The Answere.

IT is a common saying, that such as doe deficere in extre­mo actu, faile in the last act, are foolish Poets; but whe­ther they be foolish Diuines, or no, that faile euerie where beginning and ending and all, iudge you; and that you may doe it the better, obserue I pray you, how vntowardly this popish Diuine begins to lay his foundation, that you may the better iudge of the whole frame of his building. The word [Catholicke] is taken three maner of wayes; first, for that which is opposed to heretical or schismaticall, as Eccle­sia Catholica, the Catholicke Church, and Ecclesia Marty­rum the Church of the Martyrs, Haeresi. 68. in Epiphanius. Secondly, for that which is opposed to the Church of the Iewes, for such a signification hath the word [Catholicke] in the in­scription of Saint Iames his Epistle. Lastly, for the generall fellowship of all the children of God elected and adopted in Christ Iesu before the foundations of the world: for none else can bee the members of the bodie of Christ: Eph. 1.23. & Colos. 1.24. and in this signification it is taken in our Creed.

Now it would be knowne, which of these significations is meant in the first question, the first signification restrai­neth the word [Catholicke] to particular Churches, & it is not like that your Papist demaundeth, whether you beleeue this or that Church in particular. Againe, the second op­poseth [Page 3] the word [Catholicke] to the church of Iurie, wheras your Papist includeth the church of Iurie, before there was any other church any where planted: in his question, saying Doe you beléeue y ^e catholique Church, planted first by the Apostles in Iudaea, and afterward dispersed &c. The last signification is applied to the Saints of God predestinated to saluation, 2. Tim. 2.19 which Church was neuer planted by the Apo­stles, but by the eternall decree of God who onely know­eth who are his.

Againe, I can hardly brooke that the Church is here said to be first planted by the Apostles, for God had his Church euer from the beginning; or that it hath remained euer since the Apostles planted it, for it hath remained euer from the beginning: now if it be sayd, that hee meaneth the Church vnder the Gospell; Rom. 15.8. Heb. 2.3. it will trouble him to prooue that the Apostles were the first planters of that Church in Iudaea, seeing Christ himselfe was minister of the circumcision, and first began to preach saluation before it was confir­med by them that heard him.

Moreouer, that the Church was euer dispersed through the whole world by the ministery of the Apostles, is sooner said than prooued; for though Paul say, that the fall of the Iewes was the riches of the world, yet doth hee not meane the whole world simply without exception, no more than Saint Luke doth when he saith that Augustus Caesar decreed that all the world should bee taxed; Luk. 2.1. Math. 28.19. Luk. 24.47. Mark. 16.15. Act. 16.6. &c. 2. Cor. 10.13. &c. and so must wee vnderstand all Nations in Matthew and Luke, and all the world and euerie creature in Saint Markes Gospell: for though the words be generall, and without limitation, yet the Apo­stles were kept in, and guided more particularly by the holy Ghost.

Lastly, it would bee agreed vpon, what faith or beleefe your Papist meaneth, when hee saith, Doe you beléeue the catholicke Church, whether iustifying or historicall? For though he seeme to fetch his question out of the Creed, wherein the articles of iustifying faith are recorded, and so to make the catholicke Church inuisible, for faith is [Page 4] the euidence of thinges not seene: Heb. 11.1. yet when hee addeth planted by the Apostles in Iudaea &c. he maketh it visible, and so not to be beleeued. Wherefore though this first que­stion haue neither head nor foot; yet thus in charitie I con­ceiue of it, that it demaundeth, whether we beleeue histo­rically that there were orderly Churches or companies pro­fessing catholicke doctrine taught by the Apostles first a­mong the Iewes, and then among the Gentiles, which pro­fession and professors shall continue in one place or other to the worlds end; if this be the question, then haue you answered catholiquely, first that you beleeue this, and then secondly that the Protestants onely are the visible and knowne members of Gods church. Now where it is demaunded in the third and fourth place how wee knowe this, whether by outward meanes, or by inspiration: it is answered, that the canonicall word of God doth so te­stifie, and better witnesse than this we desire none; and tou­ching this word of God, the Papists graunt all those bookes to bee canonicall, which wee call canonicall, though they adde other Bookes which wee admit not for grounds and foundations of faith: but if wee cannot make good our profession by those bookes which both sides agree vpon, and by the same bookes ouerthrow all that the Papists hold against vs at this day; then I for my part, will soone yeeld to the Pope, and craue absolution vpon my knees.

Nowe forsooth the discerning of these canonicall Scriptures is called into question, and they must bee subie­cted to the infirmity of man: howbeit your answere, though it be true, yet is it insufficient; for howsoeuer, the vniforme consent of antiquitie is not to be neglected: yet as our Saui­our saith, Ioh. 5.36. that he had greater witnesse than the witnesse of Iohn; so hath the holy Scripture greater witnesse than the witnesse of the Fathers, namely, the puritie and incontrol­led antiquitie of it, the Maiestie of the stile, the conforma­blenesse of the precepts thereof to the lawe of nature, and diuers other outward meanes noted by Master Caluine in his Institutions; Lib. 1. Cap. 8. otherwise it were hard to tell how the men [Page 5] of Beroea, and other ancient Christians discerned the Scrip­ture in the Apostles time and after, Act. 17.11.12 before any one of the ancient Fathers was borne, or had written a syllable: and herehence it is easily gathered how vaine the sixt question is, for traditions are not confirmed by such pregnant e­uidence as the Scriptures are, but hange in the winde vp­pon the conceits of men, which may be deceiued, and ther­fore a Christian man may well beleeue the one, though he neglect the other; Rom. 1.16. Heb. 4.12. 1. Cor. 2.4. 1. Cor. 14.24.25. Luk. 24.32. the powerfull working of the word of God described by Saint Paul, and the Author to the He­brewes, and the Disciples of Christ in Saint Lukes Gospell are sufficient witnesses to the soule, that Traditions which haue not the same image and superscription, may be refused as the commandements and doctrines of men.

The Answere.

YOur Papist heere talkes in his sleepe of two mortall wounds, which wee by our description of the Church, haue giuen to our owne cause; and therefore your descripti­on must bee had in memorie, which as it bindeth the true Church to the voice of Christ, sounding in the canonicall Scriptures: so it giueth vs to vnderstand that the false Church heareth the voice of stangers, and will not bee ru­led by the written word of the Almightie; yet notwithstan­ding the true Church may mistake the voice of Christ, and [Page 12] so erre; whereby the first wound is fully healed: and if it should be graunted, that the Church in generall cannot erre, yet it followeth not, that euerie one in particular that buil­deth hay or stubble vpon the foundation, is therefore no member of the Church: And so the second wound, which speakes of the exclusion of the Fathers & Doctors, is neither mortall, nor sensible. Now touching the first wound, which cencerneth the Protestant and Puritane, it is here brought to certaine particular points, which I will speake of in order: The first is, the obseruation of the Sunday, which you proue syllogistically out of the Scripture, after this manner.

1. The day whereon the Apostles did ordaine, that Chri­stians should weekely meet together to exercise them­selues in hearing the word preached, receiuing the Sacraments, and giuing of Almes: that same day did the Apostles ordaine to be the Sabbath of Christians.

2. But the Apostles did ordaine, that Christians should weekely assemble themselues vpon the first day of the weeke, for the purpose before mentioned.

Ergo, The Apostles did ordaine the first day of the weeke to be the Christians Sabbath.

Now, where your Papist saith; That if the Maior were true, then the Apostles appointing moe dayes than one for such exercises, should appoint moe Sabbaths in a wéeke than one, his answere hath no colour or shewe of reason, for though euerie day in the weeke had beene so ap­pointed: yet had they not beene all Sabbaths, vnlesse they had weekely continued, as the first day did from weeke to weeke, till Saint Iohns banishment; at what time still wee finde that day kept holy, and dedicated to the Lord, as ap­peareth by the name, which the holy Ghost giueth it in the Reuelation. Cap. 1.13. Againe, where he saith: That the first Chri­stians sold their possessions, to the intent they might who­ly bestow themselues vpon the seruice of God: It would be knowne by what tradition, or inspiration he found that [Page 13] out, seeing the scriptures informe vs, Act. 2.45. that their intent was to supply the necessitie of their poore brethren. I trow, the o­ther Iewes that were to attend dayly vpon the morning and euening houres of praier and sacrifice, did not vnload them­selues of their possessions: moreouer this lawe and sale of possessions, though it were vsed at Ierusalem, yet was it not in force in Galatia, and Achaia, and other Churches of the Gentiles, 1. Cor. 16.2. Gal. 6, 6, &c. which had of their owne to put aside and lay vp for the poore.

And touching the Minor, your Papist sayth, that the Troiane Christians were assembled the first day of the wéeke to breake bread, but not appointed so to doe by the prescription of the Apostles; belike they came together by hap hazard, or by their owne appointment; howbeit, hee that planted the Church of Troas, cannot be so forgetfull, as to leaue euery man separately to himselfe, and not to ap­point when they should assemble themselues, for the con­tinuall watring of that which was planted: Act. 20.7. now to note what time that was Saint Luke names, the first day of the weeke, otherwise there is no reason why it should bee men­tioned: moreouer whereas Paul, and his companie came to Troas the second day of the weeke, and tarried there iust seuen dayes; yet no day of assembly is registred but this one onely day; and yet we may not think that Paul, and his com­panie lay idle sixe daies together, and forgat the worke of their calling: yea, but let vs admit, (saith your Papist) that Paul was to depart on the Tuesday, and that the Christians were assembled on the Monday, &c. Yea marry, then should we be wise men, but the Disciples of Troas met not to heare Paul preach, (for most of them had heard him preach before sixs dayes together) but to breake bread, which they would haue done, though Paul had not beene amongst them; and therefore this supposition is cloudie and riculous.

Touching the place to the Corinthians, your Papist saith that Saint Paul doth not prescribe the first day of the week for prayer, preaching, and administration of Sacraments: but for a laying aside for the poore, according to euery [Page 14] mans deuotion, and I graunt all this to bee true: for those holy exercises were inioyned the churches of Galatia and Achaia, when they were first planted, and so was the col­lection for their owne poore: for this collection for the Saimes at Ierusalem was extraordinarie: but that the A­postle Paul would bee so troublesome, as not to content himselfe that this collection should be made, as their other collections were, vpon their ordinarie meeting day, but to appoint another day weeke by weeke, to the hinderance of their seuerall callings, is vtterly incredible; nay see fur­ther, I pray you, how your learned Papist doubleth the power of the argument which he goeth about to weaken: for when he asketh [why the Apostle inioyneth this collection to be made vpon that day,] and answereth himselfe out of the text, [that there be no gatherings when I come,] and then asketh againe, [why the Apostle would haue no ga­therings when he came,] and answereth with a [no doubt] because he would not haue such spirituall exercises as hee determined to bestow among them, hindered by such col­lections: what doth he else but confesse, that the first day of the weeke was the day, that Paul purposed to keepe ho­ly at his comming, and therefore would not haue that day bestowed vpon collections, when he came, but before his comming: otherwise if hee had meant to bestow spirituall blessings so plentifully among them vpon any other day, then gatheringes made vpon that day, could not hinder him.

Yea, but if these collections were hinderances to the spirituall exercises of the Sabbath, then it followeth, that the first day of the week, wherin Paul would haue these col­lections made, was not appointed to be the Christians Sab­bath. Well wrangled: but howsoeuer this extraordinarie collection, inioyned by Saint Paul, might hinder Saint Paul himselfe, that preached at Troas till midnight; nay, till the dawning of the next day, Rom. 15.29. and vsed to come with abun­dance of the blessing of the Gospell of Christ: yet their owne ordinarie ministerie, being farre lesse plentifull, could [Page 15] not be so easily hindered: Apol. 2. and therefore wee read in Iustine Martyr, that in his time, beside preaching and admini­string the Sacraments, collections were made vpon this ve­rie day in Christian Churches.

One wrangle more remaineth against the force of this place to the Corinths; namely, that no generall assembly can be wrung out of it, because the text saith, Let euerie one put apart by himselfe, and lay vp, which argueth a priuat laying vp at home: for a man cannot be sayd to lay vp that which he deliuereth to another. Well wrangled againe: but what? call you this a gathering? and is this kinde of laying vp at euerie mans owne home, a sufficient dispatch of all gathe­ring, so as there should be no gathering at all, when the A­postle should come himselfe amongst them? Wherefore little wringing will serue to prooue that this laying vp, is not meant of euerie mans owne purse, or cupbord at home, which might be done any other day, as well as the first of the weeke; but of some publique Chest or Boxe, prouided for euerie mans free beneficence, as euerie particular man himselfe found himselfe able and willing.

Now followeth the place of the Reuelation, where Saint Iohn saith, that he was in the spirite on the Lords day, or, Cap. 1.10. Psa. 74.16. as the Rhems Testament translates it, the Dommicall day; Out of which we learne, first, that albeit all the dayes of the weeke are the Lords; yet this day is so called [...] as being a more excellent or eminent day, than the rest, and so con­sequently a day consecrated to the seruice of the Lord. Se­condly, we learne that this day was famously knowne by the name of Lords day, or Dominicall day, in the Churches of Asia, Reuel. 1.4. to whome Saint Iohn dedicated his Reuelation for it had been to no purpose for him to tell them, that hee was in the spirite on the Lords day, if they knew not what day that was, and how it was seuered by that name from the rest of the weeke, and therefore as it was an eminent day, and cho­sen from amonge the other dayes of the weeke for the speci­all seruice of the Lord, so was it celebrated as an eminent day, and so still kept in fresh memorie in the Churches of [Page 16] Asia: now that this day was the first day of the weeke, and no other, it will bee easie to shew without shifts, not onely because no other day was euer permanently kept holy, but also because we may trace the name [...], and Dominica, applied to this day, as it were a Hare in the snow, issuing out of this place of the Reuelation, into all the Churches of Christendome. Yea, but (saith your Papist) Might not the first day of the wéeke be called the Lords day, in regard of Christs Resurrection? I say no, for then it had been called the Rising day, or, the Resurrection day; as the like dayes be, namely, Ascension, Circumcision, &c. For to call it, the Lords day, in regard of Christs Resurrection, is vtterly insen­sible.

