be deliuered from D. Fields vnjust ca­lumniation.

12. I come therefore vnto a payr of excellent [Page 112] men, with whose verdicts I will here rest con­tent. The first is In Psal. 37. Ruffinus, auerring, that Purga­tory fire is more grieuous, then any punishment inflicted in this life. The second is S. Ambrose, witnessing, that some soules shall suffer temporall payn by fire, and endure a penall expurgation therein. In Psal. 118. Serm. 20. [...] In psal. 36. v. 14. &c. See S. Aug. Confess. The first was little inferiour, in his age, vnto S. Hierome; the second was the Father of S. Augustines faith; for he begate him with the word of truth.

13. Theis things being thus premised, and duly waighed, judge now with me (courteous Readers) whether there be any colour of truth in the first part of D. Fields accusation, deuised against S. Augustine; viz. No man euer thought of Purgatory TILL Augustine ranne into it &c. And so much for this.

14. In the SECOND branch of his accu­sation, I saw that the learned Doctour doth earnestly seek after some delusions, to intangle his vnrespectiue, and incompetent Reader there­in. For, though he pretendeth, that as S. Augustine was the man who, before all others, did runne into this opinion, so, likewise, it was with a perplexed, and vncertayn mind: yet many eui­dences did occurre vnto me in his workes, which clearely dismaske the vanity of this vn­reasonable suggestion.

15. Out of a great number, I selected two, and they are sufficient to eneruate the disguised shifts of all Protestants in this behalf. The FIRST. De verb. Apost. Ser. 32. See also de curâ pro Mert. cap. 1. Non est dubium &c. ‘There is no doubt, but that the dead receiue helpe by the prayers of holy Church, by the healthfull Sacrifice, and [Page 113] by almes. The SECOND. De Ciuit, Dei lib. 21. c. 24. Non veraciter diceretur &c. It could not be sayd truly, that the sinne against the holy Ghost shall not be forgiuen in this world, nor in the world to come, vnlesse some sinnes were remitted in the future life.’ And, in the same place, he speaketh most constan­tly of temporall paynes, which the soules of some men sustayn, after their dissolution from the body.

16. Wherefore, I reflected now vpon D. Fields assertion, and was amazed to behold such a re­pugnancy betwixt theis things; viz. Augustine ranne doubtingly into Purgatory; and yet he af­firmeth; There is no doubt, but that some soules are relieued by the Sacrifice &c. Agayn. Augustine did broach this opinion doubtfully; and yet he sayeth in great confidence; It cannot be sayd truly, that one sinne shall not be forgiuen in this world, nor in the next, vnlesse some sinnes, not remitted here, should be forgiuen there. Was S. Augustine so simple, as not to regard his owne positions? or are not other men dishonest ra­ther, in contorting his words against his purpose, and intention?

17. But forasmuch as I knew, that our best, and most respected Authors do insist euerla­stingly in this poynt, I adhibited all possible diligence to find out the doubtfull sentences in S. Augustine, which may seeme to giue way vnto this pretensed IRRESOLVTION; and specially such, as belong vnto this businesse, directly without deductions, inferences, glosses, inter­pretations, NOT [...] or the like deuises, whereby men are [Page 114] wont to heape vp many testimonies out of the Fathers, and to make their conclusions against some doctrine, which is not particularly handled by the Fathers in those places, whence they assume such proofes.

18. The principall therefore, and most per­tinent sentences, which I could find, are two; which here ensue. ‘FIRST. Some men are of opinion (saieth Enchirid. ad Laur. cap. 67. S. Augustine) that such as are baptized, and continue Christians (not diuided by any schisme, or any heresy from the Catholick communion) how wickedly so euer they liue, and neuer wash away their sinnes by repen­tance, nor Daniel. 4.24. Is this doctrine repugnant vnto our Redemption by the bloud of Christ alo­ne? Truly as much as the former doctrine of Propitiatiō &c. See be­fore, pag. 29. redeeme them with almes, but persist therein most pertinaciously vnto their last day, yet they shall be saued by fire; howbeit their pu­nishment shall be extended according to the quality of their offence. But they, who say thus, and yet are CATHOLIQVES [viz. not sepa­rated from the Church by any heresy; as Arrians, Marcionites &c.] seeme (in my opinion) to be de­ceiued by a certayn humane beneuolence.’

19. Here S. Augustine, in his mild, and gentle disposition, though he reiecteth this conceipt in some priuate men, yet he referreth the cause of their errour, vnto the simplicity of their loue. Neither doth he propound any scruple against Purgatory, but onely he denieth it vnto such per­sons, as, by an euill life, and impenitent death, make themselues vncapable of this Misericor. & Iudi [...]. cantabo tibi Domine &c. Psal. 101. Which S. Augustine, and his cō ­pany did sing, after his mothers decease See Confess. l. 9. c. 12. mercifull iustice. As for example. The law in England doth prouide a mitigation of penalty for some offendours; as burning in the hand, pillory, or some [Page 115] like chastisement, and depriueth them not of their life; because she would, in hir justice, punish sinne, and yet, in mercy, she would preserue the person. Now, if any man would exceed the purpose of the law, and, in his affection, would grant this indulgence vnto Murtherers also, his errour must be corrected by such, as are more equall in the courses of iustice then he is; and yet they, who deny this benefit vnto a Mur­therer, do not thereby subuert the Law, which sheweth mercy vnto some transgressours, but they reduce the practise of it vnto the intention of them, by whom it was respectiuely de­creed.

20. The SECOND sentence in Enchirid. cap. 69. S. Augustine, is this. ‘It is not incredible, that some such thing may be done after this life, and yet it may be questioned, whether it be so, or not. For it may be found out, or it may lye hid, whether many faithfull men shall be saued by a certayn Purgatory fire, either more slowly, or more speedily, as they haue more, or lesse affected theis temporall goods. Howbeit theis men also are not such, of whom the Scripture sayeth 1. Cor. 6.10. they shall not possesse the kindome of God; that is to say, vnlesse their sin­nes be remitted vnto them vpon their conue­nient repentance.’

21. Here S. Augustine doth not leaue it as a thing vncertayn, and disputable, whether there be any temporall payn, or penall expurgation of some soules after this life (for he doth affirme it confidently in many places, and doubteth of it in none) but he leaueth it as a thing questionable, whether any [Page 116] earthly affections (remayning actually in the separated soule, and cleauing thereunto) be purdged out after this life, He might doubt also de qua­litate poenae, viz. whe­ther FIRE be the In­strument which God vseth in the purgation of soules, or not. For though this be most credible, yet no man is obliged to receiue this opi­nion, by ab­solute ne­cessity of faith. by affliction, payn, and sorrow, as they are purdged out in this life, very often, by tribulation, and grief. This is clearely imported by his owne words; TALE aliquid fieri &c. It is not incredible that some such thing may be done after this life, and yet we may doubt, whether it be so, or not.

22. Wherefore, as in the num. 18. former sentence S. Augustine disputed of the PERSONS, vnto whom Purgatory may appertayn, so here he disputeth of the QVALITIES, which are to be cleansed out of their soules; but he disputeth, or doubteth in neither, of Purgatory it self, or a penall estate (for, to litigate concerning names, & words, it were a childish folly) wherein the soules of some men shall receiue a castigation for their sinnes. That this is the true, and genuine sense of S. Augustine in the aforesaid places, all intelli­gent Readers will easily perceiue by the con­nexion, and dependency of his discourse.

23. But I proceeded yet a little farther, and considered yet more exactly with my self, that the very prescription ensuing Cap. 110. there in S. Au­gustines profound discourse, doth inuincibly, and substantially demonstrate vnto me (alwayes pre­supposing him to be no simple fellow, nor grosse companion) that he had no purpose, nor inten­tion, in the aforesaid places, to admitt any doubt concerning PVRGATORY (really, and purely conceiued in the nature of the thing it self) but onely concerning some accidentall respects. For (sayth he) Negandum non est &c. It is not to be [Page 117] denied, that the soules of [some] men deceased, haue relief by the piety of their liuing friends &c.

24. Now, what an absurdity were it in S. Au­gustine, to affirme with great confidence, that some soules are relieued by the piety of their friends, and yet to be in doubt, whether there be any distinct estate of soules, afflicted with a temporall payn? But, whether it be more probable, that S. Augustine was thus caried into a braynelesse conceipt, or that the Protestants deriue his words against his cleare purpose, I remitt me vnto your inge­nious, and wise determination.

25. Meane while, I shall intreat D. Field to take notice of one question, which I desired long since to propose vnto him, and to craue his playn resolution therein, without ambiguous, or perplexed speach. Forasmuch as S. AVGVS­TINE doth often, and constantly deliuer vnto vs (not onely by the knowen instruction of the Catholick Church, but by the certayn euidence of holy scripture) that there is a temporall payn inflicted vpon some soules in a future estate, why doth D. FIELD conceale this poynt from his Readers, and why doth he Pag 7 [...]. muster vp such sentenes onely, as beare a shew of doubt, and then make a pre­tense, that Augustine did DOVBTINGLY runne into Purgatory, and that he DOVBTFVLLY broached an opinion, which gaue occasion to the Papists heresy in this matter? Besides; if the Papists were as greatly proud, as Pag. 71. 170. 1 [...]9. in epist. de­di [...] &c. D. Field doth earnestly object this crime vnto them, yet were they so foolish, and obtuse also, that they would rather assume this do­ctrine from S. Augustines ▪ DOVBTFVLL sentences, [Page 118] then from his perspicuous, and irrefragable au­thorities in this behalf?