When he demaundeth further; Whether the Iewes Sabbath might not remaine, or be abolished, as other Ceremonies were, Col. 2.16.16 without substituting another Sab­bath in place thereof? I answere, that the Iewes Sabbath is taken away by Saint Paul, so farre forth as it was ceremo­niall, but the morall parts thereof, namely, that one day in a weeke should be layd apart for spirituall meditations and exercises, Exod. 23.12. and for the recreation of seruants and dum crea­tures, was to be kept still inuiolable without any such sub­stitution, as he dreames of: and so his other wranglements about bodily labour, and resting the seuenth day, not the first day of the weeke are cleane dasht; Mat. 12.5.11. Mark. 2.27. & 3.4. Luk. 13.14. &c. Ioh. 5.8. &c. & 9.6.7.14. Iren. lib. 4. ca. 19. howbeit, that which was the first day of the weeke, is now become the seuenth day, and bodily labour was neuer altogether vnlawfull, no not in time of the lawe, as appeareth cleerely in many places of the new Testament. Now iudge you, or any rea­sonable man else in the world, whether our arguments, or his answeres be weake and ridiculous: as for his Tradition, the more he vrgeth it, the more hee confuteth himselfe, and confirmeth our exposition of these three places: for if the Apostles deliuered the obseruation of the Sabbath by Tra­dition, wee may not thinke they deliuered it to some Chur­ches, and not to other some; and if they deliuered it to all without exception, then was it deliuered to them of Troas, [Page 9] to the Galatians, Corinthians, and the Churches of Asia; if to them, then can it not bee denied, but that these places of scripture, which I haue now disputed of, doe cleerely con­taine the practise and continuall obseruance of the Lords day, as it was deliuered to these Churches by the Apostles. I will not vouchsafe to answere your Papists vnpowdered talke of Iohn Caluin, that worthy seruant of God, and wire-whipper of popish marchants out of the house of God, one­ly this I will say, that if Iohn Caluin were not a greater mote in his eie, then Popish traditions are in ours, he would haue spared this idle vagarie.

The next point is, eating blood, Act. 15.2 [...].29 which was forbidden in the first generall Councell, the circumstance whereof you haue well set downe; howbeit your Papist still calls for Scripture, whereby it may be shewed him, that after the de­cree made at Ierusalem by the Apostles, it was lawfull for Christians to eate blood; which hee would neuer doe if hee were learned, and had read the Epistles of Saint Paul with any diligence? wherefore you may stoppe his mouth for this point, out of these places which I haue here quoted, 1. Rom. 14.2, 3, 6, 14, 20, &c. 1. Cor. 10.29. Coloss. 2.16. Ti­mothie 4.4. Tit. 1.15.

Now followeth the third poynt, which hangs vpon Tra­dition and not vpon Scripture, Leui. 28. & 20 Deut. 25.5. namely the forbidding of marriage within degrees of affinitie; as if Leuiticus were no scripture; yea but, (may he say) Deuteronomy is scrip­ture too, as well as Leuiticus, yet the brother is there com­manded to raise vp seede to his brother, which in Leuiticus is made vnlawfull; now tell vs why you receiue the one and refuse the other? here must you call for the helpe of Tradi­tion, or els lie in the dust? Alas, good Papist, you are much deceiued, for the law of Leuiticus is morall, and naturally ingraffed in the hearts of all nations, as appeareth euident­ly in the conclusion of this law in Leuiticus, from the foure and twentieth verse to the end of the eighteenth Chapter: for if this Law had beene peculiar for the Iewes, there is no reason why the Canaaniticall nations should bee punished so seuerely, as there it is described, for the non obseruance [Page 18] of the same: as for the other law of Deuteronomy, it is an exception or dispensation in that particular case, for the common weale of the Iewes, wherein God had a speciall care of the first borne and his inheritance: againe, being re­pugnant to nature, and to the explication thereof twice told in Leuiticus, Cap. 18.16. & cap. 20.21. it might not continue longer vnrepealed.

Touching the example of the incestuous Corinthian which you propound; it will sticke better to your Papists ribbes, then he is aware of: for how can that fornication be vnheard of among the Gentiles, which a man committeth with such a one as hee may lawfully marrie? if then this Corinthian might lawfully marry his mother in law, verily single copulation with her could not be so abominable, as that the very Gentiles could not abide it should be once na­med amongst them, and if single copulation of the mother and sonne in law was so much abhorred, then was it vn­lawfull they should marrie, and so the law of God in Leui­ticus is confirmed; and so indeed your Papist gently confes­seth in these words [the law of the Corinths would permit no such mariage, as may be gathered out of the text,] &c.

The fourth poynt followeth, namely, that it cannot bee shewed by scripture, thas it is a greater offence in a Chri­stian, to haue many wiues, then it was in Dauid, howbeit we read in Scripture, that God gaue him his masters wiues into his bosome; 2. Sam. 12.8. Rom. 4.15. Nulla lege pro­hibebatur, Au­gust. contr. Faust: lib. 22. cap. 47. Matth. 19.4. &c. 1. Cor. 7.2. &c. Eph. 5.31. & if there be no transgression where there is no law, as Paul saith, then verily Polygamy, being nei­ther cleerely forbidden by any law, nor reprehended by any Prophet from the beginning of the world, to the comming of Christ: it must follow, that it was eyther no transgressi­on at all in the fathers, or a farre lesse transgression then it is in Christians, whom Christ Iesus himselfe, and the holy Apostle Saint Paul, hath so manifestly instructed, that no­thing can be more euident.

Now touching the fift and last point, of punishing theft with death, it is confessed by your Papist, that it was law­full by the law of God, in cases specified in the same lawe, that is, Cap. 22.2. as I take it, if the thiefe breake vp a house, for that I [Page 19] finde specified in Exodus. Howbeit Dauid in a case not spe­cified, giueth sentence of a thiefe, that as the Lorde liueth, he is the child of death, that is, that he should surely die and also that he should make a fourefolde or eightfolde restituti­on, 2. Sam. 12.5.6 Arbangtaijm (Arbangtaijm) Now if the Hebrue word be taken for eightfold, as no Romanist may deny, Exod. 21.1. because the old catho­licke translation hath so set it downe; we see plainely, that beside the sentence of death, Cap. 6.31. which Dauid iustifieth with an oath, the punishment specified in the law, is doubled; nay, the incresse of the punishment appointed by the law, is cleerely made good in the Prouerbs of Salomon, where it is sayd, that a thiefe being taken, shall restore seuen fold, or giue all the substance that he hath. Rom. 13.4. and touching the christian Ma­gistrate, S. Paul saith, 1. Tim. 5.20. that the wicked should feare the sword of vengeance, which God hath put in his hand, where feare is made the end of punishment, as it is in Timothy: where the same Apostle saith, them that sinne, rebuke openly, that the rest may feare, but if open rebuking did not strike such a feare as bridled sinners from corrupting their wayes, then Timo­thy was to proceede to a more heauye censure, that might worke this feare, and so keepe downe sinne from multiply­ing in the Church, and euen so ought the ciuill Magistrate to temper penall lawes in the ciuill state, that euill disposed men may feare, and neuer to take his lawes to be sufficiently penall, but still to increase the terrour of them, till feare to doe euill; be sufficiently planted, and this equitie doth the Lord himselfe retaine in his owne displeasure, or indignati­on against sinne; Psal. 90.11. for so the great Prophet of God Moses teacheth vs in these words, thereafter as thou art feared, so is thy displeasure: wherefore these two, displeasure and feare, are like the two buckets of a Well, whereof the one commeth vp, when the other goeth downe; and the one is at the high­est, when the other is at the lowest: briefely then to con­clude, as the Lord saw the punishment appointed in the law powerfull enough at that time, and a long time after, to worke feare in that Nation and State, but yet was increased afterward by the Iewish Magistrates, as they saw the dispo­sition [Page 12] of the people to require it: so the christian Magistrate finding by experience, that the state and condition of his time and countrey is more desperate and lesse fearefull to robbe and steale then the Iewes were, and so not to be ruled without a greater sharpnesse; must needs whe this sworde, and strike deeper then the Iewish Magistrate, that he may be feared.

The Answere.

NOw followeth as it were (by the way) a blind inartifi­ciall proofe of Traditions out of the authoritie of men, Lib. 3. cap. 2. Lib. 3. cap. 1. whereof Irenaeus is the first; yet Irenaeus speaks not of Traditions, but with this Preface, non per alios dispositionem salutis nostrae cognouimus, quam per eos per quos Euangelium peruenit ad nos, quod quidem tunc preconiauerunt, postea vero per Deivoluntatem in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt fundamen­tum & columnam fidei nostrae futurum: We haue knowne the manner or order of our saluation, by none other men, then by those, by whom the Gospell came vnto vs: which then indeed they preached, and afterward by the will of God deliuered to vs in the scriptures to be vnto vs the foundati­on and piller of our faith. Now hauing layd this founda­tion in the first Chapter, and concluded withall that all he­retickes dissent from the Scriptures, hee begins the next Chapter after this sort; Cum enim ex scripturis arguuntur in accusacionem conuertuntur ipsarum scripturarum, quasi non recte habeant, ne (que) sint ex authoritate, & quia variè sint dictae, & quia non possit ex his inueniri veritas ab his qui nesciant tra­ditionem: For when they are conuinced by the scriptures, they fall to accusing the Scriptures, as if they were not [...] [Page 22] set downe, or not of sufficient authoritie, and because things are diuersly spoken, and because the trueth cannot be found in them by those which know not the tradition.

These hereticks are as like the Papists, as if the one had bin spued out of the others mouth: I trow, you vnderstand who they be that call the scriptures of God, dead incke, a dead and a dumbe thing, dumbe iudges, the blacke Gospell, incke­horne diuinitie, a nose of waxe, &c. if you know them not, reade Iewels Apology, and there you shall find them, Part. 4. cap. 19 di. 1. Sectione 23. your owne Papist saith, that [the Scriptures without the helpe of church, fathers and councels, are the fountaine of all he­resie and atheisme,] thus heretickes doe and haue done al­waies, quia ex scripturis arguuntur, saith Irenaeus, and so, ey­ther the scripture or their heresie must needs fall. But to proceede, Irenaeus tels you why these hereticks would not be ruled by the scriptures, namely, because Paul saith, sapi­entiam loquimur inter perfectos, and this is Bellarmines owne reason, for vnwritten verities, borrowed, as you see, 1. Cor. 2.6. De verbo Dei non scripto lib. 4. cap. 11. Tertullian. of these old heretickes, and confuted by Tertullian in his Pre­scriptions, but thus the spirite of Antichrist goeth on still in these dayes, as it did in Irenaeus and Tertullians time, to make way to his owne dreames. It was full time for our Papist here to draw the Readers mind awry to Iohn Caluin, and I wot not what [appeales] and [imaginations] and [braines,] and such like floures of popish rhetoricke; o­therwise it had bin easie to see that hee and his friendes are the sonnes and heires of Ʋalentinus, Marcion, Cerinthus, Basilides and Carpocrates, all of them, or some of them, as Irenaeus teacheth vs: and this may be yet better seene, in that Irenaeus being driuen from scripture, Iren. lib. 1. cap. 23. & 24. & lib. 3. cap. 2. which these heretickes contemned, to Traditions, which before they seemed to al­low of; he can no way fasten vpon them, neither by Scrip­ture, nor Traditions, vnlesse they might be masters of both, as being wiser men in their owne conceites, then eyther the Apostles that deliuered them, or the Bishops that kept them. Now iudge, who bee the heires of these heretickes, Iohn Caluin, as this Papist prateth, or the Pope and his depen­dants, [Page 16] whose religion is called by Saint Paul ( [...]) that is, 2. Thes. 2:7, 8 Ni [...]. Cusanus de auth. eccles. supra & con­trascript. Albert. Pighi­us, eccles. hie­rarch. lib. 6.13 such a mysterie, as will be ruled by no law, a mysterie of lawlesse iniquitie, and the Pope himselfe ( [...]) that is, a lawlesse man, such as will stoope ney­ther to Scripture nor Tradition: one of his Cardinals saith, Nulla sunt Christi praecepta, nisi quae per ecclesiam pro talibus ac­cepta sunt: There are no precepts of Christ but these, which the Church accounteth to be such; so the Church of Rome is aboue the Scripture. And another Champion saith, Papa virtualiter est tota ecclesia, the Pope is in power the whole Church: and so the Pope is aboue the Church. Thus the Pope must be first, the Church must be next; and the scrip­ture giuen of God by inspiration, Must haue the third place. must, consistere in tertijs, and be glad of such roome, as these great masters will af­ford it: Quapropter vndi (que) resistendum est, saith Irenaeus, wher­fore wee must set our selues against them euerie way. If scripture will not serue, we vse tradition: and if both be con­temned, wee vse all other meanes that may bee thought of, to draw them ad conuersionem veritatis. This is Irenaeus his conclusion, & whole discourse in this Chapter, which makes nothing at all for Popish traditions, which are not alleaged as witnesses, and backes to the truth of the scripture, nor yet against such as denye the perfection of the worde written.

Epiphanius is next, who, if he had sayd, Oportet traditione abuti, We must abuse tradition; our Papist and his friends had been beholding to him: but Epiphanius saith else where That he gathered the truth of the doctrine of God, Ex vni­uersa scriptura, out of the whole scripture; to be an anchor­hold vnto vs, Heres. 69. Epip. Anchor. and in the beginning of his Anchorate, thus we read: De vide vobis scribam, quum requiratis vos, & fra­tres nostri ea quae spectant ad vestram salutem ex diuina & san­cta scriptura firmum fundamentum fidei de patre & filio, & spi­ritu sancto, & de reliqua vniuersa in Christo salute, de resurre­ctione, inquam, mortuorum, & de vnigeniti in carne aduentu, & de sancto testamento veteri ac nouo, & in summa de alijs con­stitutionibus perfectae salutis, I will write vnto you concerning [Page 25] the faith, (seeing you and our brethren require of vs the things which concerne your saluation,) out of the holy scrip­ture a firme foundation of faith, concerning the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Spirite, and all the rest of the matter of our saluation in Christ, to wit, of the resurrection of the dead; of the comming of the onely begotten in the flesh; of the holy Testament both old and new; and in briefe, of other constitutions pertaining to the perfection of saluation. Now we may consider with lesse danger of the place here alleaged; wherein that Epiphanius be not misunderstood, we must consider that these words; Omnia a diuina scriptura accipi non possunt, Wee ought to vse traditions, because all things cannot be learned out of the holy Scripture; must be restrained to the matter in hand: for Epiphanius meaneth that the bare letter of this or that scripture, doth not afford sufficient helpes to vnderstand it selfe, but requireth other meanes for that purpose; for thus stand the words, Diuina verba speculatione indigent & sensu ad cognoscendam vniuscu­ius (que) propositi argumenti vim ac facultatem, oportet & traditio­ne vti; non enim omnia à diuina scriptura accipi possunt, &c. The words of God haue need of speculation, and sense to know the force and power of euerie argument propounded: we must also vse tradition, because al things cannot be lear­ned out of the holy Scriptures. Now by these means, he ex­poundeth a place of Paul to the Corinthians, 1. Cor. 7.28. If a Ʋirgine marrie, she sinneth not; this place (saith he) is meant of such as had a long time continued Virgines, because none in that paucitie of Christians, did offer to marrie them; and there­fore Paul permitteth, they should marrie with Iewes and In­fidels; you haue heard his speculation: yea, but why may not this place of Paul be meant simply of all Virgines ma­riageable without exception? Epiphanius answereth, Tradi­derunt sancti Dei Apostoli peccatum esse post decretam virgi­nitatem ad nuptias conuerti, The holy Apostles of God haue deliuered, that after the vow of virginitie, it is sinne to mar­rie. You haue heard his Tradition; but like speculation, like Tradition. For it is incredible that the Christians of Co­rinth, [Page 26] had not as many sonnes and daughters, as many males as females, more incredible, that there was such a paucitie of Christians in so populous a Church, as the Church of Co­rinth; 2. Cor. 6.14. and most incredible of all, that Paul should permit, that in his first Epistle, which he forbad in his second: and so his Speculation faileth him. Moreouer, it is a fond conceit to think that there were Votaries in Pauls time, or that Paul in the seuenth of the first to the Corinths, spake not gene­rally of all Virgines, but of such as could not get Christian husbands, Propter penuriam charitatis: & so his Tradition is come to nothing; No, no, if there had beene such Nuns at Corinth, the Apostle being requested to set downe his iudg­ment for the direction of Virgins, could not possibly forget that principall kinde of Virgines, that had most need of di­rection, & speak only of some other meaner regard, and that in such generall termes without any exception, or mention of votall Virgines. More ouer Epiphanius fortifieth his tra­dition out of Paul, who saith Iuniores viduas reijce, postquā e­nim lasciuierunt contra Christum nubere volunt habentes iu­dicuum, quod primam fidem reiecerunt, The younger widowes refuse, for when they haue begun to waxe wanton against Christ, they will marrie, hauing damnation, because they haue reiected the first faith. Concluding therof, that Virgins are much more to bee blamed than Widowes. if they turne back from their purpose of continencie; wherfore it is not an vnwritten veritie, that Epiphanius obtrudeth vpon vs, but a conclusion drawne out of the first to Timothie; Cap. 5.11. &c. howbeit S. Paul reiecting yong widows frō vowing or promising cō ­tinencie, doth by the same reason reiect yong virgins, which be in as great danger of breaking their faith and promise, as young widowes, and so still we finde, that no such votaries were allowed to snare themselues with vowes, and religious promises in Pauls time: but left free to vse the remedie of marriage, according to the ordinance of God. But to make short worke, whether Epiphanius here speake of written or vnwritten verities; yet hee concludeth in the end, that it is better, euen for Votaries openly to marrie according to the [Page 27] law, than to be wounded dayly by the secret darts of con­cupiscence; then which, nothing can be more contrarie to the practise and principles of Poperie.

Touching the confutation of Aerius, it stands vpon a tra­dition of fasting vpon Wednesdaies and Fridayes till night, and feeding vpon breed, water, and salt sixe dayes before Easter, which is quite dead long agoe. Moreouer, Epipha­nius opposeth his traditions to matter of faith, saying; Ec­clesia acceptam à patribus veram fidem vs (que) huc continet item­que traditiones, The Church doth still retaine the true faith receceiued from the Fathers, and also their Traditions. And therefore, if Aerius had offended against nothing but Tra­ditions, hee had beene sound in the Faith notwithstanding, and so no hereticke. As for the Booke of the Apostles Con­stitutions, either Epiphanius lost it out of his bosome, or it is that which is extant vnder the name of Clemens, and con­demned longe agoe in the sixt generall Councell at Constantinople: Can. 2. yet are these Constitutions allowed for good scripture in the last Canon of the Apostles, Lib. 2. cap. 59 Lib. 6. cap. 14 Lib. 2. cap. 63 Lib. 5. cap. 16 which the verie Papists themselues are ashamed of. And good reason, for they say in one place, that Iames the brother of our Lord was not an Apostle; and in another place, that hee was not an Apostle: they say also, that the people ought to come together euerie day, morning and euening, which is no where obserued; they say, that Iudas was absent when Christ celebrated his last supper, which is contrary to the scrip­ture; to bee short, these Constitutions are so full of errours and falshoods, that no honest Christian will father them vp­pon the Apostles, or allowe them for canonicall Scrip­ture.

The place of Austine, which your Papist (as a blind man) casts his staffe at, is in the seuenth Chapter of the second Booke De baptismo contra Donatistas, and the wordes bee these, Multa non inueniuntur in literis Apostolorū, ne (que) in Cōcili­is postererū, & tamē quia custodiuntur per vniuersam ecclesiam, non nisi ab ipsis tradita & commendata creduntur, Many things are not found in the writings of the Apostles, nor in the [Page 28] Councels of later time, yet because they are kept by the whole Church, they are supposed to be deliuered and com­mended to vs by none but them. These words, though they seeme plaine, haue some doubt, which somewhat quaileth the force of them: for it is not so easie to know whether, ab ipsis, should be referred to Apostolorum, or posterorum; how­beit, I say further, that the Traditions that Augustine speaks of, are of the same nature with that one Tradition, which he treats of in those Bookes against the Donatists; namely, the not rebaptizing of Heretickes; which though it bee not ex­presly, and explicately set downe in the writings of the A­postles: yet Austine himselfe knew it might be soundly de­duced out of the Scriptures, and so hee testifieth almost in euerie Booke of that worke against the Donatists.

Haeres. 75.The other place, which he alleageth out of Austine, sspeaks of a Tradition indeed, but it was a Tradition of the Fathers, not of the Apostles, and euen so saith Epiphanius of the ve­ry same tradition, Ecclesia hoc perficit traditione à patribus ac­cepta, the Church doth this by a tradition receiued from the Fathers. In Philip. ho­mil. 3. And therefore Chrysostome went too farre, when he sayth, Ab Apostolis sancitum est; it is decreed by the A­postles: but though there be places of good shew in Chry­sostome, yet your Papist could say no more, but that hee ci­teth a place out of the Canons of the Apostles, and yet quoteth neither Booke, Chapter, leafe, nor Homily, where a man may finde it in Chrysostomes workes; howbeit if hee meane the Apostles Constitutions, he hath his answeare; if those Canons that be set downe in the first booke of Coun­cels, I say, they neuer sawe any of the Apostles, but were begotten in later times, as it is most cleere in the Canons themselues, Can. 8. Si quis Episcopus, aut presbyter, aut Diaconus sanctum paschae diemante vernale aequinoctium ex Iudaeis cele­brauerit, abijciatur, If any either Bishop, or Priest, or Deacon shall according to the manner of the Iewes, celebrate the feast of Easter before the vernall equinoctiall, let him be de­posed. If this had been inacted by the Apostles, it may bee wondred how there could be such adoe, about the feast of [Page 29] Easter, betweene the East and West Churches, the whole matter being so cleerely decided aforehand by the Apostles themselues. Againe, when we read in another Canon, Can. 30. that such Bishops, as came by their Bishoprickes by secular Princes, should be deposed: it is easily seene that some of these Canons were not shot off, till the time of Christian Ma­gistrates; for Infidels (I trow) vsed not to giue Bishopricks, neither was there euer any so farre beside himselfe, as to seeke a Bishopricke by their meanes; if this will not content your Papist: then let him shew me some reason, why these Canons are not set downe as a part of the new Testament, but marked by Pope Gelasius for apochryphall, Apud Grati­an. distinct. 15. C. Rom. Ecclesia. and then I will consider whether it bee needfull to giue him another answere.

Thus haue I runne ouer the choisest testimonies that hee could finde in all the ancient Fathers and Doctors: for if hee could alleage all, as it were with one mouth, to speake for his blinde Traditions, as here he bragges, it is to be thought that either he hath chosē the best, or els that he hath no iudg­ment: as for Saint Iohns Gospell, beside the Maiestie of the stile, let him read Epiphanius against the Alogians, and there hee shall finde some better proofes for the confirmation and defence of it, than the testimonie and consent of antiquitie. Nowe, touching his Dilemma, which hee takes to be so in­tricate, a verie childe may easily dissolue it; for wee doe not hold, that any thing can make a damned hereticke, but the stiffe and peruerse holding and auouching of such do­ctrine, as is contrarie or inconsonant to the holy Scriptures, whereof the Fathers are not guiltie, neither will any Pa­pist at this day stand in defence of such Traditions, as agree not with the word written.

The Answere.

HEere your Papist takes paines to shew vs another point of his [learning,] namely, why some Traditions bee kept, and some be out of date; but very simply in my opini­on; for antiquity appointing both wednesdaies and frydaies to be fasted, let him yeeld me any colour of reason or [cir­cumstance [Page 35] of times or states] why the Church should re­iect the one and obserue the other: they were both in force with like authoritie, with like consent, in omnibus orbis terra­rum regionibus, in all the countries of the world: Haeres. [...]5. as saith E­piphanius, they were agreeable in all pointes to Augustines rule, which is so certaine and direct, saith he, that it cannot misleade vs, yet for all this, wednesday fast must be packing, and fryday onely must continue; what Church, I beseech you, did this, and when, and vpon what [graue considera­tion] was it done? it is not enough for him to talke his plea­sure flyingly of [the communitie of all things] no where practised but at Ierusalem; of [the office of widowes] still in force where it may be had, [prohibition of blood,] re­repealed by Saint Paul and such like; but hee should shew vs what eare-marke one Tradition hath more then another, why it may or should be cancelled; and touching [not fa­sting vpon Sundayes in Lent] or any time else in the yeere, it was generally obserued in the Catholike Church, as the same Epiphanius witnesseth, In compend▪ doctr. eccles. haeres. 70. epist ad Phil. lib. de coronae militis. who telleth vs also in another place out of the Apostles Constitutions, that he is accursed of God that fasteth vpon Sunday, qui affligit animā suam in Dominica maledictus est Deo. Ignatius calleth thē that fast vpō Sunday ( [...]) Christicides, Christ killers. Where­vnto Tertullian accordeth, saying, Epiph. 75. die Dominico ieiunium ne­fas ducimus, wee count it a haynous sinne to faste on the Lords day: yet notwithstanding, the Romanists haue found some [graue consideration] or other to disanull it, and to a­gree rather in that point with Aerius and Eustathius too, whereof the one was an hereticke, Socrates hist. eccles. lib. 2. cap. 33. whatsoeuer the other was, apud Aerianos studium est, vt in die Dominica ieiunent: Eustathius dominicis diebus ieiunandum docuit, the Aerians are carefull to fast on the Lords day: Eustathius taught that men ought to fast on the Lords dayes. And therefore your Papist, I trow, will hereafter find it best for him not to vp­braid vs any more with Aerius: yea, but when Traditions were alledged against the old heretikes, neuer any of them denied the authoritie of some, because other some were not [Page 36] obserued; a great piece of matters, we may not do it, be­cause heretickes did it not; but can he shew vs what here­ticke euer affirmed, that of one bunch or heape of Traditi­ons, some may be taken and some refused; and beeing all birds of a feather, some may flie away quite, and the rest may in no case flie after, but flutter still in their nest? I wis, Augustines rule will not helpe in this case, for fasting vpon wednesdayes, and not fasting vpon Sundayes, was as gene­rally obserued euery where, as any other Tradition that can be named, nay, what Tradition can be more strongly fenced, than that of the age of Christ in Irenaeus? Iren. lib. 2. cap. 39. & 40, Euangelium & omnes Seniores testantur, qui in Asia apud Iohannem discipu­lum Domini conuenerunt, idipsum tradidisse eis Iohannem, per­mansit autem cum eis vs (que) ad Traiani tempora, quidam autem eorum non solum Iohannem, sed & alios Apostolos viderunt, & haec eadē ab ipsis audierunt & testantur de huiusmodi relatione, quibus magis oportet credi? ne his talibus, an Ptolomaeo qui A­postolos nunquam vidit &c. The Gospell and all the Elders which were with Iohn the disciple of the Lord, doe testifie that Iohn himselfe did deliuer it vnto them, and hee taried with them til the time of Traiane: now some of them sawe not onely Iohn, but other disciples also, and heard the same things of thē, & testifie of such a report: whō then ought we to beleeue? whether such men as these, or Ptolomey, who neuer sawe the Apostles? Ioh, 6.57. Here is scripture out of S. Iohns Gospell, and Tradition from Iohns mouth, and others of his fellow Apostles, for the exposition of the same, here bee all the Elders of Asia that heard it with their owne eares, and liued to the dayes of Irenaeus that writes it, and yet for all this I thinke the church of Rome will as soone beleeue Pto­lomey the hereticke, as this Tradition.