26. To conclude this second branch of D. Fields accusation; it may please you to consider with me, that as piety doth oblige vs to reconcile all places of sacred Scripture (which seeme to imply any contradiction) in such manner, that the truth of each may be inuiolably pre­serued, according to the intendment of the holy Ghost: See Zanch. de Redemp. in quaest. de Inuocat. Sanct. what rules he prescribeth in this case. so wisedome doth prescribe vnto vs, that no doubtfull sentence in the Fathers should be expounded, or admitted against their certayn doctrine in other places, and specially, when it is strengthened by the publick approbation of the Church. For as it is a singular impiety in Luther, and in his truest disciples, to reiect the Epistle of S. Iames, vpon a supposed, or seeming We are iustified by faith, with­out the works of the law. Rom. 3.28. We are iu­stified by works, and not by faith onely, Ia­mes 2.24. contradiction therein against S. Paull (whence See Du­raeus in res­pons. ad Whita [...]rū pag. 9. Pomeranus, in his Lutheranicall violence, sayth, that the Author of S. Iames his epistle, bringing an impious argument, and making a ridiculous collection, alleadgeth Scripture contrary vnto Scripture; and thus he renounceth a part of holy writt with ex­treame defiance) so it is a remarqueable folly in any man, to inforce conclusions out of some obscure, or dubious places in the Fathers, sensed against their euident, and perpetuall doctrine elswhere; a course, which the chief Prote­stants despise, and contemne in the Puritans at this day.

27. In the THIRD branch of this accusation, D. Field is very iniurious vnto the dignity of this blessed, and renowned Father. For he [Page 119] knoweth that S. Augustine doth not fearfully im­pugne this errour [viz. all rightly belieuing Chri­stians shall find mercy in the end, whatsoeuer their wickednesse were, &c.] inasmuch as many testi­monies are extant in his Enchi [...]id. ad Lau [...]. c. 67. De fide, & ope [...] c. 15. De Ci­uit. Dei. l. 21. c. 26. workes, whereby it doth appeare, that he disclaymed it absolutely, and disprooued it fully; howbeit he is modest, and temperate in his disputes, and not of that rusticity, as our brethren in Luthers, and Caluins ghospell, who, like Cadmaean vpstarts, conuul­nerate themselues with mutuall reproach, whereby they are exposed vnto a publick, and iust contempt.

28. But now, ô This ho­nour may be as duly giuen by me vnto S. Augustine, as it is giuē by M. Ro­gers (in his Cathol. doctr. epist. dedicat. nū. 4) vnto M. Latimer. sacred, and reuerend Augustine, I will turne my speach vnto thy religious, learned, and excellent self. Diddest thou so feare to oppugne an errour, that thou diddest not feare to violate the truth? Couldest thou not reprooue a falsehood in some men, without giuing occasion of heresy vnto others? Wouldest thou so peremptorily affirme, and yet immediately doubt in the same thing, and specially, the matter being such, as, in extension, did belong vnto the whole Church (for so thou hast infor­med me) and, in consequence, doth euacuate Christs meritts (for so we pretend) and impart his office vnto our proper satisfactions?

29. If this be so, then Contra Hen [...]ic. 8. S. Luther had a good reason for his contemptuous demand: Quis est Au­gustinus, & quis nos coget illi credere? Who is Augusti­ne, and who shall compell vs to belieue him? If this be not so, why then do we traduce thy glorious name, to destroy the ancient faith, and [Page 120] why do we depresse thy incomparable worth, to sustayn our ruinous cause?

§ 3. S. HIEROME abused by D. Field.

1. I Come vnto the third Doctour of the Latin Church, S. Hierome, whom our Great Refor­mer doth not onely Luth. in Gen. 22. trample vnder his feete, but also Luth. in colloq. con­uiual. in cap. de Scholast. Theol. expelleth out of the number of Doctours, and pronounceth him to be an Heretick: for thus he honoureth, and reuerenceth the Fathers much more, then the Romanists do.

2. Though D. Field hath moderated his stile toward S. Hierome, and (vsing the testimonies of this Saint at his pleasure) dismisseth him whith a more gentle imputation, saying, that Pag. 166. Hierome was a man of a violent spirit, yet as the abuse, which he offereth vnto him (in the question of Purgatory) is subtile in the manner, and hatefull in the matter thereof, so he doth plainely discouer his affection toward the Truth, and the Fathers to be such, that he neither res­pecteth how vainely he doth elude the first, nor how vnconscionably he doth intreate the second. Marke therefore Pag. 79. This opi­niō he put­teth vpon S. Hierome, as you shall see pre­sently. his artificiall passadge, which here ensueth.

3. It was an errour of sondry of the Ancient, that all Catholick Christians, how wickedly so euer they liue, yet, holding the fundation of true Christian profession, shall in the end (after great tormens endured in world to come) be saued, as it were by fire. They durst not say (as [Page 121] Origen) that the ANGELLS, who fell, Note theis 4. opiniōs. shall be restored 1 in the end; nor (as some others) that all MEN, whether 2 Christians, or Infidells; nor (as a third fort) that all 3 CHRISTIANS, how damnably so euer erring in the faith, should in the end be saued; but thought it most rea­sonable, that all RIGHT belieuing Christians should 4 find mercy, what so euer their wickednesse were . This [fourth] opinion was so generall in Augustines time, that very fearfully he opposed himself against it; and not daring wholly to impugne that, which he found to haue so GREAT, AND REVEREND AVTHOVRS, he qualified it what he could, and so doubtfully broached that opinion, which gaue occasion to the Papists of their heresy touching Purgatory, &c.

4. Here the Doctour (sorting his termes wise­ly for his owne aduantadge) ad Literā K. quoteth S. Hie­rome; as though the reuerence, which S. Augustine yealded vnto his person, made him fearefull to impugne his errour. But what ouerture is there of S. Hieromes errour in this point? Behold two places, alleadged by the Doctour out of his workes. FIRST. Hierom. in Esaiam cap. 66. As we belieue, that the torments of the Diuells, and of all deniers of God, and of all the wicked (who haue sayed in their heart, there is no God) shall be eternall, so we think, that in respect of the sinners, and vngodly, Et tamen Christianc­rum, sayth S. Hierome. whose workes shall be tried in the f [...]re, the sentence of the iudge is moderate, and mixed with mercy. SECOND. S. Hiero­me. contra Pelag. l. 1. He writeth, that Christians, being preuented in sinne, SALVANDOS POST POENAS, are to be saued after paynes.

5. Now consider, I pray you, with what art D. Field seeketh to obtayn his purpose. For, intending to dazle the vnderstanding of his [Page 122] Readers, he adioyneth this sentence immediately vnto the former (as Iacob followed Esau in the birth, Genes. 25.26. and held his brother by the heele; which signified, that he would, in time, supplant him viz. Augustine saieth in his Manuell to Laurentius, chap. 67. that such as think, that vngodly men, and sinners POST POENAS SALVANDOS, seeme, in his opinion, to be deceiued by humane beneuolence. Hence a cre­dulous, and ignorant Reader must necessarily conceiue, euen for the similitude of theis words [post poenas saluandos] that the opinion of S. Hierome is here particularly aymed at, and reprooued by S. Augustine; and, for this end, D. Field hath craftily conuaighed those words into S. Augustine: how­beit they are not found at all in the designed Euchirid. ad Laur. c. 67. place; as you may perceiue by that exact, and faithfull translation of S. Augustines sentence, which you shall find in the §. 2. num. 18. precedents; vnto which I must remitt the courteous Reader, because I haue confined myself vnto a certayn quantity, which I may not exceed in this dis­course. For as Procustes extended their leggs, which were shorter then his iron bed, and con­tracted them, which were longer; so many men are tyrants vnto their owne conceipts, enlardging, or abbreuiating them according to the capacity of their paper. I affect not a va­nity with the first, but I suffer a necessity with the second.

6. I proceed. As D. Field would inferr out of the two former sentences in S. Hierome, that he was intangled with the See before; num. 3. fourth errour [viz. all right belieuing Christians shall find mercy, whatsoeuer, [Page 123] their wickednesse were] so I might inferr by the same reason, NOTA. that he was intangled with the third errour [viz. all Christians, how damnably so euer erring in the faith, shall in the end be saued] and, if any man will stand so ill affected vnto S. Hierome, as D. Field doth, he may inforce the one, as well as the other, out of the aforesaid places.