The like may be sayd of the celebration of the feast of Easter in the churches of Asia, where the Tradition from Saint Iohn and Saint Philip the Apostles to Polycarp, and so forward, was fresh in memorie, obserued by many Bishops and Martyrs, Euseb. libr. 5. cap. 22. and confidently and resolutely auouched by Polycrates then angell of Ephesus, and a great multitude of [Page 37] Bishops gathered together in Councell vnder their hands: yet Victor the Pope made no account of it, and within a while after Victors death, most men think it was condemned for heresie. Now, I pray you, tell vs what the Churches of Asia should doe in this case? shall they [receiue and reue­rence] this Tradition still [as left them by their Pastors for their spirituall benefite?] what? shall they [receiue and re­uerence] heresy, crossing the decision of a generall Coun­cell] so saith your Papist, if I vnderstand him, yet I doubt whether [ Bede or Pope Gregory, or Austine the Monke] will make good his saying, nay, himselfe within three or foure lines after, eats his word againe; for the contrary de­finition, saith hee, was [receiued and beleeued of the vni­uersall Church,] and so by consequent of the Churches of Asia, notwithstanding all he said before of [their spirituall Pastors and Superintendents,] shall I now tell you what I thinke? verily if this Tradition of the feast of Easter, and that other of the age of Christ, so credibly reported, so con­fidently auouched, deliuered ouer to so few hands, and so short a succession, were found hollow and false at the heart in the very nexte age that followed the Apostles, and at length, as the receiued opinion is, condemned for heresie: I know not how a man should frame himselfe to beleeue such Traditions to be sound and vndefiled, which haue no such pregnant euidence, and haue runne through the hands of so many pitchmongers as haue liued successiuely so ma­ny hundred yeeres after the death of Ʋictor and Irenaeus.

Yea but, saith he, this was not vniuersally receiued and obserued, but onely of those Churches in Asia, and there­fore [we are not bound by S. Austines rule to receiue it, as a Tradition from the Apostles,] well, then succession from hand to hand, and Bishop to Bishop in particular Churches, is not sufficient to make a Tradition apostolicall, let him hold that without partialitie, as well in Italy as in Asia: Howbeit Polycrates and those worthy Bishops and Martyrs of Asia may not be ruled by S. Austines rule, and if that E­pistle of Polycrates subscribed Synodically by so great a [Page 38] multitude of Bishops may be credited: this Tradition can­not chuse but be Apostolicall, and so vniuersall in nature, though particular in practise, but what shall wee doe on the other side with the Tradition of the West Church, which was further fetched then the other by so many winters and sommers, as S. Iohn liued after Peter and Paul, that is to say, thirtie winters at the least, and so many sommers, wherein this westerne Tradition might well bee either Sunne-burnt or weather beaten? shall we follow S. Austines rule here too, and so beleeue neither the one nor the other to be Apo­stolicall? ware that, friend Papist, if ye meane to goe for a good Catholicke; yet it is cleare, that the Tradition of the west Church was not [vniuersally receiued] no more then the other of the East, before the Nicene Councell; & there­fore either S. Austines rule was then no rule, or else no Chri­stian for the space of 300. yeeres, was bound to beleeue that the one was left by S. Peter and S. Paul, no more then the o­ther by S. Philip and S. Iohn; nay, further we reade not, that any Canon was made contra Quartadecimanos in the Nicene Councell, whereby Epiphanius or any other father should score them vp for heretickes, but onely that it was thought meete the Tessaredecatites beeing few, Euseb. in vita Constant. lib. 3 cap 13. & 17. Socr. lib. 5. cap. 20. & 21. Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 18. & 19. Can. 8. Apost. should yeelde to the greater number: now whether they yeelded or yeelded not, we haue no sure euidence; onely we may strongly coniecture they did not yeeld, by that we reade of this matter in So­crates and Sozomen; as for that peremptory magisterial Ca­non, which casteth euery Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon out of the Church, if he celebrate his Easter ante vernum aequi­noctium cum Iudaeis; it is not knowne where or when or by whom or what it was enacted, and so consequently where or when or by whom or what it should be obeyed. Where­fore I for my part cannot disallow the resolution of Socra­tes, that the feast of Easter was neuer imposed vpon the Church by the Apostles, but brought to obseruation by the free choise and liking of Christian nations, and so continued by long custome, till by the brawling and immoderatenesse of some wayward men, the Church was constrayned to [Page 39] worke out her owne peace by vniformitie.

Now to Augustines rule (beside a number of instances which may be brought against it, as namely, the dignitie of Alexandria ouer Aegypt, Lybia and Pentapolis, and the dignitie of Rome ouer the West prouinces, which the Coun­cell of Nice groundeth neither vpon Scripture, Apostle, Can. 6. Ierom ad E­uagr. & in e­pist. ad Tot. Aug. epist. 19. nor Councell, but old custome; as also the appropriating of the name [Bishop] to the chiefe Ministers, wherein the custome of the Church, no Tradition or Councell generally preuay­led: to this rule, I say, that it cracks the very crowne of the popish church, for nothing not conteined in the scriptures could be vniuersally obserued, but eyther Traditions from the Apostles, or else the Decrees of plenarie Councels: it is cleere, that the Popes vniuersall power is shutte out of doores; and therefore to requite [the intricate Dilemma] he talkes of, let me reason thus with your Papist. The Pope ei­ther hath power to impose decrees and constitutions vpon the vniuersall Church of Christ, or else he hath not; if hee haue, then [ Austines rule] is crooked and may deceiue vs; if he haue not, then the Popes vniuersall shephardship ouer the whole Church, is come to nothing.

Howbeit, I beseech you, marke further how hee hudleth vp contraries, and so marreth the fashion of his owne rule, for if all things obserued vniuersally must be [followed and imbraced] as Traditions from the Apostles, if they bee not contained eyther in scriptures or Councels: then no man may presume vpon any [alteration of states and times] to abolish them, if they may [abolish] them, and [alter] them, then are they not [bound to follow & imbrace them:] adde hereunto, that as [the Apostles successors] as hee saith, might and haue alteted and abolished apostolicall Traditi­ons [generally practised in the vniuersall Church] so I would see some reason, why they may not stil vpon the like [alteration] of circumstances [abolish more of them; and so it will follow that [all the doctrine of the Catholicks not found in scripture] hangs vpon circumstances, and may if it please [the Apostles successors] be quite [abolished,] hath [Page 40] he not spun a faire threed, thinke you, that thus indangereth his owne religion? yet he croweth lowd, after all this fond feather-fluttering, that all is as cleare as the Sunne; yet ne­uer durst any Catholicke father or church, one or other, set downe this remnant of Traditions, and vnite it to the body of the canonicall Scripture, which infallibly demonstrateth that all is not [as cleare as the Sunne,] and it is fur­ther to bee obserued, how hee is faine to clowt out Saint Austines rule with a new patch which marres all; for when he saw that vniuersall practise is not enough to proue a Tra­dition apostolicall, vnlesse it be traced still downeward from the Apostles to our dayes; Are kept he is not content with (Custo­diuntur) which he findes in Austine, but addeth, [haue bin vniuersally practised from age to age, and from Bishop to Bishop, which no man aliue is possibly able to make good in any one vnwritten Tradition, popish or catholicke, vnlesse the Church had continually appointed in euery age, such an one as Sir Francis Drake, that should trauell all the worlde ouer from Bishop to Bishop, to know and certifie the state of al Churches, and yet that policy could not worke faith further then the credite of the man, which is a poore stay for a chri­stian conscience.

Verily the credite of men is but a sandye foundation to build vpon in matters not written; seeing your Papist was so fouly ouerseene in [the community of all things] a mat­ter written in great letters, and so determined in the worde of God, that all open eyes may see and perceiue that it was neuer vniuersally practised: and whereas it pleaseth him to talke of weedes and bastard plants, that they could not [still remaine without checke or contradiction, I am sure he hath read in Matthew, Sap. 13.25. that while men slept, the enuious man sewd tares among the wheat, and that both should grow together vntill haruest, and therefore no maruell though the mystery of iniquitie grew on stil by little and little by reason, of mens sleepines, and wrought closely, without any effectuall contra­diction, otherwise it had not beene a mystery; yet notwith­standing, when once it was growne so out of fashion, that [Page 41] men saw how vgly and mishapen it was, 2. Thes. 2.7.8 then the spirite of the Lords mouth began to consume it, and when haruest is come it shall be abolished, neither is it maruell that Coun­cels and catholicke Doctors slept, while the tares of Anti-christian Religion were a sowing, and so ignorantly gaue their helping hand to the inthronizing of the man of sinne, Apoc. 2.13. &c. for the Angell of Pergamus was a faithfull seruant of God, yet Satan had erected himselfe a throne in his Church to teach the doctrine of Baalam, Apo. 2.19. &c. and the Nicholaitans which God hated; the like may be sayd of that worthy Angell of Thyatira of whom God gaue testimonie that hee knewe his loue, seruice, faith, patience, and workes to be more at the last, than at the first, yet hee suffered the woman Iezabel to deceiue the seruants of God.

The Answere.

THe second wound, is come at length to the searching, namely, that all the ancient Fathers and Bishops, must bee excluded as heretickes, and scismatickes out of our Church, and why so? Marry because they held certaine points of Doctrine not warranted by the canonicall Scrip­tures, is not this a deepe wound thinke ye? wee say indeed, that no other doctrine ought to bee curtant in the Church, but such as hath the image and superscription of the Cano­nicall Scriptures: but doe you therefore say, that all such as haue beene carried beyond those limits, through ignorance or infirmitie, Cyprian. lib. 2. Epist. 3. are to be put out for wranglers? Si quis de ante­cessoribus nostris vel ignoranter, vel simpliciter non hoc obserua­uit & tenuit, quod nos dominus facere exemplo & magisterio suo docuit, potest simplicitati eius de indulgentia domini venia con­cedi, nobis vero non poterit ignosci, qui nunc à domino admoniti & instructi sumus, If any of our Predecessors, either of ig­norance or simplicity, did not obserue and keepe this which the Lord by his example and commandement hath taught, the Lord of his mercie may pardon his simplicitie; but wee after wee haue beene admonished and instructed so of the Lord, may looke for no pardon. Thus sayd Cyprian of the Aquarians that were before him, and so say we of the an­cient Fathers, that haue added the timber, hay, and stubble [Page 43] of traditions, to the gold, siluer, and precious stones of Scrip­ture; howbeit, see (I pray you) how your Papist hanges the principall pillars of his Religion vpon tradition, and all to wring out the Fathers out of our Church. The Fathers were all Papists, and held prayer for the dead, purgatorie, transubstantiation, Sacrifice for quicke and dead, prayer to dead Saints, vowes of chastitie, the single life of Priests, and the descention of Christs soule into hell; all these trim points of learning, you shall heare now so prooued by tra­dition, out of euerie Doctor, as you must confesse to bee su­per excellent, yet take heed you do not expound these words euerie Doctor heretically, after the imagination of your owne braine; for I dare assure you, he neuer saw the couers of euerie Doctor; and therefore you may not vnderstand them simply, as they sound, but charitably, for so many as haue writings extant, and could be intreated of this suddain to speake an ambiguous word or two in these matters.

The Answere.

HEere comes in Epiphanius and the hereticke Aerius once againe to walke a turne or two vpon the stage: howbeit, it may well be doubted by what authoritie Aerius was dubbed an hereticke; I am sure, Mich. Medina a stout Papist saith, De Sacr. homi. orig. & conti. lib. 1. cap. 5. that Ierom, Ambrose, Austine, Sedutius, Pri­masius, Chrysostome, Theodoret, Aecumenius and Theophi­lact, were of his opinion in the equalitie of ministers; A­gaine Aerius was enemy to Eustathius an Arian, and ther­fore if he had any desire to remooue him out of his Bishop­ricke, Haeres. 75. and to sit himselfe in his roome, as Epiphanius re­porteth, there is no likelihood that hee would be an Arian himselfe, but keepe himselfe cleere to accuse and condemne Eustathius of so capitall an heresie; Againe the opinion of fasting vpon Sunday, and condemning ordinary and set fa­sting dayes, Lib. 2. cap. 33. is attributed to Eustathius in Socrates storie, where wee read also that hee was twise condemned, once in the councell of Caesarea Cappadociae by his owne fa­ther Eueanius, and againe the second time in the Councell of Gangra in Paph agonia: wherefore I perswade my selfe that Epiphanius mistooke iust reprehension for emulation, and charged Aerius with the faults of Eustathius a double condemned hereticke, and as very a Papist, as euer Aerius was [a Puritane,] Nuptias fieri prohibuit, à cibis abstinendum docuit, nonnullos qui nuptias contraxerant à connubio segrega­uit, seruos simulatione pietatis dominis abstraxit, benedictionem & communionem presbyteri habentis vxorem tanquam scelus declinandum praecepit &c. He forbad marriage, taught to abstaine from meates, some that had bene married he sepa­rated, he drew seruants from their masters vnder colour of pietie, he commanded to shunne that blessing and commu­nion of an Elder that had a wife of an hainous wickednesse. Call you not this papistrie? call it what you will, I am sure [Page 45] it is so, and it is heresie too: Concil. Gangr. by your leaue if a nathemasit pronounced by a lawfull Councell be sufficient to make an heresie; shew me the like euidence against Aerius, and I will confesse him to be an hereticke, otherwise I must craue leaue to say of Epiphanius, as Austine doth of Philastrius, In praesat. libri de haeres, ad quod. Multas assertiones inter haereses numerauit, quae haereses non sunt, Many assertions he counted for heresies, which were not heresies. Nay, I will be bold to say further, Multas as­sertiones haereses non numerauit, quae haereses sunt; Many as­sertions he counted not heresies, which are heresies. For he hath wittingly concealed the assertions of Eustathius, 1. Tim. 4.1.3. which Paul cals [doctrines of deuils.]

Now to the Tradition which Epiphanius bringeth for praier for the dead, I say in a word, it is accepta à patribus, Receiued frō the Fathers, not from the Apostles. not [ab Apostolis] and therefore it hath no further credit then man can giue it; yet notwithstanding prayer was then made, not after the Popish fashion, to ease the dead of the paines and torments of purgatorie but to perswade the liuing that they are not vanished into nothing, but liue and haue their being with the Lord, which knockes out the braines of pur­gatorie, for if men ought to beleeue that the dead for whom prayer is made, doe viuere apud dominum; Epiph. ibidem haeres. 75. then may we not thinke that they doe viuere apud inferos in purgatorie, but E­piphanius helps you with better store of reasons; you heard the first, namely, quod credant mortuos esse & viuere apud do­minum, That they beleeue that the dead are aliue with the Lord. The second, Quod spes sit orantibus profratribus, velut qui in peregrinatione sint, That there is hope to them which pray for their brethren, as to them which want in trauai­ling. The third, Quo id quod perfectius est significetur, To the end, that which is more perfect, may be signified. The fourth, Vt Dominum Iesum Christum ab hominum ordine se­parent, that they may separate the Lord Iesus from the order and state of bare men. The fifth, Vt adorationem domino praestent, That they may yeeld adoration to the Lord. The sixt and last he sets downe in the words wee haue in hand, Ecclesia hoc perficit traditione à patribus accepta, The Church [Page 46] doth this by tradition receiued from the fathers. Howbeit, the fathers tradition was no more but [memoriam facite,] keepe a memory. Lib. 1. epist. 9. et lib. 3. epist. 3. As we may see euidently in Cyprian, whereunto was added by further curiositie, Misericordiam Dei implorate, Begge mercy of God. And at length, Masses and Indulgences, and oblations, and satisfactions: and a whole flood of pickepurse inuentiōs; yea but, may it be said, memoriam facite, is little worth without misericordiam im­plorate: yes, by your leaue, for so the Church thought good to animate and incourage the liuing to stand constant in persecution, and not to reuolt for feare from Christian pro­fession, and touching the crauing of mercy for sinners depar­ted, which the Church vsed to doe, most were in Epiphanius time, you heard before all the reasons that Epiphanius could yeeld, and if you looke for more, or better, you must search else where, for Epiphanius cannot helpe you, but hurt you: for when he saith, preces prosunt, etsi totam culpam non abscin­dant, prayers profit, though they cut not off the whole fault. He marres the fashion of purgatory, where sinnes are not forgiuen but punished: to be short, if you peruse the words of Aerius, you shall soone find that he neuer heard of purga­torian doctrine, for when he obiecteth that if prayer profite the dead, men need not liue godly, or doe any good thing in their life time: but purchase friends to pray, that their in­curable sinnes may bee layd to their charge, it is most cleere hee knew not that prayer is not auaileable, where there is no former merite; and that veniall, not mortall or incurable sinnes, are purged by the suffrages of the liuing.

The Answere.

AƲstine belike is plentifull in this question, for we haue here foure seuerall places out of his workes, which we will briefely runne ouer as they come: In the first Austine is forced to turne his tale, for whereas before where this place was alledged for Tradition; prayer for the dead, was no more but a Tradition of the fathers: here Austine is intrea­ted to say, that it was deliuered by Tradition from the Apo­stles; [Page 48] me thinks your Papist should know that our writers al­leage this verie place of Austine, to shew that this manner of praying was receiued of the Church long after the Apo­stles time, Decad. 4. serm. 10. as for example Bullinger in his Decades, Illud dis­simulare non possum, saith he, id quod isti traditionem Aposto­lorum appellant, S. Augustinum nuncupare traditionem patrum ab ecclesia receptam, nam sermone de verbis Apostoli 32. hoc à patribus (inquit) traditū vniuersa obseruat ecclesia, &c. This I cannot hide, that that which they call a traditō of the Apo­stles, Quest. 1. Augustine calleth a tradition of the Fathers receiued by the Church, see Serm. de verbis Apostoli. 32. This (saith he) being deliuered by the Fathers doth the whole Church ob­serue. And a litle after cōcludeth, His significantius innuere vi­detur hunc ritū orandi pro defunctis, haud dubie post longa inter­nalla à temporibus Apostolorū ab ecclesia receptū esse, By these words he seemeth more throughly to insinuate, that this cu­stome of praying for the dead, was without all doubt re­ceiued by the Church a long space after the Apostles times. Wherefore this budgening and setting downe quid, pro quo, in so materiall a testimonie, argueth a peruerse resolution, rather to quench the fire of truth, than the stubble and straw of our errours should be consumed. But for answere, I say, that Austine himselfe doubted of that which here he saith we ought not to doubt of; thus he writes in the questions of Dulcitius, Siue in hac vita tantum homines ista patiuntur, siue etiam post hanc vitam talia quaedam iudicia subsequuntur, non abhorret, quantùm arbitror à ratione veritatis iste intellectus huius sententiae, Whether men suffer these things onely in this life, or whether after this life, some such iudgements follow, this vnderstanding of this sentence, is not without some shew of truth as I suppose. Also in his Bookes De Ci­uitate Dei, Lib. 21. cap. 26 Siue ibi tantum, siue hic & ibi, siue ideo hic vt non ibi, saecularia, quamuis à damnatione venialia, concremantem ignem transitoriae tribulationis inueniant non redarguo, quia for­sitan verum est, Whether thinges committed in this world, though veniall in respect of damnation, doe find a transito­rie fire of tribulation here onely, or here and there, or ther­fore [Page 49] here, because not there; I seek not to conuince, because perhaps it is true; and in his Enchiridion, Cap. 69. Tale aliquid post hanc vitam fieri, incredibile non est, & vtrum ita sit, quaeri po­test, That some such thing is done after this life, it is not in­credible; and whether it bee so done, it is a question. Now then if Austine himselfe doubted whether men be punished transitorily after this life: I knowe your Papist wil giue vs leaue to doubt, whether the dead be releeued by our prayers.

Moreouer, it is here likewise to be obserued, that no soule were praied or offered for, or thought worthy to be remem­bred at the Altar, but such as departed in the communion of the bodie and blood of Christ, Lib. 1. Contr. Iulian. & lib. 1 de peccat. merit. & re­miss. Concil. 6. cap. 83. & Carth. Con. 3. cap. 6. which includeth a generall beleefe of those times, that none but Communicants could be saued; and therefore Austine vrgeth it as hotly, as any other tradition, that the Eucharist, as well as Baptisme, was necessary to the saluation of all, euen of new borne babes, wherof it cōmeth, that the bread & wine was then thrust in­to the mouthes of Infants, and dead carkasses, both in the Greeke and Latine Churches. Forasmuch then as this place of Austine, teacheth two points of generall doctrine, one that prayers, Sacrifices, and almes doe profite the dead; the other, that none can bee saued but Communicants, and so prayers, and sacrifices, and doles to bee made for no other: we thinke our selues no more bound to receiue the one at Austines hand, than Papists thinke themselues bound to re­ceiue the other.

Furthermore, these Offices of the liuing are here sayd to procure greater mercie at Gods hands, than the sinnes of the dead haue deserued; where obserue, that the sway of the time so carried both Paulinus and Austine, two worthy re­nowned Bishops, that the one would not yeeld though he could not tell how to answere Saint Pauls authoritie; 2. Cor. 5.10. Cap. 7. par. 3. and the other sheltered himselfe, as Denys doth in his Hierarchy vnder a short heeld answere thats readie to fall backward if you do but look vpon it; Paul saith, We must receiue euery man according to that he hath done in the bodie, either good, or euill: Here Paulinus is at his wits end, and cannot tell how this [Page 50] can agree with prayers, sacrifices, almes, and the Patro­nage of dead Martyrs, and such like humane inuentions, and yet he stickes in the mire still, and desires Austine to help him out: see now how Austine answeareth, Meritum, per quod ista profint, si nullum comparatum est in hac vita, frustra quaeritur post hanc vitam, If there be no merit, by which these things may doe good, Libr. de cura pro mortu. Cap. 1. gotten in this life, it is in vaine to seek it after this life. And a little after, Vt hoc quod impenditur possit ei prodesse post corpus, in ea vita acquisitum est quam gessit in corpore; That this which is bestowed may profit him af­ter the bodie, it is purchased in this life which hee liued in the bodie. But what merite is this hee talkes of? doth it re­spect God or man? if man, then man must reward it; if God, why the Apostle assureth vs by Cōmission frō God, 2. Cor. 5.10. that we shall receiue good, according to that good we haue done in the flesh; and therfore all such praiers & sacrifices are super­fluous: again the praiers & sacrifices of the liuing, depending vpon our former merits, must needs procure either lesse, or the same, or more mercy than wee haue merited in our life time; if lesse, then they hinder vs; if the same, then do they not further vs; if more, then doe we not receiue according to the good that we haue done in the body, as Paul saith, but ac­cording to the praiers & sacrifices of our friends. Here your Papist hath a Dilemma, & a Trilemma too to worke vpon, if he can do any thing, Austine & Paulinus shall be beholding to him; if nothing, thē Paul the Apostle must haue the victory.

In the mean time the verie same Dilemma and Trilemma too must repell the force of the next place cited out of Au­stines Enchiridion, Cap. 100. for there Austine addeth immediatly, Sed eis hac prosunt, qui cum viuerēt, vt haec sibi postea prodesse possēt, meruerunt, But these things profit thē, who when they liued, deserued that they might profit them afterward. Wherfore Austine vsing the same shift to rid his hands of Saint Pauls authority. Vid. Lumb. Eb. 4. distinct. 45. D. I must vse the same answere to defend it; if two men of equall merite be inequally rewarded, because pray­ers and sacrifices are offered for the one, and not for the o­ther, then euerie man receiueth not according to that him­selfe [Page 51] hath done in the flesh, but according to that other men doe for him, when he is out of the flesh. Howbeit, this se­cond place of Austine speakes not of prayers, but sacrifices and almes giuen in the Church, which belongeth to the fourth point of doctrine, to wit, sacrifice for the quicke and dead; if your Papist thinke that sacrifice and prayers goe to­gether, let him take heed hee bee not deceiued, for Cyprian speaking of Laurentius and Ignatius Martyrs, saith thus, Lib. 4. Epist. 5. de verb. Apo. serm. 17. & in Ioh. tract. 84. Sa­crificia pro eis semper, vt meministis, offerimus; We alwayes as you know, offer sacrifices for them. Yet Austine saith, that Martyrs [are not prayed for,] and that it is iniurious to pray for them, but because hee dispatcheth two of his points at once, let this place and some other of Cyprian, strike some stroke in this question of Sacrifice, wee offer Sacrifices for Martyrs, saith he, Quoties Martyrum passiones & dies anni­uersaria commemoratione celebramus, As often as wee cele­brate the sufferings & dayes of the Martyrs, with a yeerely remembrance. And this sacrificing pro Martyribus, Austine himselfe confesseth to be nothing else but praise & thankes­giuing, and so hee celebrated the day of Cyprians Martyr­dome; yea, but though Martyrs bee not prayed for, Serm. de Cyp. Mart. in oper. Cypr. when they are remembred at the Altar; yet all other which are there mentioned, are prayed for, saith Austine in the third place: and in the last place, sacrifices (saith he) for those that be Ʋaldè boni, verie good, be thankesgiuing; but for those that be not Valde mali, Verie euill, they bee propitiatorie. I see what Saint Austine saith, yet all other beside Martyrs stood not in need of releefe, as namely, the Patriarckes, the Prophets, the Apostles, the Euangelists, the Confessors, the Bishops, the Anachorits, and our most holy, vnspotted, most blessed Ladie, Gods Mother the Virgine Marie: All these, I trowe, were not Martyrs, yet were they all prayed for in the lyturgies of Basile, Chrysostome, and Epiphanius not to re­leeue them, but to glorifie God in his seruants, and to pro­fite the Church by commemoration of their vertues; it can­not be denied, but God blessed his Church continually with many such as were Valde boni beside Martyrs, and therfore [Page 52] either prayers and Sacrifices go not alwayes one way, or els some of these places of Austine must needs fall.

Howbeit, to returne to Saint Cyprian, we read that it was decreed by his predecessors, that if any brother at his death should leaue the execution of his will to any of the Clergie, he should not be offered nor sacrificed for; now followeth the approbation and practise of this decree, in in these words, Cum victor frater noster de saeculo excedens contra formam nuper in concilio à sacerdotibus datam, Libr. 1. epist. 9. Gemint­um Faustinum praesbyterum ausus sit actorem constituere: non est quo pro dormitione eius apud vos fiat oblatio aut de precatio aliqua nomine eius in ecclesia frequentetur, vt sacerdotum decretum religiosè & necessariè factum seruetur &c. Seeing victor our brother departing out of this world, durst contrary to the order taken of late by the Priests in the Councell, appoint Geminius Faustinus a Priest his executor; there is no reason why you should make any offering for his decease, or that the Church should meete to deprecation for his sake, that the religious and necessarie ordinance of the Priests may be obserued. Thus farre Cyprian, out of which I gather, that if these offerings and sacrifices and deprecations had bin made for refrigeration of soules departed: then Cyprian and his Collegues and predecessors that made and executed this law, had bene most vnmercifull and most cruell and sauage tyrants, that wrote their decrees with the blood of soules; and so we read in one of the Sermons Ad fratres in Heremo clamant quotidiè defuncti qui iacent in tormentis, Serm. 44. clamant, & pauci sunt qui respondeant, vlulant, & non est qui consoletureos, ô quàm grandis crudelitas, fratres mei, ô quàm grandis inhu­manitas, clamant ad nos quotidiè, nec eis subuenire curamus, ô verè magna inhumanitas, The dead that lie in torments cry dayly, they cry, and few there are that answere; they howle and there is none to comfort them; oh how great cruelty is this my brethren? oh how great inhumanitie? they cry to vs dayly, and we haue no care to helpe them, or verily great inhumanitie. Farre was this inhumanitie from Cyprian, and the other good bishops of Africke; and therefore farre [Page 53] were they from beleeuing, that praying and sacrificing did either helpe or hurt their dead brethren.