7. But I satisfied my self, for two considera­tions, that good S. Hierome (a great, and reuerend Authour indeed, as D. Field confesseth truly; how­beit with a purpose to deceiue) was guilty nei­ther of the third, nor fourth opinion (as you see them randged num. 3. before) nor to be accused (reaso­nably) by any man in this behalf. FIRST; be­cause some particulars in the aforesaid senten­ces, exempt from this suspition; as namely; In the first sentence. QVORVM opera, whose workes shall be tried in the fire &c. which word [quorum] is not taken explicatiuely, to signify all Christians, but distinctiuely, to note forth vnto vs one certayn What de­gree this is, you may conceiue by his doctri­ne, which here fol­loweth. num. 3. degree of Christians, who shall suffer a temporall punish­ment in fire. Agayn: S. Hierome Lib. 1. contra Pe­lag. disputing lear­nedly against the Pelagians, speaketh thus, in the name of the Catholick Church; VVE say, that Christians, preuented in sinne, shall be saued after the infliction of some paynes. What we? I, and a faction onely, consenting with me? No; but that Church, which you impugne, and which I defend. And if S. Hierome had exceeded hir knowen intention, he were guilty of notorious treason against the integrity of hir faith.

8. SECONDLY; because many graue sen­tences in S. Hieromes works, do cleare him wholly [Page 124] from that vniust imputation; and If occa­sion requi­red it. so I had greater reason to vse D. Fields direction in this case, then Pag. 166. he had to vse it in some other; viz. Hierome wrote many things, that must haue a fauourable construction, to make them accord with that, which, elsewhere, he hath deliuered. Consider therefore, with me, the waight, and efficacy of theis testi­monies. S. Hie­rom. in S. Matth. cap. 26. It is not sufficient [vnto saluation] to haue faith, vnlesse faith be confirmed with good workes. Agayn. S. Hierom. in Hos. c. 4. VVhen hereticks see men offend against God, they say, that God seeketh nothing of them, but the Hereticks faith is fal­se: but as they think it to be true, so S. Hieromes purpose is to shew, that true faith with­out good works, a­uayleth not vnto salua­tion. VE­RITY OF FAITH. For this cause the people are not humbled, but they rejoyce in their sinnes, and go forward with a stiff neck. VVherefore the People, and Priest, Maister, and Schollers are bound vp in the SAME IVDGEMENT.

9. I considered farther, that S. Augustine refu­ting this errour, which D. Field deriueth vpon S. Hierome (as though he were He na­meth none other. See before, nū. 3. one of those great, and reuerend Authours, for whose sake S. Au­gustine fearfully opposed it, and durst not wholly impugne it, &c.) produceth a very forcible, and powerfull reason to expugne it; viz. S. August. in Enchirid. ad Laur. c. 67. if men of Catholick, and entire faith, should be saued in the end, notwith­standing their wicked liues, and perseuerance therein vnto their last howre, then it would follow, that faith may saue a man without workes. But that is impossible (saith he) euen by the testimony of S. Iames; and of this matter I haue treatised elswhere, in a De fide, & operibus c. 15. &c. booke written by me to this effect. Now, were it not a sottishnes in me to conceiue, that Saint Hierome (let not D. Field, nor Luther be offended with this reuerence, and honour, which I yeald vnto the Fathers, by their just title [Page 125] of SAINTS) is guilty of that errour, which S. Augustine disprooueth, since he also controlleth it, by the validity of the same reason precisely, which S. Augustine hath alleadged, and vrged to this purpose? Were there any congruity, or coherence in such a fancy?

10. Wherefore, as I was directed by theis con­siderations, to intertayn a more reuerent opinion of S. Hierome, then euer I admitted vnto this time, so that high conceipt, which I had of D. Fields extraordinary value, languished in me daily; and the The Pro­testants CHVRCH. cause it self, which he vnderta­keth to defend, seemed worse, and worse in my thoughts, forasmuch as the chiefest Patrones thereof, are continually driuen vnto such disho­nourable, and vnworthy shifts.

§ 4. S. AMBROSE abused by D. Field.

1. SAint Ambrose maketh vp the messe, and beareth his part of disgrace amongst his friends.

2. But as the cariadge of this matter is very smooth, so it seemeth to be very syncere, and graue. For when the learned Doctour hath layd forth the sense, See before, pag. 31. and intendment of Antiquity in hir prayers for the dead, he goeth forward, with a specious pretense, Pag. 98. to vnfold the truth more amply, and to detect such errours, as were embraced by some men, contrary vnto the desig­nement, and purpose of the Catholick Church.

[Page 126]3. ‘It was an opinion (sayth he) of many of the Fathers, that there is no judgement to passe vpon men, till the last day; and that all men are holden either in some place vnder the earth, or els in some other place appointed for that purpo­se, so that they come not into heauen, nor receiue the reward of their labours till the generall Iudgemēt, &c. Of this opinion was Iustin Martyr, He taught the doctri­ne of Pur­gatory; and so did La­ctantius al­so, by the confession of sondry Protestāts. 1 De natu­é Dei, l. 4. c 4. Tertullian, Clemens Romanus, Lactantius, Victorinus Martyr, AMBROSE, Ioh. Pontifex Rom. and sun­dry other.’

4. Here I did suspect the integrity of D. Field in his manifold turnings, and inflexions, because I was informed long before by n Hierome Zanchy, that prayer for the dead had not a reference particu­larly vnto the soule, but rather vnto the body (a poynt not omitted by Pag. 98. D. Field himself) and his collection is framed in this manner. Ambrose, in his funerall oration, vpon the death of Valen­tinian the Emperour, confesseth, ‘that Aeterna vi [...]. fruitur viluptate a [...]e S. Am­brose his words. his soule is in heauen, and yet he addeth farther, that he will be mindfull of him in his prayers, and oblations. Where­fore either Ambrose doth contradict himself (which, in so little a passadge, is vnlikely) or els, he referred his prayers vnto the resurrection of the Emperour, and vnto his corporall estate.’

5. But Zanchius is egregiously mistaken in this collection, and his partition is vnsufficient; for S. Ambrose doth not contradict himself, neither yet did he referr the execution of theis religious duties vnto the body alone, and resurrection of the Emperour (as it appeareth by his expresse testimony in this oration; viz. Let us prosecute the [Page 127] godly SOVLE with our oblations: likewise in his oration for Theodosius, he desireth God to take the Emperours SOVLE into his rest; thus also in his oration for Satyrus, he maketh a speciall commendation of his SOVLE vnto almighty God: and this was the practise of the Church) but as many probable reasons did induce him to conceiue, that Valentinians soule was now in actuall possession of eternall joy, so for want of infallible assurance in this behalf, he would not intermit his duty, nor neglect his office toward the dead, which charity prescribed, and the Church appointed in this case. In like man­ner In obitis Humberti. S. Bernard, out of his singular hope, which was founded vpon very probable reason, saith, that Humbertus (lately deceased) iam obtinet gau­dium &c. doth now obtayn those ioyes, which shall endure for euer. Notwithstanding, it were a folly to imagin, that S. Bernard would neglect the accustomed piety, and deuotion of the Church, which (haply) might be expedient for his soule. To conclude. Hence it is that S. Confess. l. 9. c. 13. Au­gustine, supplicating vnto God for his deceased Mother, saith; I belieue, o Lord, that thou hast already performed the thing, which I desire (for she was a woman of singular virtue; and the premisses of hir good life inferred the conclusion of hir happy death) but yet accept the voluntary petition of my lippes. The first proceeded out of a pious belief, the second out of a wise feare, and there was charity in both. Which point I wish that Cathol. A­polog. Part. 1. l. 1. c. 87. q 2. D. Morton had duly waighed within his heart, before he bran­ded S. Augustine with this improper censure, [Page 128] Magis affectionis, quam rationis oratio, the oraison of Augustine [for his mother] came rather from affection, then reason. I returne now vnto D. Field.

6. Being tormented with a necessary suspi­tion, rather of D. Fields vnfaithfulnesse in his report, then of S. Ambrose his folly in this mat­ter, I made hast vnto the Author, whom he alleadgeth to iustify his assertion: viz. SIXTVS SENENSIS bibliothec. sanct. lib. 6. annotat. 345. I turned vnto the place, where I found Senensis discoursing to this effect. ‘The opinion of Ber­nard [viz. that the blessed soules content themselues with the aspect of our Sauiours humanity &c.] though it be condemned (as Castrensis doth obserue) yet I think, that the Author is to be excused with a gratefull, and benigne affection, because many excellent Fathers in the Church, SEEMED, by their testimonyes, to giue authority vnto his opinion; as namely, Irenaeus, Iustin Martyr, Lactan­tius, AMBROSE, Chrysostome, Augustine &c.’