Moreouer, Lib. 4. epist. 5. we must vnderstand that the commemoration of the dead was celebrated but once a yeere, so saith Cyprian of the Martyrs, and so saith Tertullian of them that were no Martyrs, neither is it like that the memory of any Christian had moe dayes bequeathed vnto it, Lib. decor. milit. then the memory of a Martyr: now I beseech you, consider what humanitie or charitie this was, to releeue our brethren that were broiled and scorched in extreame torments, but once a yeere, and to leaue them to their clamant quotidiè all the yeere after? may not a purgatory-monger cry out here to, ô quàm grandis cru­delitas, ô verè magna inhumanitas? Verely I must thinke so till I be better informed; and this is yet further strengthe­ned, in that these anniuersary dayes were celebrated festi­ually cum ingenti letitia, with great ioy: for had they belee­ued that the soules of the brethren rested not blessedly from their labours, as the spirit saith, Apoc. 14.13. but were tormented mise­rably in purgatory, as your Papist saith; verely these dayes had bene dayes of fasting and mourning, not dayes of fea­sting and reioycing, I could obserue further that oblatio, or deprecatio, or facrificium pro dormitione, importeth not relee­uing of soules, but a thankefull remembrance to God for the quiet and Christian departure of our brother, with a commemoration thereof to the profit and comfort of the liuing, but this that hath bene sayd, is sufficient to shew the innocencie of Cyprians riches from these popish abuses.

Now let vs consider a little before of Austines fourth place, for the third is sensibly false, confuted, as you heard, in the old Liturgies, & by Austine himselfe in the first place, where he saith, that wee should pray for all communicated soules; and in the last two, where he saith, that sacrifice is offered, Pro baptizatis defunctis omnibus, Cap. cum Mar­thae. For all deceased af­ter baptisme, for [all that are dead after baptisme.] Now then touching the distinction of soules, which this last place doth afford vs, it is found long agoe to want a legge, and so to bee lame and imperfect: for Pope Innocent the [Page 54] third will needes haue it goe vpon foure legges; namely, a very good one, a very bad one; an indifferent good one, and an indifferent bad one, and Austine himselfe graunts as much in his bookes De Ciuitate Dei, Lib. 21. ca. 24. cap. 110. Lib. 4. dist. 40. and in his Enchiri­dion, as the master of Sentences hath cited him; so by this rec­koning we must find out another purgatorie, for indifferent good soules: for seeing suffrages auaile them ad expiationem, to expiation, as Innocentius saith; or as Lumbard mends the matter, ad plenam absolutionem, to full absolution; they must haue a new purgatorie needs, for the old will receiue none but such as haue filth to purge, and are stayed by some in­quinament or other from entring into heauen, and Austine tels vs that all good soules departed, haue ioy; and all euill soules torments. In Ioh. tract. 49. I doubt your papist will be fowly troubled before he shew vs what ioy soules haue in purgatory: and here obserue further, that the soules which papists send to purgatorie, though they be not valdè malae, yet they bee malae in Austines opinion, whereof it followeth that at the generall resurrection, their torments wil be more grieuous, Habent omnes animae, cum de saeculo exierint, diuersas receptio­nes suas, habent gaudium boni, mali tormenta, sed cum facta fuerit resurrectio, & bonorum gaudium amplius erit, & malorū tormenta grauiora quādo cum corpore torquebuntur. All soules after they goe out of the world, haue diuers rewards, the good haue ioy, & the bad torments, but whē the resurection shal come the ioy of the good shall be greater; and the tor­ments of the bad more grieuous when they shall be tor­mēted in their bodies. This wil hardly agree with the popish purgatorie, which is said to be the high way to heauen, not to hell; againe, it being graunted that non valdè malae, be malae; not very euill, be euill. Notwithstanding it will fol­low likewise, that they must continue euill still, and so ne­uer become good, that so they may flit from purgatory to heauen, for there the tree must lie, saith the wise man, where it falleth: Eccles. 11.3. Serm. 49. ex paruis. which place Ierome expoundeth of the immuta­bilitie of the soule after this life, either in good or euill; and so doth Barnard in one of his Sermons, but admit the soule [Page 55] may be changed, and be made a good soule, of an euil soule: now consider what it is that workes this change, whether our suffrages, or the fire of purgatory; suffrages worke no more than we haue merited in our life time, as we haue seene before, hauing merits in our life time, we haue our quietus est in our life time, and so purgatory and suffrages are both dis­charged: as for the fire of purgatorie, Bellar. depurg. lib. 2. cap. 6. it is the same with the fire of hell, Theologi ferè omnes docent eodem igne torqueri damnatos & animas purgatorij. Now if this fire haue power in purgatory so to burne away sinne, that it purifieth an euill soule, and changeth it from euill to good; it would bee knowen why the same fire in hell doth not change soules from valde malae, to non valde malae by the like consumption of sinne, and so bring them on from hell to purgatory, and from thence to heauen: if it be said that purgatory fire takes away sinne, not by way of purification, but by way of satis­faction, though this blasphemie be sufficiently confuted by the Prophet Esay, Cap. 53.5. who assureth vs that the chasticement of our peace fell vpon Christ, and that we are heated by his stripes: yet forasmuch ar mortall sinne, in his owne nature is not infinitely more punishable than veniall: it wil follow, that if hell fire satisfie the iustice of God in the one, it will also in proportionall time satisfie in the other, which is not a coits cast from the heresie of the Chiliasts.

Obserue yet further that Austine here seemes contented that the pearle of the body and blood of Christ should bee layd to pawne for very euill soules, euen the cursed enemies of God, and laboureth to excuse it when he hath done; such sacrificing, saith he, is some comfort to the liuing, as if it were lawfull to pleasure the affections of men, with the prostitu­tion of the mysteries of God, & where he saith elswhere, Lib. de Cura pro mort. cap. 18. Harding Ar­tic. 19. opor­tet, we must offer for all, quia non discernimus, because we can­not seuer the good frō the bad: I answere, that his quia doth not make good his oportet, for the Sacrifice cōsisting of dead elements, cannot apply it selfe without prayer, and by prayer we may easily discard euill and cursed soules, and so apply this pretended plaster to such sores onely as may be cured.

[Page 56]There is yet one excuse more behind, where he tels vs, that it is better our sacrifices should bee offered for such as can haue no benefite by them, Lib. de Cura pro mort. cap. vlt. quám vt desint ijs qui egent, sicut benefacimus iniustis in hoc mundo, ne praetereantur iusti, then that they which haue need should want, as wee doe good to the vnrighteous in the world, least the righteous should not be regared. This excuse were something worth, if sacrifi­care pro valdè malis were commanded, as benefacere iniustis is; but sacrificing for damned soules, being simply euill, we must learne of Paul, Rom. 3.8. not to do euill, that good may come of it.

Howbeit these two last excuses teach vs, that we cannot helpe Purgatory vnlesse we pray for Hell; we must offer for the vniust that be in hell, or els the iust that be in purgatory must be pretermitted, and this is done for both, nay, for all, tagge and ragge, with all indifferency of words and deeds, in one vniforme generalitie of prayer, otherwise the liuing, seeing their dead in any one point neglected, cannot con­ceaue comfort, but griefe and discouragement; now, I be­seech you, consider how this generall oblation can possibly be so parted among dead soules, that for some it is eucha­risticall, for other some propitiatory, and for some a meere nullitie: but what speake I of parting? it must be all eucha­risticall for those that be valdè boni; it must be all propitia­tory for those that be non valdè mali; and for all other, either consolatory to the liuing, or nullatory to the damned, is this possible thinke you? we cannot offer for Martyrs and Mar­tyrs fellowes, without agimus tibi gratias; wee cannot offer for Purgatorians without prasta quaesumus, and howe both these can bee confounded in one applicatory prayer, as it were ale and beere in one pot to serue all turnes at once; it is farre beyond the reach of my wit to conceiue.

Besides this, there remaineth yet another inconuenience, in that Austine holds the sacrifice of almes at as high a price, in this office of relieuing soules, as the sacrifice of the altar, and so the qualitie of his speech seemeth to import; for whē Paul saith, Ephes. 6.8. Vnusquis (que) quod fecerit boni, hoc recipiet a Do­mino [Page 57] siue seruus, siue liber, What good thing soeuer a man doth, that shal he receiue of the Lord, whether he be bond, or free: He giueth vs to vnderstand, that in respect of the Lords rewarding of vertue, bond and free are of equall re­gard. And therefore when Austine saith, Sacrificia pro de­functis propitiationes sunt, siue altaris, siue quarumcun (que) eleemo­sinarum, Sacrifices for the dead bee propitious, whether they be of the altar, or of any almes whatsoeuer: his mea­ning is, that these two sacrifices, in respect of propitiating the dead, are of equall estimation. I doubt whether your Papist will allow this for currant diuinitie, that in any work of our redemption, corruptible things, 1. Pet. 1.18.19 as siluer and gold giuen in almes, should be aequallized to the precious blood of Christ, which he dreames to be really present in the Sa­crament: and if it should happen that this absurditie will not stoppe his course; yet when Chrysostome yeeldeth grea­ter power to the sacrifice of Almes, than to the sacrifice of the Altar, I trow he will stoppe there, if he be not desperate, looke his Sermons vpon the Philippians, Serm. 3. and there you shal find that such as died without Baptisme, called Catechume­ni, finding no helpe in the prayers and other sacrifices of the Church, were notwithstanding somewhat relieued by almes giuing in their names to the poore, Omni huiusmodi destituti sunt auxilio, saith he, vno quodam dempto, quonam illo? paupe­ribus illorum nomine dare licet, vndeillis nonnihil refrigerij ac­cedit; they are destitute of euery such helpe, one onely ex­cepted: and what is that? men may giue somewhat to the poore for their sakes, wherby they receyue some refreshing: heerehence therefore we may safely gather, I thinke, that Austine and Chrysostomes sacrifice was not the same with the Sacrifice of the Masse, wherin a popish shaueling priest without all shame or feare of God, offereth the Sonne of God to his Father.

Concerning the Treatise, de cura pro mortuis agenda; Instit. lib. 3. 5. 10. Cal­uin hath truely censured it in these words, Tot haetitationes continet, vt suo frigore meritò debeat stulti zeli calorem extin­guere, &c. It conteineth so many doubts, that the coldnesse [Page 58] thereof, might iustly extinguish the heate of foolish zeale. And a little after, haec vna ect fultura quia inualuit consuetu­do, &c. If that booke haue any better helpes then haesitati­ons, and likelyhoods, and custome, let them be brought to light that we may see them; if it haue no other, no reason the bare frozen authoritie of any man liuing or dead, han­ging vpon vnchawed and vndigested coniectures, should keepe vs in prison.

Epist. 64.The Epistle to Aurelius, which we are likewise willed to read, hath this saying, Oblationes pro spiritibus dormienti­um, quas vere aliquid adiuuare credendum est, super ipsas me­morias non fint sumptuosae, at (que) omnibus petentibus siue typho, & cum alacritate prebeantur, nequé vendantur, sed si quis proreli­gione aliquid pecuniae offerre voluerit, in praesenti pauperibus erogetur, ita nec deserere videbuntur memorias suorum, quod potest gignere non leuem cordis dolorem, & id celebrabitur in ec­clesia quod piè honestequé celebratur. The offerings for the soules of the dead, which we must beleeue, doe indeed somewhat helpe, let them not be sumptuous ouer their me­mories, and let them be giuen to all that aske them without disdaine & cheerefully, & not sold: but if any man for reli­gions sake wil offer any mony, let it be presently bestowed on the poore: so shall men not seeme to forsake the memo­ries of their friends, which might be occasion of no small griefe of heart, and that which is celebrated in the Church, shall be godlily and honestly celebrated. It is not very easie to gesse what these oblations were, for the sacrament can­not be sumptuous, vnlesse we met some precious stone of great value in the Communion Cup, as Cleopatra did in a cup of Ippocras, other oblations cannot be sold, nor yet giuen to euery one that asketh them, if it be said that the sa­crament might be called sumptuous, not in it selfe, but in regard of the pompe and costly braueries of funerals: it is easily seene, that Austine heere speakes not of funerals, but memorials; which as they were sumptuous, so were they celebrated with feasting and ioy, not with mournefull cal­ling vpon God for a gaole deliuerie, and therefore we may [Page 59] better vnderstand this same aliquid adiunare, somewhat to helpe; of helping the liuing, who otherwise might conceiue sorrow of heart, or, of the inflaming of mens deuotion to zeale and feruencie of prayer, when they behold the repre­sentation of the death of Christ in the reuerend mysteries, then of offering Christ in sacrifice to God his father for the reliefe of the dead, Vero aliquid adiuuare credendum est, We might belieue that they doe indeed helpe somewhat, saith Augustine, but that euery one that celebrated the memory of his friend, should beleeue that his friends soule was in purgatorie, crauing yeerely reliefe at his hands; that saith not Austine: it may be his friends soule was in heauen, it may be it was in hell; it may be it was deliuered out of pur­gatorie the last yeere, or the yeere before, and therefore it may be that oblations could not helpe him, and so conse­quently that Austines [credendum] in this case, is no whit better then an [ignorandum] howbeit you may tell your papist that this place is not for his profite, for if his massing soule Priest may not sell his oblations and prayers, but giue them freely and cheerefully to all that aske: tht poore man will hardly be able to keepe a Concubine; Austine saw that veniale peccatum, veniall sinne, was like to prooue, venale, venall, or set to sale, and therefore he saith, prebeantur ne­que vendantur, let them be giuen, not sold. But now, no mo­ney, no masse, no penny no pater noster. Wherefore to con­clude all in a word, if this had bene Austines faith, he would not haue taught it so loosely and vntowardlie, yet howsoe­uer he teacheth it, as faith, or opinion, or custome, or what else soeuer; the faith of one moderne sacrifice Sacrificato­rians is of another Edition.

The Answere.