7. When I had diligently perused the place, I noted a subtile collusion in the Doctour, forasmuch as he singleth forth S. Ambrose, & omit­teth S. Augustine; knowing, that the first might be jaded more coulorably then the second, and that euery nose would not haue this crafty dealing so quickly in his sent, because the sauour is not so strong. I considered also; if D. Field had neuer bene acquaynted with S. Ambrose his works, or if he had not distinctly remembred his opinion in this poynt, yet the learned Authour (whose testimony he abuseth to the injury of an other) [Page 129] did prohibit him to condemne S. Ambrose with such hast; for he sayth, that many of the Fathers Visi sunt. SEEMED to giue warrant vnto this opinion: and therefore, if Senensis had not added any interpre­tation to cleare S. Ambrose from that folly, yet this limitatiō it self might haue mitigated his cēsure, and it could be sayd at the vtmost, that Ambrose did seeme to be of this opinion: thus one half of the wrong had bene abated, whereas now it is doubled, yea tripled by this vnfaithfull dealing; and so the last errour will be worse then the first.

8. For though Senensis doth presently answere in behalf of S. Ambrose, and some August. Chrysost. others, that he, and they speake of the perfect, and con­summate felicity, which the soules expect to enioy after the resurrection of their bodyes (thus, sayth he, we haue interpreted the sentences of AM­BROSE, Aug. Chrysost. annotat. 64. & 169. lib. 1. annot. 264. in this booke, and elswhere) yet D. Field suppresseth that resolution, and so exposeth this good Father vnto the mercy of all enimyes, that will calumniate his name. This is the faithfullnesse, and such is the exactnesse of D. Field, to conduct his Readers into the true ap­prehension of the ancient Churches purpose in the religious duty of prayer, and oblation for the dead.

9. With theis, & other deuices parallelable the­reunto, he hath replenished that whole 17. in the third book. chap­ter, wherein he treatiseth of this matter, & con­cludeth it with this reproachfull derision of BELLARMINE; Truly, I am weary in following of him in theis SENSE LESSE FOOLERIES. [Page 130] But the Reuerend Cardinall hath now gayned a just defence for him self, from D. Fields vnjust accusation of other men, and may take comfort in this plea; am I better then my FATHERS? I am well content to beare my part in their for­tune, and to participate in their disgrace; Yea, considering the dignity of their persons, the ex­cellency of our common cause, and the disposi­tion of him, who standeth out in defiance of me, and it, and them, I regard not the folly of his malice, but I compassionate the misery of his case.

§. 1. D. Field refuted by S. Epiphanius, and S. Augustine.

1. AS the confession of Caluin, and practise of our Congregations did informe me, that the Protestants renounce the custome of prayer for the dead, and wholly disclayme the AC­TION it self; so many forcible reasons did resolue me, that the Papists, retayning the action, do likewise herein preserue the INTENTION of the ancient Church; notwithstanding the glosse of D. Field, who, to confirme, and establish the injury, which he hath already done vnto the Cardinall, annexeth this passadge immediately vnto the After tho­se words— to deliuer men from thence. See before; Chap. 2. num. 1. former viz. But Bellarmine will reply, ‘that the custome of praying for the dead was most ancient. We answere: The custome of remem­bring the departed, naming their names at the holy Table, in the time of the holy mysteries, and offering the Eucharist (that is, the sacrifice of prayse) for them, was a most ancient, and godly custome, neither is it any wayes disliked by vs. And surely it appeareth, this was the cause that AERIVS was condemned of hereticall rashnesse, in that he durst condemne this lau­dable, and ancient custome of the commemo­ration of the dead.’

2. How doth it appeare, that SVRELY this was the cause, &c? Behold the proof; Epiphan. haeresi 75. But surely this is a miserable proof. For when I consulted with Epiphanius, I found that our forefather Aërius did pick a quarrell against this religious duty, in the same manner, and to the [Page 136] same effect, as we do at this day, saying; ‘if the prayers of the liuing may be profitable vnto the dead, then let a man liue as he li [...]t; onely let him procure some to pray for him, when he is dead, ne quid patiatur, that he may suffer no paynes.’

3. Here I considered, that if the Catholick Church (against which Aërius cōtended in the va­nity of his heart) did not belieue, and teach, that the Sacrifice of our Lords body was offered, and prayers were powred forth to relieue the soules of the dead (not all, but some) afflicted with temporall payn; the exception of Aërius were senselesse, and the defence of Epiphanius were absurd; for, as the first doth object that opinion vnto the Church, so the second denieth it not; nay he declareth, that the prayers of the liuing are beneficiall vnto the dead.

4. But this poynt was more excellently clea­red vnto me by S. Augustine, the best, and most faithfull witnesse of the ancient Church. For this worthy Father, contexing a catalogue of he­resies, registreth this heresy (amongst the rest) viz. Haeres. 53, VVe must not pray, nor offer sacrifice for the dead. A fancy begotten by Aërius, and by him first hat­ched into the world.

See the Peroration of S. Augu­stines trea­tise.5. Now whereas Quod-vult-Deus (vnto whom S. Augustine directeth the aforesayd catalogue) desired to receiue instruction, how he should deport himself against all heresies, and what opi­nion he should intertayn thereof, the reue­rend Father maketh this short, and waighty answere; ‘It is a superfluous demand to aske, what the Catholick Church thinketh of As name­ly of this particular. all theis heresies? [Page 137] For it sufficeth thee to know, that the Catholick Church doth hold, and maintayn the CONTRARY assertion vnto each.’

6. Wherefore it now remayned, that I should acquaynt my self with the purpose of the Catho­lick Church in hir prayers, and oblations for the dead, since she defended the contrary opinion vnto Aërius in theis laudable, and Christian offices, as S. Augustine prescribeth vnto his well respected friend.

7. What was the successe of my study, and me­ditation in this poynt, you may see Booke 1. part. 1. chap. 2. §. 4. before, where this matter is more particulary discussed. There you shall find, that the intention of the vniuersall Church in theis things, was (preci­sely) to relieue some soules: and hence it fol­loweth, that Aërius (teaching the CONTRARY hereunto) vomited out this heresy; viz. VVe must not pray, nor offer sacrifice for the soules afflicted with a temporall payn; and this is licked vp by S. Luther, our GREAT Reformer.

8. Thus the Papists concurr with the ancient Church in prayer for the dead, and Protestants joyne hands with Aërius to deride, and subuert the same. And now I perceiued, that Ratione. 3. Edm. Campian did not object this infelicity vnto vs without a graue consideration, and necessary cause; viz. ‘The Protestants are inforced to venditate such a Church, as lay in obscure, and dark corners, vnlesse (perhapps) they will reioyce in some he­reticall Progenitours; AERIVS, Iouinian, Vigi­lantius, Berengarius, &c. from whom they haue begged the fragmēts of certayn pestilēt opinions.’

§. 2. How some Protestants seeme to defy Aërius, and how others yeald him their protection. Their contradictions, vanities, and falsehood.

1. I Found that our Authours are here distracted into variable, and vncertain conceipts; some, in their subtility, dissembling the truth of the matter; and some, in their vanity, neglecting the judgement of the Church.

2. In the FIRST rank this learned Doctour may challendge a due place; and he shall be as­sisted with his compeeres, M. Iewell, and Ph. Me­lancthon, men of great accompt. The one com­meth forth with this plausible suggestion; Iuell, in Apolog. VVe hold Therefore not this of Aërius. But here you speake vn­truly. none of those 80. heresies which are mentioned by Epiphanius, nor any of those, which are recorded by Au­gustine. The other, flourishing at randon, saith expressly; Melācth. in apolog. Augustana confess. art. 22. VVe do not forbyd prayer for the dead, and much lesse do we defend Aërius, &c.

3. In the SECOND rank, the Magdeburgians (gentlemen of the freest spirits, that euer liued, to censure the sacred writt, the holy Councells, the reuerend Fathers, and all antiquity, in igno­minious sort) may vendicate the highest roome. The things ( Centur. 4. c. [...] col. 401. say theis good fellowes) which Augu­stine, and Epiphanius noted as errours in AERIVS, seeme not so: but rather the contrary. And so, in their verdict, the Church of God seemed to deserue more blame, then this heretick, who is branded [Page 139] with just infamy, and perpetuall disgrace.

3. Though Bullinger was fiery, and boysterous against our brethren of the house of Saxony (the ancienter family of the yong ghospell) yet he doubteth not to hold some good correspondency with them in this particular; and therefore, whereas he had made a lardge confession (to his euerlasting shame) saying, Decad. 4. Serm. 10. ‘I know that the An­cients prayed for the dead; I know what Augu­stine (the noble Doctour) and what Chrysostome (the eloquent Preacher) haue written of this matter: I know that the Fathers say, it is a Tradition of the Apostles; and how Augustine affirmeth, that it is a custome of the vniuersall Church to pray for the dead; I know also that Aërius was condemned, because he did oppose himself against it &c.’ he taketh vpon him, in his liberty, to reprooue the Fathers, and to debilitate the soueraigne autho­rity of the Church. But as the leuity of this man doth justly deserue, that the seuere Quanta vanitas, q [...]ā ta impudē ­tia Bulli [...] ­geri &c. See Brē [...]ius contra B [...] ­ling. pag. 105. &c. reprehen­sion of Brentius should be duely applied vnto him in this case, so the pretense of Against D. Kellison booke 2. chap. 4. D. Sutcliffe, saying, ‘that Aërius was reputed an heretik for Arrianisme, and not for finding fault with Such su­perstition, as the who­le Church embraced. See before; pag. 60. superstitious oblations for the dead,’ is such a folly, as wise men would contemne, or such an ignorance, as a meane Scholler would commiserate, and pity in a Doctour of so great celebrity, and renowne. For, though it be true, that Aërius was infected with Arrianisme, yet forasmuch as he deuised new opinions, repugnant vnto the Catholick faith, he hath a peculiar, and distinct place in the Made by S. Aug and Epiphan. ca­talogue of hereticks: which were a superflui­ty, [Page 140] and an absurdity also, if Arrianisme had bene the proper cause, for which he was condemned by the Church.