BElike Ambrose and Austine must agree in all points, be­cause the one conuerted the other, otherwise this tale of Austines conuersion is told out of season: but by your leaue if this counterfect prayer be construed after the Popish fa­shion, I doubt whether Austine will giue it allowance, Howbeit, supposing this Iacke Strawe to be the right Am­brose, I answere that he speakes not here of this mysterie, as it is a sacrament, putting vs in mind of God, for then the vertue of it could not depend vpon the worthinesse, the re­uerent or irreuerent handling of the Priest, but as it is a sa­crifice, putting God in mind of vs: now if Ambrose purposed to offer vp the very body and blood of the sonne of God in sacrifice to his father, the absurdity of receiuing it merciful­ly in regard of his reuerent handling remaineth still, for the reall body and blood of Christ had bene acceptable to God of it selfe without helpe of Ambroses holinesse: Contr. epist. Par. lib. 2. cap. 8. Austine could not abide that Parmenian should say that the Bishop is mediatour betweene God and the people, and auoucheth, that if Saint Iohn had taken so much vpon him: euery good faithfull Christian would haue taken him for Antichrist, rather then the Apostle of Christ, and therefore, if Ambrose had prayed that God would mercifully receiue the body and blood of his sonne at his hands, making himselfe medi­atour betweene the sonne of God and his father, as Popish Priests venter to doe at this day in the Church of Rome; I may well thinke Austine, notwithstanding his conuersion, would haue detested it. Lib. 4. part. 2. Cum sacerdos orauerit prohostia tran­substātianda, eam (que) transubstantiatā patri obtulerit orat pro ipsi­us acceptatione Whē the Priest praieth for transubstantiating [Page 61] of the hoste, and doth offer it being transubstantiated to the father, he prayeth for the acceptation of it. Thus saith Du­rand: and the Priest in the Masse desireth God to looke Propitio ac sereno vultu, propitiously and cheerefully, vpon the body and blood of Christ his sonne, and to receiue the same, as once he receiued the sacrifice of Abel &c. This is a presumptuous and a desperate blasphemy, yet must we ei­ther make Ambrose guilty of it in this praier, or else see him discharged of transubstantiation, There is a full discourse in Irenaeus, where it is prooued out of the Scriptures, Lib. 4. cap. 34. that God euer accepted him that offered, better than the offering, and that no oblation is pleasing vnto God, when hee that offe­reth it doth not please him better, and therefore it is sayd in Genesis, Cap. 4.4.5. that the Lord had respect vnto Abel and his of­fering, but vnto Cain and his offering he had no regard; and if the offering of a wicked man were acceptable to God, it had bene out of season to charge that man to goe away from the Altar, to be reconciled with his brother, Matth. 5.23. before he presume to offer his oblation, so long as a man choseth his owne wayes, and inwardly delighteth in abhominations; Esa. 66.23. &c. his killing of a bullocke is as if he slew a man; his sacrificing a sheepe, as if he cut off a dogs necke; his offering an obla­tion, as if he offered swines flesh; and such a mans offering incense to God, is as if he blessed an idoll. It commeth to passe often among men, that the wicked is accepted for his gift, and so absolued because the iudge is either needy or couetous; but God hath no neede of our sacrifices, he nei­ther eats the flesh of Buls, nor drinkes the blood of Goats, Psal. 50.30. he neither eats bread, nor drinkes wine, but lookes fauou­rably vpon him and his sacrifice, that hath an humble and contrite heart, and trembleth at his word, and therefore well concludeth that ancient Father, Igitur non sacrificia sanctificant hominem, non enim indiget sacrificio Deus, sed conscientia eius qui offert, sanctificat sacrificium pura existens, & praestat acceptare Deum quasi ab amico, Sacrifices therefore doe not sanctifie a man; for God hath no need of sacrifice, but the conscience of him that offereth being, pure doth [Page 62] sanctifie the sacrifice, and causeth that God receiueth it as of his friend. I trow your Papist will looke about him, be­fore hee presume to say that the purity of a Popish Priests conscience sanctifieth the sonne of God, and makes him to be accepted of his father, and so learne that this sacrifice which could not acceptably be receiued of God, vnlesse the holy Ghost did inuisibly teach Ambrose to handle it with due reuerence, was not the sacrifice of the Masse, but the Eucharisticall sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing.

Yea but, may it bee said, how can praise and thankesgi­uing helpe both the quicke and dead? how, say you? and how can the Masse do it? I am sure, I can shew the one with more ease, then any man liuing can shew the other; for it is easily vnderstood, that prayer is more deuout and feruent and forcible, when our soules are possessed of the graces of God offered in the Sacrament, as beeing then more infla­med with the loue of God, that hath not spared his owne Sonne, but gaue him ouer to death for our redemption, and we may well be said to helpe the dead, Apoc. 7.10. & 6.10. 1. Cor. 54. &c Luke 21.28. Rom. 8.23. Act. 3.19. when we ioyne with them in praysing God, and in prayer to represse the rage of Tyrants, and speedy comming of the Lord Iesus to vanquish death, and to accomplish our redemption, and theirs in that day, which Peter calleth the day of refreshing: And that this, or some such thing as this, is the helpe of quicke and dead, In orat. de obit: Theod. In orat: de obit: Valent: which Ambrose meaneth, his owne practise wil euince it, for he reioyceth that Theodosius reigned with Christ, yet he prayeth God to graunt him optatam requiem, desired rest. So likewise of Ʋalentinians soule he saith, that it was beau­tifull as the Moone, chosen as the Sunne, a blessed soule, that looked downe from aboue vpon vs that bee here be­neath; and that both Ʋalentinian and Gratian his brother did inioy the pleasures of eternall life, yet thus he addeth im­mediatly in the same place, beati ambo, si quid meae orationes valebunt, nulla dies vos silentio praeteribit, nulla nox non donatos aliqua praecum mearum contextione transcurret, omnibus vos oblationibus frequentabo, Both are blessed ones, if my pray­ers can doe any thing, no day shall passe you ouer with si­lence, [Page 63] no night shall runne ouer, in which I wil not giue you some labor of my prayers, I will frequent you in or with all offeringes; heere is a Masse of requiem, for Theodosius, and store of prayers and sacrifices for Gratian and Valen­tinian, yet because Ambrose conuerted Austine, and both held the same doctrine, thus must wee resolue, Sa­crificia pro valdè bonis gratiarum actiones sunt, Sacrifices for those that be very good, are thankesgiuings, saith Augu­stine; but Theodosius, Gratian and Valentinian were valdè boni, for their soules did shine as the morning starre, and had the fruition of eternall blisse in heauen, So Ambroses pray­ers and Sacrifices were not propitiatory, but eucharisticall, and if this resolution please not your Papist, then let him consider, that Austine in his Confessions prayeth thus for his mother, Promisisti misericordiam misericordibus, & credo iam feceris, quod te rogo, sed voluntaria oris mei approba Do­mine; Thou hast promised mercie to the mercifull, and I beleeue thou hast done that already which I desire, yet ap­proue o Lord the free-will offerings of my mouth: and let him conclude thereof, that Ambrose to shew his loue and affection, prayd voluntary for Theodosius, Gratian, and Valen­tinian, as Austine did for his mother Monica.

The Answere.

CHrysostome, though he might say, Ʋoluntaeria oris mei approba domine, Approoue the free-will offerings of my mouth, as well as either Ambrose or Austine: yet hee thought himselfe bound to remember the dead, at the mini­stration of the dreadfull mysteries, euen by the Apostles or­dinance, Austine neuer durst say any more of that order, but that it was traditum à patribus, deliuered by the Fathers, no more durst Epiphanius; neither is it credible that either of them would hinder the credite of it, so much as to fa­ther it vpon the Fathers, if they had thought the Apostles had ordained it: Lib. 1. Epist. 9. we heard before that Cyprians Predecessors decreed, that if a Christian brother dying, should appoint a Clarke ouerseer of his goods, the sacrifice should not bee celebrated for him, which neither they would haue ventu­red to enact, nor Cyprian and the godly Bishops of his time to approoue and practise, if they had surmised the Apostles had decreed the contrarie. Againe, when Chrysostome de­maundeth, how we can choose but intreat the Lord for the dead? It may be demaunded of him againe, what he would obtaine for such as are departed in the faith, for hee dares pray for no other: if answere bee made, he desires they may attaine vnto rest; he would be told that in fide abscedere, to depart in faith, and in fide requiescere, to rest in faith, are all one; yet thus hee prayeth in his Liturgie, Offerimus tibi rationalem hunc cultum pro in fide requiescentibus, Wee offer thee this reasonable seruice, for those that rest in the faith; And so desires rest for them that be in rest alreadie; and in­deed so it must be, not because Chrysostome prayeth so, but because the spirite of God saith so, Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord, Apoc. 14.13. for they rest from their labours. This place is cleere; yet Bellarmine hath scraped together two answeres, one out of Anselmus, who saith, that Saint Iohn speakes of [Page 65] the time, that followeth the last iudgement, which is absurd; for then he would haue sayd [...] from thence-forth, not [...] from hence-forth; his other answere out of Haimo and Richardus. De S. Victore, restraines the comfort of this heauenly voice to Martyrs and perfect men, which is a male part impounding of the grace of God common to all that keepe the commaundements of God, and liue and die in the faith of Iesus, it will trouble Bellarmine, and Vi­ctor: let father Haimo help them to perswade wise men, that Meri in Domino, to die in the Lord, is more proper to per­fect men; than ( Nubere in Domino, 1. Cor. 7.39. to marry in the Lord) to perfect women: howbeit, these two answeres play at hard-head, and beat out one anothers braines: Anselmus cannot abide we should allow the one, and Haimo and Victor wilbe starke angrie with vs, if wee allowe the other, and there­fore, to please both sides, it will be our best way to allowe neither.

But to proceede, Chrysostome makes another petition for the dead, [that they may finde the Iudge fauourable,] wher­in we must consider two things; the sentence of the Iudge, and the Execution. The sentence is either particular present­ly after death, Eccles. 11.26. or generall at the last day in the clouds of hea­uen: touching the former Chrysostomes petition for [fauour] comes too late; and touching the other, it must needs bee ei­ther venite benedicti patris mei, come ye blessed of my father; or else, ite maledicti in ignem aeternum, Math. 25.34.41. goe ye cursed into hell fire: no praying or sacrificing can either reuoke or alter this sentence, Ego Iehoua, & non mutor, I am the Lord, Malac. 3.6. Genes. 18.25. and change not: and as the Lord is immutable, so his sentence both first and last, is iust: Shall not the Iudge of the world doe right? saith Abraham, as if he should say, it is impossi­ble it should be otherwise: wherefore if any [fauour] bee to be found, it must be in the execution. Psal. 103.20. Now the Executio­ners (being either Angels or Diuels) Angels must doe the will of God as it is enioyned them; at the Diuels hands no [fauour] can bee looked for, nowe whats next? verily it is hard to tell, vnlesse we call vpon God to rectifie that which [Page 66] is right, to mend that which is not amisse, to vndoe that which is done well, and to mitigate that punishment which is no sharper than it ought to be; it may well stand with the folly of mans affections to make such prayers, but it will hardly stand with the wisedome and iustice of God to giue them the hearing, Suffragia aut ad hoc prosunt, vt plena sit re­missio, Enchirid. cap. 110. aut tolerabilior damnatio, saith Austine, Suffrages are profitable to make either remission of sinnes more perfect, or damnation more tollerable; but how remission or miti­gation of an absolute and a iust sentence damnatorie, Ad supplicium tantum & tale, To punishment so great and of such qualitie: being vnder execution, can possibly stand with Ego Iehoua & non mutor in Malachy: it passeth the reach of all the wit & learning I haue to determine. Wher­fore well might Chrysostome say, Nouerunt, the Apostles knew, what profite redounded to the dead, by commemo­ration in the dreadfull mysteries, for hee himselfe knew not how the prayers of Priest and people could profite the dead, much lesse how annuall commemorations could doe it.

And here let it bee considered, how vntowardly Chryso­stome disputeth, the Apostles knew that commemoration of the dead at the altar was profitable vnto them; Ergo, the Apostles ordained it should be so. I will not stand vpon the sequele, let that goe for good; but how knewe Chrysostome what the Apostles knew? who reuealed their counsell vnto him? if any bodie told him; what reason had he to beleeue it? if no bodie told him; what reason had he to say it? and therefore he that loues Chrysostome best, must needs confesse that his antecedent is more doubtfull than his conclusion, but when hee reasoneth further, that the people and Priest stretching out their handes to heauen, must needs appease Gods wrath; Ergo, commemoration of the dead is profita­ble: hee is much ouer-seene, for commemoration of the dead, and praying fot the dead, are not the same, as the Pa­pists themselues knowe and confesse, De purg. lib. 1. cap. 5. Epiphanius nusquam di­cit orari pro sanctis, sed memoriam fieri, saith Bellarmine, Epi­phanius neuer saith, we pray for the dead, but hold a memo­rie [Page 67] of them. And therefore herein Chrysostome is forsaken of all his friends both Papists and Protestants; howbeit the growing of this vnluckie twigge, from profiting the quicke, to profiting the dead; from commemorating at the altar, to praying, offering, and sacrificing at the altar; from thankes­giuing to intreating, &c. is here made knowne vnto vs, so as now it is become a tree of so great spread, that a num­ber of vncleane birdes build their nests in the braunches of it.

The Answere.