5. I will leaue theis forayn Authours, and repayr vnto our domesticks; to witt, D. Humfrey, D. Abbot, M. Cartwright, and D. Morton, who being of greater value, then many others, may stand forth, and speake in the name of all the rest.

6. The foreman is Contra Campian. pag. 261. D. HVMFREY, whose resolution seemeth to be the publick, confession of our Church. NOS non improbaemus, &c. VVE disallow not any thing, wherein Aërius did think Quod re­ctè sensit Aërius. truly, &c. Truly? The Papists themselues will joyne issue with vs in this assertion. But the question is, whether Aërius did think truly in this particular, or not? Here the learned Do­ctour sheweth the perplexity of his heart; See after­ward; Part. 2. c. 2. § 1. and yet, adorning a fowle matter with fayr words, he slideth forward, and discouereth in plentifull sort, that our Church doth propend wholly vnto the doctrine of Aërius in this point.

7. The second is D. ABBOT, whose authority must componderate with D. Fields, and will dis­countenance his exposition of this matter. Against D. Bishopp Part. 1 pag. [...]6. ‘In the time of Epiphanius (saith he) there was an alteration made of the custome of Prayer for the dead. Other deuotions were added vnto it, with opinion to mitigate, if need so required, the very paynes of hell. This AERIVS spake against; and indeed spake against it with greater reason, then Epiphanius hath defended it &c.’ Here Maister D. Abbot dealeth iniuriously with Epiphanius, in [Page 141] whose behalf S. Augustine shall witnesse, that See befo­re; pag. 27. he was a man very renowned in the Catholick faith. But in the meane time, do not theis men agree like harp, and harrow? One sayth, See before §. 1. num. 1.2. SVRELY it appeareth &c. The other sayth; THIS Aërius spake against &c. Thus they differ in their expo­sitions (as you see) betwixt themselues, and yet neither agreeth with the truth. And no meruaile, for Lactant. haec est mendaciorum natura, vt probè cohaerere non possint. May I not say of theis men, as Offic. 1. Cicero sayeth of pedling merchants; nihil proficiunt nisi admodùm mentiantur?

8. The third is M. CARTWRIGHT, who being an See the o­pinions of Aërius be­fore pag. 60. Aërian heretick in a farther degree then they are, who principally obtayn the name of Protestants in our contrey (howbeit that is the proper inheritance of Luthers more naturall children in his faith) and reintegrating the heresy of Aërius, Pag. 403. touching the equallity of a Bishopp, and a Priest, is iustly noted by So where D. W. obie­cteth the Coūcell of Nice vnto him, he tur­neth it off, affirming that it is spotted with infa­my, by de­creing that single men, admitted to holy orders, shall not marry af­terward. Which point is fitt to be consi­dered by M. Rogers. saying (p. 115.) that if Paphnutius had not byn at Nice, that Coun­cell had er­red. D. VVhitgift (iustly in respect of the thing; vniustly in respect of their profession) vpon the confor­mity, which he embraced with Aërius in this matter. And truly, the pure, or rigid Caluinists are guilty thereof, without all possibility of defence. But how doth the Presbyterian remooue this disgrace from himself, and from the con­sorts of his folly? I am not to regard (sayth he) what Epiphanius deliuereth in this matter: for he was a man obnoxious vnto errour; and if his authority could inconuenience me herein, it might likewise confirme the [popish] errour of prayer, and oblation for the dead; which things [Page 142] are in no wise retayned by our Church.

9. This is the summe, and substance of his answere; whereby I was excited to consider, that as the Aristot. de histor. animal.irchin, in hir naturall prouidence, maketh a double prospect in hir nest, that she may, by this meanes, defend hir self from the injury of all weather; so the Protestants furnish themselues with a double principle, viz. Scrip­ture, and Fathers. In their conflict with Papists, they limitt, and confine all things vnto the Scripture, sensed by themselues conueniently for their owne security, and aduantage. If they incounter the Puritans, they reduce them vnto the judgement of Antiquity, and suffer them not to randge vp, and downe in their vast, and vnsetled imaginations. In theis princi­ples they are very inconstant, and, runne into a circular absurdity, without any certayn, and indubious resolution of their faith.

10. The fourth, and last, is Cathol. Apolog. Part. 1. l. 1. c. 33. D. MORTON; who seing our reformed Churches deepely touched with Aërianisme, seeketh by all meanes to decline the point, and seemeth fearfull in handling his owne wounds; or (as Luther ob­serued in Zuinglius) he paseth it so gingerly, as if he trode vpon eggs; and like a sheepe in the briers, the more he struggleth, the more he is intangled. Behold therefore his triple euasion.

11. FIRST he vseth the art of recrimination; saying, that Aërius held some heresies, wherein the Papists haue great affinity with him, and with other Tarian [...]. &c. hereticks; namely in that they taught, it is not lawfull to eate flesh; and in that they admitted none, [Page 143] but continent persons, vnto the communion. But as this was nothing pertinent vnto the businesse in hand; so conscience, and equity might haue treated with the Apologist, to despise such a poore, and vnlearned pretense. For first; what doth the hereticall prohibition of flesh belong vnto the Papists? I do sometimes abstayn from flesh (saith Serm. [...]. Cantic. S. Bernard) but my abstinence is a satisfaction for sinnes, not a superstition for impiety. If any man abstayn from flesh, by the rule of Phisitians, we reprehend not the care, which he hath of his owne body. If any man abstayn by the discipline of Carthu­sians; whō Gerson de­fendeth; Part. 2. such, as refrayn it, we approoue his virtue. If any man abstayn in the frensy of Manichees, I detest his blasphemy, &c. Secondly; what doth the exclusion of incontinent persons from the participation of the Sacrament, appertayn vnto them? Do they interdict mariadge, and do they abrogate the institution of God? Or, if they do not so (as See S. Ber­nard Serm. 66. in Can­tic. their works testify in their de­fence, that they do not) how then doth the aforesayd heresy assimilate them vnto Tatians, and vnto such profane impes? The Authour of the Treatise cōcerning the 3. Cōuersions of England, discouering our imperfections in this kind [of objecting heresies vnto the Catholicks] Part. 2. chap. 2. nū. 18. layeth downe two rules, whereby all our arguments (of this nature) are abundantly dissolued. For (saith he) EITHER we do not hold that, which the 1 Sectaries object vnto vs, (or, at least, not in the sense, which they object it) OR els the thing is no errour in 2 it self, according to the sense, in which we hold it, &c. Howbeit this is not a peculiar fault in my bre­thren; for thus also the See S. Aug. de nupt. & e [...] ­cupisc. l. 2. c. 2 [...]. Arrians obiected Sabel­lianisme [Page 144] vnto the Catholicks; and thus the Pelagians chardged them with Manichisme; and so did Ioui­nian likewise, because they then against him (as now against Luther) did constantly affirme, that Virginity excelleth mariadge. But what pronoun­ceth S. Augustine of theis disordered companions? They do not, or they will not vnderstand, what we say. Agayn. Ibid. c. 3. Definite obijcere nomen, & dogma alienum: leaue of this foolery, to object vnto Catholicks the name, and fancy of Hereticks. Which counsayle if Against D. Kellison booke 2. D: Sutcliffe, In his pi­cture of a Papist. M. Ormerod (the —Picto­ribus atque Poëtis. &c. Paynter) De An­tichr. pag. 243. M. Powell, and others had obserued in their writings (wherein I alwayes found more heate, then witt) they had brought lesse disgrace vnto their persons, and smaller disaduantage vnto their cause, which, being euill in it self, is made worse by their defence.

12. SECONDLY; he answereth by a demand, saying; What Councell did euer condemne this proposition [WE MVST NOT PRAY FOR THE DEAD] as hereticall? But this simple deuice yealded me no satisfaction. For, as Ep. 118. S. Augustine protesteth, that the Vniuersall Church (successiuely from the blessed Apostles) made supplications for the dead, so he prescribeth this admonition, of singular importance, viz. To call any thing in question, which is frequented by the VNIVERSALL CHVRCH, it is the part of most INSOLENT MADNESSE. Farther; do not the solemne prouisions of sondry 1. Nicē. cā. 65. ex Ara­bic. 3. Car­thag. cā. 29. 4. Carthag. can. 79. 1. Braccarens. cap. 34.2. Cabilonens. can. 39. Tri­bur iens. cap. 15. See S. Cyprian. lib. 1. ep. [...]. Councells touching prayer, and oblation for the dead, sufficiently declare, that to impugne, and reject the same, it were an heresy, and that the contemners thereof are guilty of this crime? [Page 145] Finally; S. Augustine, S. Epiphanius, and the Vniuer­sall Church (with mutuall voyce, and confor­mable judgement) haue passed sentence vpon AERIVS; as an heretick, euen in the aforesaid proposition: and will D. Morton be his aduocate now, and will he now require, what Councell did euer condemne it, as HERETICALL? Besides; D. Morton can not be ignorant, that, whereas some truths are taught correspondently by the Protestants, and Papists against Hereticks; and whereas he conceiueth, that many truths are de­liuered by the Protestants also against the Pa­pists, it would be an extreame difficulty for him to shew, what Councell condemned all the con­trary propositions thereunto, and pronounced them to be hereticall; if any man would require this seruice at his hands.

13. But now, at length, M. Doctour would seeme to come vnto the poynt; and yet he neuer deflected from it more admirably, then in his answere, which he reserueth vnto this last place. THIRDLY therefore he saith, that this proposition [WE MVST NOT PRAY FOR THE DEAD] is so farr from being hereticall, as that true Antiquity giueth hir approbation vnto the Protestants in this behalf. And what is your reason? Because INVOCATIO MORTVORVM NON VERE ANTIQVA, inuocation of the dead is not truly ancient.

14. The manner of this speach is heathenish, the matter absurd. For, did Antiquity teach the Apologist to phrase the SAINTS so scornfully, & to terme them DEAD men, in such disgrace? No: but Iulian, the famous Apostata, hath [Page 146] learned him this lesson; who, in derision of the Christians piety, sayth that they tumbled at the sepulchers of the DEAD. Contra Iu­lian. l. 10. obiect. 1. Let any man reade S. Cyrills excellent repulse of this accusation, and he shall find, that Protestants do symbolize with Iulian, and reinforce his stale obiections.

15. I passed by the manner, and came vnto the matter of the aforesayd speach; wherein I re­garded not his exception against the antiquity of Prayer to the Saints (howbeit I knew long since, that M. Rogers, translating the sweet Meditations of S. Augustine, thought good to pretermitt one whole 24. chapter, wherein S. Augustine inuocateth the blessed Saints: and therefore, whether D. Fields assertion, Pag. 148. viz. The Romanists dare not abide the triall of their doctrines by the indubitate writings of antiquity, be syncere, or not, the reader may discreetely judge) but I noted, and pitied the vnaptnesse, and inconsequence of his discourse. For how do theis things cohere? INVOCATI­ON OF SAINTS is not truly ancient; therefore PRAYER FOR THE DEAD is not defen­sible by Antiquity.

16. Peraduenture M. Doctour wanted suffi­cient leysure, and so he may plead the immatu­rity of his labours for the protection of his errour. And the Reader may well conceiue it so, forasmuch as (in the next Cap. 35. chapter, saue one) being drawen, by the objection of De notis Eccles. c. 6. Bellar­mine, to apologize for Luthers vnciuill and base folly [viz. ‘The state of maried persons is, in its nature, spirituall, diuine, heauenly, and as it were gold; the state of single persons, is secular, earthly, [Page 147] and as it were dirt]’ he vouchsafeth to yeald this worthy answere, in defence of our Great Re­former; Lutheri verba mihi nunc legere non licuit, I could not read the words of Luther now; how­beit Bellarmine doth particularly designe the Luth. in Epithala­mio. place.

17. But M. DEANE (aduanced vnto this ho­nour for his rare dexterity against the Papists) hath vnfortunately preuented this excuse. For, remembring the wise counsayle of an heathen Horat. de arte Poë­tica [...]. Poet, who prescribeth that (in a thing of lesser importance, then the controuersies of Religion are) a writer should bring forth nothing into publick view, which hath not bene discussed, euen — No­num (que) pre­matur in annum. a In his ep. vnto the Archbish. of Cant. nine yeres space, with great exactnesse, he tooke very speciall deliberation to compose, and divuldge this renowned Treatise. I bestowed (sayth a he) Quidque domū fert is DECI­MO, nisi dedecus, ANNO [...] Ouid. TEN YEARES paynes vpon this work, with most ardent desire to find out the truth, least some man, perhapps, might object vnto me either pre­judice, or temerity therein. Moreouer, the booke which I vsed, was of a second impression, and beautified with this aduertisement, Editio casti­gatior, a more exquisite edition then the for­mer. Wherefore, now that little sparke of poore hope, which remayned in me, to find some shew, or shaddow of probable satisfaction tou­ching the heresy of Aërius (so seuerely censured in him, by the Fathers, and so earnestly obiected vnto vs, by the Papists) became vtterly extinct.

§. 3. How vainely D. Field excuseth the folly of Protestants, which she­weth it self in the diuersity of their censures, touching the aforesaid heresy of Aërius. The true reason of their difference herein is assigned. Their peruerse dealing with Antiquity.

1. VNto this wound (very deepe, and lardge) Pag. 139. D. Field hath thought it expedient, for our security, to apply a rare, and soueraigne playster. viz. ‘If it be sayd, that sondry of our Diuines seeme to acquitt Aërius herein, they are to be conceiued, as vnderstanding his repre­hension to haue touched the errours, and super­stitions, which euen then perhapps beganne in some places, and amongst some men. For other­wise, his reprehension, if it be vnderstood to extend to the generall practise, and judgement of the Church, it is not, nor may not be justi­fied.’

2. As Sir In respons. ad Epist. Pomerani; pag. 8. If Luther do cōplayn; of Luther do say &c. D. Field, pag. 192. Th. More answered vnto Pomeranus (extenuating the haynous crimes of our bre­thren, euen in the hatching-time of our ghospell) though you mince the matter, with ‘ si qui, and si quid, and si alibi, and si non Chri­stianum, &c. yet it is well knowen, that you do generally perpetrate diabolicall, and barbarous attemps;’ so though D. Field doth here limitt, [Page 149] restrayn, and obscure a most eminent truth with if, perhapps, some men, some places, seemed &c. yet I saw most clearely (let the prece­dents testify in my behalf) that we do noto­riously conspire with Aërius in this issue: what he denied, the very same thing do we deny; what he affirmed, the very same thing do we affirme. Es nimium similis patri &c. ô Luther, thou art too like vnto Aërius; thy whole linea­ments descry him to be thy Father in this particular conceipt. As his reprehension extended vnto the generall practise, and judgement of the Church, so doth thine likewise; and we employ our best skill to justify, and maintayn the very same reprehension, against the faithfull rela­tion of hir chiefest Doctours, and the perpe­tuall succession of all ages.

3. But forasmuch as I perceiued, that the Do­ctour doth wisely conceale, and prouidently dissemble the quality, and reason of that dif­ference, which our Diuines are chardged with in this matter, I entered into a serious consideration thereof, and obserued, that it doth arise, and flow, NOTA. not out of their diuers apprehension of the thing it self, but out of a different opinion, which they intertayn con­cerning the authority of the Church. Hence it is, that Luther, Zwinglius, and such passio­nate gentlemen, neglecting the triall of their faith, by the testimony of Fathers, and plausibly reducing all things vnto the Scripture (either simply; by admitting no other proof at all: or respectiuely; by admitting the Fathers as farr as [Page 150] they agree with the Scripture; and so farr they may admitt a triall by the Diuell himself, and yeald as much respect vnto him, as vnto them) confesse plainely, and syncerely, that Aërius did not err in his reprehension, but that the Church erred in hir practise. On the contrary; other men pretending to deale more fairely with the Church (their mother) and to defend them­selues vnder hir protection, will not (forsooth) seeke hir ruine, by whom they would seeme to stand, and therefore they are compelled to frame most improper, vayn, and friuolous inter­pretations of this, and other things, to maintayn the goodnesse of their cause, according to the nature of their defence.

4. Briefly therefore, I noted a triple variety in our courses, which consist (generally) either in the Rejection, or Misallegation, or Misconstruction of the ancient, and venerable Fathers. For in the beginning and entrance of our Ghospell, nothing was more triuiall, then to speake con­temptuously of the Fathers, and to disclayme their witnesse in the controuersies of this time. Shall I name the persons? Nulli nota magis domus est sua; no man kenneth his owne house more familiarly, then that Luther, Zwinglius, Musculus, and our primitiue Fathers, are principalls in this rank. Or if you will ascend a little higher, and come neerer vnto the dayes of VVickliff himself, you shall find this article ascribed vnto Reginald Peacock (whom, for this, and others of this kind, De Anti­christo pag. [...]7. M. Powell hath registred in the Catalogue of our Euangelicall Forefathers; and M. Fox hath [Page 151] fauourably grāted him a place in the Febr. 11. Calendar of his Saints) viz. Veterum doctorum authoritati, parum, aut nihil tribuendum, little, or nothing is to be yealded vnto the authority of the Fathers.

6. In the progresse of our ghospell, others pretending a more wise moderation in this case (but performing as little honesty here, as some shewed humility before) would not so intempe­rately reject the Fathers, and therefore they excell in misalleadging their testimonies; as Analys. Fidei, pag. 18. Ego habeo testimoniae sanctorum Patrū; ego defendo Pa­trum dog­mata; sayd Dioscorus the here­tick. See Cōc [...]l. Chalcedon. Act. 1. Gre­gor. de Valentia doth complayn of many Prote­stants, and more specially of Kemnitius, that Exa­miner (saith he) of the Tridentine Councell. If this collusion fayle, then succedeth the third, which is, misconstruction of things, by deriuing the testi­monies of the Fathers to an other purpose, then euer they did, or could intend. A, for example. Lib. 3. c. 3. S. Irenaeus pronounceth, ‘that all the faithfull must necessarily repayr vnto the Church of Rome. Why? For she is of more powerfull principallity then the rest. Whence is that? Because she was founded by the two glorious Apostles, S. Peter, and S. Paule.’ Against the playn euidence whereof, Against D. Har­ding. M. Iewell assumeth, that Irenaeus did referr this more powerfull princi­pallity vnto the Emperour, and vnto the ciuill State. But all history doth proclayme, that the Christians were cruelly persecuted in those ti­mes, and that they had no intercouse with the politicall affayres. Behold also an other exam­ple of the like nature. For whereas In 1. Ti­moth. 3.15. S Ambrose doth positiuely affirme, Answ. to the Rhem. Testam. ibid. that Damasus [then Bishoppe of Rome] is RECTOVR of the Church, D. Fulke frameth an answere to this effect. The [Page 152] Church was then afflicted with Arrianisme, and because Damasus did oppose himself eminently against it, he might be called the Rectour of the Church; and yet so, as the same title may belong also vnto other Bishopps. Which poore elusion suteth well with the palpable va­nity of M. Cartwright (iustly reproued by Suruay; chap. 27. D. Bancroft in this behalf) pretending, that S. Chry­sostomes vigilancy ouer the Churches of Pontus, and of Thracia, was none other then such, as euery godly minister ought to haue ouer all Churches in the Christian world.

6. Wherefore I shall now remitt my self vnto the consideration of all wise, and ingenious men, whether that true censure, which Ibid. D. Bancroft (the L. Archb. of Cant) hath passed vpon the Presbyterian faction, may not haue a con­uenient application vnto the whole fraternity of our ghospell; viz. VVhen, for the proof of sondry matters, impugned by them, they are vrdged with the testimonies of the ancient Fathers, and of the Eccle­siasticall histories, they either shift them off with their owne false glosses, or, if that serue not their turne, they disgrace them, as much as they can, and so reiect them &c. 2. Sam. 13. As when Amnon had incestuously abused his sister, he dismissed hir with con­tempt.

§. 1. Dionysius Carthusianus abused by M. Rogers. Pag. 121.

1. ‘PApists agree not amongst themselues (sayth M. Rogers) about the time, which they, that be tormented, shall abide in Purga­tory. For some haue giuen out, how the poore soules there, be continually in torments, till the day of Iudgement; as De offic. mort. l. 7. DIONYS. CARTHV­SIANVS: others, as De offic. mort. l. 7. DVRANDVS, De 4. No­uiss. do think that they haue rest sometimes; as vpon Sunday, and holy dayes: others are of mind, that they shall be set free, and at liberty, because their punishment is but temporall &c.’

2. Here is an ample testimony of an vnfaith­full heart. For whereas this man of great ex­perience is pleased to affirme, that some Papists imprison the soules in Purgatory vntill the day of Iudgement, and that, by this opinion, they dissent from others, who conceiue that their payn is not of such perpetuity, and length, he offereth a generall iniury vnto them all, and more particularly vnto that Author, whom he alleadgeth to this purpose. It is most vntrue that Carthusianus did deliuer such a fancy, or that he was of such opinion; witnesse that little treatise de modo liberandi animam è Purgatorio. Witnesse his cleare assertion, that soules, Dialog. de particulari iudicio ani me cap. 30. being cleansed in Purgatory, mount vp, and fly into the celestiall paradise. &c.

3. What euidence therefore hath M. Rogers to [Page 162] justify this imputation? I find none but this ensuing. De 4. No­uiss. Dionysius reporteth a certayn vision of an English-man, who beheld a soule grieuously afflicted in a place of torment, from which he receiued this answere; I know that I shall not obtayn mercy till the day of judgement, &c.

4. But is this a sufficient reason for M. Rogers to pretend, that, in the opinion of some Papists, the soules, which suffer in Purgatory, shall not come thence till the last day? And now, hath your expe­rience, good Sir, thus bettered your judgement? That, which is peculiarly spoken of one soule, will you thus extend generally vnto all? The example it self here affordeth no such con­clusion, and the Authours doctrine elswhere, doth plainely controll the same.

5. Whereas you say farther, that some Papists, and namely Durandus, do think, that the soules in Purgatory haue rest vpon sundayes &c. I will not rashly condemne your falsehood therein, but you must giue me leaue to be doubtfull of your truth. For I haue diligently, and carefully reuolued the Authour, and yet I find no such assertion in all that booke. Peraduenture you relyed vpon them, who lyed vnto you, and so you haue told a tale after a Crete. As for example; you Pag. 115. affirme, that, if Hierome had not bene at Chalcedon, that Councell had erred. What is your proof? B. Iewell, det. fol. 58. Though here your experience did fayle you (for S. Hierome was ga­thered vnto his fathers many yeares before the celebration of that Councell) yet your greatest fault was your credulity in belieuing B. Iewell [Page 163] vpon his naked word; which hath bene the de­struction of many soules.

§. 2. S. Gregory noted for a Papist by M. Rogers: how Eckius is abused by him.

1. ‘PApists agree not amongst themselues (saith he) about the causes of Purgatory torments: Ibid. for some do think that onely VENIALL sinnes; others think that MORTALL sinnes also, for which men haue done no pennance in this life, are there purdged.’

2. The first opinion, concerning Veniall sinnes, he attributeth vnto S. Gregory, & termeth him a PAPIST; either forgetting, or not regarding, that our Christian faith descended originally from him, and that it was receiued conforma­bly by our State, and that it was protected openly for 930. yeares by our worthy Princes (in the number of whom, many were pious in religion as Dauid, wise in counsayle as Salomon, valiant in warr as Iosuah) in a word, that this faith hath bene glorious in dignity, and fruict­full in good workes. And truly theis cogita­tions did enter so forcibly into my heart, euen while I was a member actually of the Pro­testanticall Church, that, in my secrete thou­ghts, I could not but acquitt the Papists from the crime of disobedience, and vndutifulnesse vnto the State, forasmuchas they made not thē ­selues [Page 164] contrary vnto it, but it is made contrary vnto them; the chandge being in the State, which propoundeth a new faith, & not in them, who conserue the old. And so much briefly touching the Popery of that illustrious Saint.

3. As for the particular, wherewith he is chardged by M. Rogers, it is no shame, nor disre­putation vnto him; Tom. 10. homil. 16. S. Augustine himself is no lesse deepely ingaged therein, saying; that there idle speaches, euill, and sordid thoughts, and the multitude of light sinnes, which infected the purity of our excellent nature, shall be consumed, &c. Lastly; Whereas M. Rogers saith, that, in the opinion of some Papists, onely veniall sinnes are purdged &c. he can not but know, that their assertion is to be vnderstood of the guilt, and not of the payn, as you shall immediately perceiue.

4. I come therefore vnto the secōd opinion, cō ­cerning Mortall sinnes, which he ascribeth vnto Posit. 6. Eckius; as though this famous Antagonist of our great Reformer, had taught, that Mortall sinnes as well as Veniall, are remitted, or expiated after this life. Whence it followeth, that he incurred the same fancy, See before; pag. 121. which (as D. Field pretendeth) S. Augstine did fearefully impugne in his time, because it was embraced by great, and reuerend Authours.

5. But here M. Rogers doth abuse his Authour, and deceiue his Reader. For the position of See Tom. 1. Luh. Wittēber. fol. 241. b. Eckius is this. The soules in Purgatory do satisfy for the paynes of sinne, from the guilt whereof they were ab­solued before, and made not satisfaction in this life. So then it is a falsehood in M. Rogers to pretend, [Page 165] that, in the opinion of Eckius, mortall sinnes are purged, &c. For Eckius affirmeth, that the guilt being taken away (& cōsequently the sinne it self) there remayneth a temporall payn to be inflicted vpon the soule. For better illustration of which poynt, it may please thee (gentle Reader) to ob­serue with me, that as by mortall sinnes, we are obliged vnto a double penalty, to witt eternall, & temporall, so whensoeuer the guilt is pardoned, the eternall (which is most properly cōsequent vnto it) is pardoned likewise, but not the temporall. Thus the Prophet giuing Dauid his absolutiō [thy sinne is forgiuen] added also, thou shalt not dy; 2. Reg. 12: and yet he imposeth a pennance, to witt, the child shall dy: the reason whereof is this, See how Bell [...]rmine presseth this against Caluin: in his fourth book de poenitent. cap. 2. BECAVSE thou hast made the enimies of our Lord to blaspheme; & so it was an affliction for sinne past, & not onely a caution against sinne to come. For though it be true, that God doth rather intend the safety of his childrē, then the punishment of their sinne, yet he puni­sheth sinne in his children, & the payn is more durable then the fault (as Tract. 124. Ioh. S. Augustine speaketh) least the fault should seeme small, if the payn were finished with it.

6. Now, as the temporall payn of sinne is justly reserued after the remission of the guilt, so it is not alwayes inflicted in this life, De Ciuit. D [...]l. 21. c. 13. but some­times in the next. Wherefore, S. Augustine con­fessing, that God doth designe poenas tēporarias pro peccatis praeteritis, distinguisheth immediately, and saith; poenas temporarias alij in hac vit a tantùm, alij post mortem, alij & hîc, & illîc patiuntur.

7. Thus I found a double reason of Purgatory; the FIRST; because some smaller sinnes, [Page 166] (wherewith grace may consist in the soule) are there expiated, both in respect of guilt, and payn: the SECOND; because some temporall payn (reserued by the justice of God, after forgiuenesse of the guilt by his mercy) is there sustayned by them, who haue not bene exercised with con­digne pennance in this life. And here ariseth a proper solution vnto the subtility of D. Field, See before; pag. 103. who would conclude; that, if all sinne be taken away, which is the cause, the effect must cease, which is punish­ment, &c. For though the obligation vnto eter­nall punishment, ceaseth actually vpon remission of the guilt, yet the obligation vnto temporall punishmēt doth remayn by the justice of God; & his ordinance concurring with our desert, is a sufficient cause to produce such effect. Therefore till his justice be satisfied, the cause of punish­ment doth still endure.

8. To cōclude. Whereas M. Rogers would inforce an absurdity vpon Eckius, & other men, as though they were distracted into great variety of opi­nion cōcerning the cause of Purgatory, he misre­porteth their intentions. For though some few men did conceiue, that all veniall sinne is wasted, and taken away from the soule, immediatly vpon hir separation from the body, yet I saw that they, and all other Papists (to speake in my old language) do concordably, and vniformely teach, that no mortall sinne (such as See D. Fi­eld; pag. 146. excludeth grace from the soule, and See S. Au. Enchirid. ad Laur. c. 69. excludeth the soule from hea­uen) is purdged after this life, otherwise then in reference vnto temporall payn, reserued, and in­flicted after remission of the guilt. But M. Rogers [Page 167] would lead his reader to conceiue, that the Pa­pists are singularly diuided in their opinions; some affirming, that onely Veniall sinnes, others resoluing, that Mortall likewise are cleansed in a penall estate.

9. Many such collusions, and deuices, I ob­serued in this Author; but I will not trouble your patiēce any longer with the recapitulatiō of his vntruths, forasmuch as by this little, which you haue already seene, you may con­iecture of the rest, which I conceale. VVhat can you expect from them, whose Religion is founded vpon the sands of falsehood, and not vpon the rock of truth? Do men gather grapes of thornes, or figges of thistles? Wherefore I will now make hast vnto the conclusion of all, and I will end my discourse briefly with him, frō whom my conuersion did happily beginne.

§. 1. S. AVGVSTINE notoriously depraued by D. HVMFREY.

Rat. 3.1. VVHereas that excellent, and re­nowned F. Campian, in those short Reasons, which bring eternall memory vnto their Authour, doth obiect vnto the Protestants the inuisibility of their Church, and that it was not otherwise visible for many ages, then in some scattering hereticks, AERIVS, Vigilantius, Berengarius &c. from whom they receiued not an entyre religion, but begged certayn pestiferous fragments alone; D. In resp. ad Camp. p. 261. 262. Humfrey finding himself taken in an inexplicable difficulty, windeth vp and downe to find some plausible euasion, and therefore he sayeth; VVherein Aërius did erre, [Page 169] we reject it; wherein he held any thing agrea­bly with the Scripture, we receyue it, &c.

2. After this obscure, and vncertayn oracle, he resolueth most plainely, that he, and his Church will not digresse from Aërius in this poynt; and therefore he addeth: We do not disap­proue that, which Aërius thought, and Augustine hath related, that we ought not to pray, nor to offer oblation for the dead, because this is not contayned in any precept of the Scripture; which He quo­teth Aug. de cura pro mortuis. Augustine also doth seeme to sig­nify, when he sayeth, that this commendation of the dead [...]s an ancient custome of the Church. Thus Aërius is iu­stifyed against the vniuersall Church, and his heresy is preferred before the Catholicke faith. But of this matter I haue intreated more particularly Pag. 14. I wanted D. Hūfrey his booke when I ci­ted his o­pinion; which I haue faithfully deliuered: & though the word (rectè) be not in my author; yet it i [...] sufficient­ly implied in him. before.

3. The thing which I yeald now vnto your cō ­sideration, is, the subtile, and artificiall collusiō of this renowned Doctor. For wheras he pre­tendeth Scripture (negatiuely) against prayer for the dead, and that S. Augustine had only custome to maintayne it, I found that S. Augustine premi­seth Scripture in defence therof, & then confir­meth it by that authority, which to Epist. 118. impugne, is the part of most insolent madnesse. For ( de curâ pro mort. cap. 1. sayth he) VVe read in the bookes of the 2. 12. 4 [...]. Machabees, that Sacrifice was offered for the dead. But if this were read no where in the OLD Scriptures, yet there is no small authority of the VNIVERSALL CHVRCH, which shineth in this custome: for in the prayers of the Priest, which he powreth forth to God at his Altar, the COMMENDA­TION of the dead hath its place.

4. Heere three things occurred vnto my pon­deration. [Page 170] FIRST; that S. Augustine doth iusti­fy prayer for the dead by the Canonicall Scripture; for so the bookes of the Machabees are recognized by a 3. Carthag. ca. 47. Councell, wherein S. Augustine himself was pre­sent, and ca. 50. subscribed thereunto. VVherefore, in his cēsure, the Sacrifice for the dead was firmely established by the testimony of sacred writ: and this being so; how can it be true, that Augustine could not plead this authority in defence ther­of? And if he did plead it, why doth D. Hum­frey pretend the contrary in this place?

5. SECONDLY; S. Augustine maketh mention here of the OLD Scripture; wher­by he intimateth that in the NEVV Testa­ment, some reliefe for the dead is either plainly expressed, or sufficiently see be­fore pag. [...]. &c. deduced from thence. THIRDLY; S. Augustine adioyneth the Church vnto the Scripture; & because there is im­peachable soueraignty in the VNIVERSALL Church, therfore he saith, that if other proofes were wanting in this matter, yet this alone may satisfie, & giue contentment vnto her ob­sequious Children: Which plea seemed vnto me so full of equity, that without insolency and madnesse (both which must ineuitably fall vpon D. Humfrey, and his Church) I saw no possibi­lity to decline the same.

§. 2. An other of his vnfaithfull practises against S. Augustine.

SAint Augustine maketh mention in the former sentence, of a COMMENDATION of the dead; from which word the Doctour taketh an aduantage to shew, Pag. 262. See before, pag 38. that in your Colledges you now retayn this pious custome of the ancient Church. But he deludeth you with ambguity of speach. For the commendation, whereof S. Augustine speaketh, is referred vnto the SOVLES of the dead, which, in the sacred Mysteries, were specially recommended vnto our Lord: but the commendation of your Founders in your Colledges, is a memory of their names, which you celebrate with commemoration of their liberality, whereby your studies are main­tayned. And this is not to conforme your selues vnto antiquity, nor to execute the testaments of your honourable Founders.

2. This noble figment in the Doctour is pre­sently attended with a more eminent depraua­tion. For, though Paulinus firmely belieuing (ac­cording to the instruction of the Catholick Church) that great vtility ensueth vnto the dead by the prayers of the liuing, desireth an explica­tion of that scripture, which sayeth; 2. Cor. 5.10. VVe shall all stand before the Tribunall of Christ, and euery man shall receiue according to that, which he hath done in this life, whether it be good, or euill; and though S. Augustine yealdeth this resolution, viz. Ibid. according to the qua­lity of this life, men receiue helpe after their decease &c. ‘ [Page 172] yet D. Humfrey, supressing both theis poynts, flou­risheth in his vnprofitable rhetorick, and hand­leth the matter artificially to make a credulous Reader belieue, that S. Augustine himself doth conuell the vse of Prayer for the dead by the testi­mony of this Scripture.’

3. The detection of theis vnfaithfull courses, which till this time mine ey saw not, neither did my heart once suspect, did conduct me, occasio­nally, vnto the truth. Ita ille qui multis laqueus mortis extitit, meum, quo captus eram, relaxare jam ceperat, nec volens, S. Aug. Cōf. l. 5. c. 7. de FAVSTO. nec sciens, sayeth S. Augustine of a man happy in name, but vnhappy in deed; and the like I may justly pronounce in my successe; thus he, that was the snare of death vnto many, beganne to lose the snare, wherewith I was intangled; and this he did, though neither by his will, nor knowledge.