YOur Papist heere alleadgeth Tertullian, and for very shame concealeth the place where this testimonie is to be found, if he had but named Tertullians booke de Mo­nogamia, it had been a sufficient preseruatiue against the contagion of this allegation, for Ierome noteth this very booke, In Catal. Eccle. script. and the booke de exhortatione ad Castitatem, and some other to haue been written aduersus Ecclesiam, against the Church: and the same father writing against Heluidius, would not vouchsafe to answere a place alleadged out of Tertullians booke de Monogamia, no otherwise then thus, de Tertulliano nihil amplius dico, quàm Ecclesiae hominem non fuisse, of Tertullian I say no more, but that hee was not a man of the Church: so then Tertullian was a paracleticall Montanist, and the first father of the Tertullianists, which Austine speakes of in his booke of heresies, ad quod vult Deum; Secondly, the booke de Monogamia is condemned of the Church; and lastly, this very place hath two plague­sores running of it, as being infected with two capitall he­resies, Tertulide Monogam. namely the heresie of the Montanists, and the here­sie of the Chiliasts; these be the words pro anima eius oret, & refrigeriū interim adpostulet ei, & in prima resurrectione, con­sortium, & offerat annuis diebus dormitionis eius, nam haec nisi fecerit, verè repudiauit quantùm in ipsa est, &c. Let her pray for his soule, and desire refreshing for him in the mean time, and his companie in the first resurrection, and let her offer yerely on the dayes of his death, for if he do not these things, she hath as much as lyeth in her made diuorce. Here wee see first, that Tertullian doth not say, ores, but oret, adpostu­les, but adpostulet, offeras, but offerat, feceris, but fecerit, repu­diasti, but repudiauit, quantum in te est, but quantum in ipsa est, whereof it followeth, that hee doth not reason with a woman, but speake of a widow woman, reading her a Cata­phrygian lecture not to marry againe, but to pray for the soule of one husband, to intreat for a refreshing to one hus­band, [Page 69] to desire companie of one husband, to offer yeerely for one husband, &c. for being a Montanist he thought it a fowle shame for her to pray thus for many husbands, Lib. de exhort. ad Castit. duplex iste rubor est, a double shame; saith hee in another place, nay triplex, and quadruplex, if happily she marry so often, and so pray for the soules of so many husbands: wherefore we see by this little light that praying and offering for the dead, is held by Tertullian, as an appurtenance to Montanisme or the Cataphrygian heresie, and this is yet further strenthened in that Phylastrius saith, the Montanists held baptizing for the dead, which could not be done without prayers.

Now, touching the other heresie of the Millenaries or Chiliasts, your Papist translateth [ in prima resurrectione, in the first resurrection,] [at the resurrection,] leauing out [prima,] as a note of shame; for if there be a first resurrecti­on, it followeth that there is another, call it a second resur­rection, or what you will. Now; euerie bodie knowes that the Chiliasts held two resurrections; one at the next appea­ring of Christ in the cloudes, which blesseth all the godly with all bodily pleasures, meat, drinke, venerie, &c. Ano­ther a thousand yeeres after, when the wicked shall likewise be restored to felicitie. Apoc. 20.5.6. If any happen to reply that Saint Iohn, (though he be no Chiliast) speakes of a first resurrecti­on, as well as Tertullian: I answeare, that Saint Iohn by first resurrection, meaneth [regeneration] which Paul calleth [a rising againe with Christ] and so Beda expoundeth it, Colos. 3.1. Beda. in Apoc. 20. saying, Sicut prima mors in hac vita est per peccata, ita & pri­ma resurrectio in hac vita est per remissionem peccatorum; As the first death is in this life by sinnes, so the first resurection is in this life by the forgiuenesse of sinnes. But Tertullians first resurrection, cannot be so vnderstood, vnlesse wee ima­gine [this life] to be after this life, which is impossible.

This is inough, I trow, and too much for answere to Ter­tullian, yet another tricke of false translation would not bee passed ouer, for where Tertullian saith, refrigeriū interim ad­postulet ei, & in prima resurrectione consortium, referring the word interim, to the intermediall time before the woman [Page 70] enioy her husbands companie: hee translateth it so, that it must needs be referred to the refreshing of his soule before the first resurrection in purgatorie or some place of sorrow; which is not to be gathered out of this place, for, refrigeri­um, doth not import a former griefe, but a new blessing. And so this widow woman is not yet willed to pray for relaxati­on of paine, but that her husband may haue a ioyfull sen­tence of blessednesse in bodie and soule [in the first resurre­ction,] at what time shee was to expect the fruition of his companion.

Againe, obserue how this Popish translator hath vtterly omitted these words, [& offerat annuis diebus dormitionis e­ius] whereby light is giuen vs, that all this praying and of­fering was but a matter of course, and custome continually performed for preseruation of the memorie of our friends and Christian brethren deceased: as there were annuall oblations, Tert. de Coron. milit. pro dormitione, for death or sleeping, so then were also pro natalitijs, for the birth; and as the one was rather an honour to the dead, than an acknowledgement of their mi­serie, so was the other: yet now [oblationes pro natalitijs] are cleane taken away, and [oblationes pro dormitione,] or [pro defunctis] still continued, or rather augmented, or to speake more truely, cleane changed from the first institution; how­beit I will not denie but Tertullian in time might haue some good conceite of purgatorie, or hell rather, for he cals it [ in­fernum, Lib. de Anima sect. 17.] but I vtterly denie that euer he held any such do­ctrine before he was a Montanist, or euer knewe it, till his Paraclete taught him, in his Apologie against the Gentiles, within a lease or two of the end: thus he writes, Ideò repre­sentabuntur & corpora quià ne (que) pati quicquam potest anima so­la sine stabili materia, id est, carne, & animae non sine carne meruerunt, intra quam omnia egerunt, Therefore shall the bo­dies also represent, because both the soules offer any thing without stable matter that is the flesh, and the soules haue not deserued any thing without the flesh, in which they haue done all things. This opinion is not to be liked of, yet Ter­tullian held it so long as hee was a Catholicke: and there­fore [Page 71] so long as he was a Catholicke [Purgatorie] would not downe with him, nor prayer for the dead; neither if your Papists owne consequence bee good: And that Tertullian drew this purgatorian conceit, such as it was from Monta­nus his Paraclete, doe but read the last conclusion of his Booke de Anima; thus hee writes [ Quum carcerem illum, quod euangelium demonstrat, inferos intelligimus, & nouissimum quadrantem modicum delictum mora resurrectionis illic luendū interpretamur: nemo dubitauit animam aliquid pensare penes inferos, salua resurrectionis plenitudine per carnem quo (que), When we vnderstand by the prison which the Gospell speaketh of hell, & interpret the last farthing, a small sin to be done away by the delaying of the resurrection: no man will doubt that the soule doth pay something in hell, leauing the rest to be fulfilled at the resurrection by the flesh also. Here we finde somewhat like purgatorie, though I dare not say it is the same, but let it be so if you will. Now, see what followeth in the same place immediately, Hoc Paracletus frequentissimè commendauit, si quis sermones eius ex agnitione charismatum promissorum admiserit, This the Paraclete hath often com­mended, if a man admit his saying, by acknowledging the promised graces; Where you may learne that doctrine was knockt into Tertullians head by his familiar, that is, by the Paraclete of Montanus.

Yea, but why dare you not say, that this prison is Purga­torie? doe you aske why? Marry the verie wordes make me to stand doubtfull, namely, per carnem quo (que), by the flesh also; which to my vnderstanding import, that the soule only must not feele smart, but caro quo (que), the flesh also, and good reason it should be so: for if nothing can enter into the king­dome of heauen before it bee purified, and wee know that the modica delicta, small sinnes, as well as other capitall sins, taint the body, as well as the soule; wee must needes deuise a Purificatorie for the one, as well as a Purgatorie for the other, and so hold with Tertullian, that the soule before the resurrection, shall suffer per se, by it selfe; and after the resur­rection per carnem quo (que), else all is marred. Robert Bellar­mine [Page 72] the new Cardinall saw this place of Tertullian, I dare say for him, yet he passeth it ouer slightly, & citeth another place for purgatory out of the same booke, Ille (id est ange­lus executionis) te in carcerem mandet infernum, Bellar. de purg. lib. 1. cap. 4. & cap. 6. vnde non di­mittaris, nisi modico quo (que) delicto mora resurrectionis expenso, He (that is to say, the Angel of execution) shall cast thee in­to infernall prison, whence thou shalt not come out, till euery little sinne be paid for by the delay of the resurrecti­on. This place he cites in two seuerall places, and giues vs a speciall note to carry away with vs, Nota solum esse ma­nendum in carcere purgatorij ad summū vs (que) ad resurrectionē; But alas good father Robert, the other place marres the fa­shion of this note, for it addes, Salua resurrectionis plenitu­dine per carnē quo (que), which giueth vs a new note, that both soule and body must likewise suffer in this infernall prison after the resurretion: I doubt when all is come to all, this prison will prooue to be hell, not purgatory, yet such a hell as the millinarie heresie dreamed to be temporall, not eter­nall; wherefore I hope your papist will no more seeke the beleefe and practise of the Church in Tertullian, Ierom contra Heluid. who was not of the Church, nor looke any more in Tertullians mouth for his age, telling vs that he liued neere vnto the Apostles, till he can proue his doctrine to be apostolicall.

The names of Epiphanius, Ambrose, Austine, and Chry­sostome are repeated heere for a shew, but you haue heard what priuate conference I had with them, whereunto adde that their witnesse, being single men, cannot iustly be accep­ted for a publike record of religion, whereunto Luther of any other seruant of God may not oppose himselfe; they li­ued in a manner altogether, they could not see ouer farre either before, or behind, or about them, neither is it conue­nient that wee should make an idoll of mans authoritie; a great sort of fathers agree that Elias shall come before the last day, Mat. 17.12. yet I had rather beleeue Christ that saith, Elias is come already; many of the fathers say, the wicked a thou­sand yeres after domes day, Lib. 2. cap. 39. & 40. shalbe saued, yet, by your leaue, I had rather say otherwise, Irenaeus held that Christ was [Page 73] nere fiftie yeres old when he was put to death, and proued it by the common consent of all the Bishops of Asia that lear­ned it of S. Iohn: yet may we not beleeue that this was then beleeued through the vniuersall Church. Tertullian, in his Apologie for the Christian Churches of his time, saith that the soule cannot suffer any thing, Sine stabili materia, id est, earne: Yet may we not beleeue that Christians beleeued so through the world. The same father saith in the same Apolo­gie, that Christians did thē publikely pray, Pro mora finis, yet were it hard to say after him, Apoc. 22.20. that the whole Church praied against the appearing of Christ in the clouds to vanquish death, and to accomplish their redemption. S. Iohn prayed, Come Lord Iesu, come quickely, And therefore I dare not say the Church euer prayed, Stay Lord Iesu, and come slowly. Howbeit let the Catholike fathers haue all the credite & ho­nor that bare men be capable of, we will not stand against it, but to throw down so many kingdoms, so many dukedoms, so many flourishing Common-weales, so many free cities & Churches, as if the bare affirmation of one man did ouerrule them, it is too much indignitie: if Luthers bare affirmation be so mightie in operation, let not your Papist & his compa­nions call any more for miracles to confirme his vocation, but if it be the breath of Gods mouth that began in him, & in his time more powerfully to consume Antichrist; then in former ages: thē feare, friend Papist, I say, feare the reuenging hand of God, who wil not suffer his power to be derided.

The Answere.

PVrgatory hath his deaths wound alreadie, yet your Pa­pist hopes to saue the life of it by the helpe of Austine and Ambrose and the Great Gregorie, yet none of them will say that prayer for the dead and purgatorie are so neere of kin, that the proofes of the one may serue for the other, for the Canon of the Masse praieth for such as doe Dormire in somno pacis, Sleepe the sleepe of peace: I doubt they sleepe not ouer peaceably in purgatorie, & if they do, yet I trow, he will confesse that Pope Leo, for whose soule they pray so deuoutly once a yeere, sleepes in heauen at more ease; you heard before how Ambrose prayeth for Theodorus, Gratian, and Ʋalentinian, whom he knew to be in heauen, and Pope Innocentius the third, Cap. cum Mar­thae, Homil. 32. confesseth that we may pray for in­crease of glory to the Saints of God, and so saith Chryso­stome [Page 75] in his Homilies vpon Matthew. Againe, on the other side the Papists pray for the deliuerance of soules out of hell fire, Libera domine animas defunctorum de paenis inferni, In Missa de mort. Damas. in orat. de mort. Lib. 1. cap. 12. de profundo lacu, de ore Leonis, ne absorbeat eos Tartarus ne ca­dantin obscurum, &c. Deliuer oh Lord the soules of the dead from the paines of hell, from the deepe lake, from the mouth of the Lion, that hell swallow them not, that they fall not into darkenesse: Nay the great Gregorie himselfe prayed for Traians soule, & deliuered it out of hell; and tels vs in his Dialogues that Saint Seuerus his prayers restored a wicked man to life, that had bene caried by deuils into hell, but if this be too strong for prayer to deale withall, what then can be said of such as pray for instigation of the paines of hell? Austine saith they may be mitigated, Encharid. cap. 112. lib. 4. 1. dest. 46. and Peter Lumbard teacheth it out of Austine, now how this mitiga­tion can be purchased otherwise, then by the prayers and suffrages of the liuing it were hard to define; Saint Macha­rius, fetched this point of learning out of the dead scull or scalpe of an idolater that sayd thus vnto him, Quando pro mortuis offers preces, nos interim aliquid lenimenti sentimus, Damasc. in orat. pro mort. In lib. 4. dist. 45. Art. 2. quest. 2. When thou offerest prayers for the dead, we in the meane while feele some ease or mitigation of paine. And the An­gelicall doctor of Aquine graunteth that the soules of the damned, reape some good by the prayers of the godly, wher­fore we see that though we graunt prayer for the dead, yet purgatory will require peculiar proofes, before it can bee graunted.

Austines authoritie is first obiected out of a booke of Sermons which your Papist himselfe aforehand confesseth to be counterfeit, yet he alleageth it at large, as though cur­rant and counterfeit were all one: neuerthelesse looke the Sermon through, and you shall find that these words, quia in igne reuelabitur, and these, Si cuius opus arserit, detrimen­tum patietur, If any mans worke burne, he shall suffer losse: and also these, Saluus erit sic tamen quasi per ignem, Yet he shall be saued as it were by fire, are all ment of the same fire, and that such as build gold and siluer and precious [Page 76] stones vpon the foundation of Christ, shall passe through it; but without any hurt, Abs (que) vlla violatione, and so come to heauen, Velut aurum purgatum, that is, as gold purified or purged by fire. I doubt your Popish Gentleman will not allow all this for currant in his Diuinity Mint, and there­fore no reason, we should accept of it for good payment, I could say further that this Authour, yeelding somewhat to their errour against whom he disputeth, doth but correct their interpretation, and draw it a little aside from capitall offences to small sinnes, lest denying all, and yeelding to no­thing, his exhortation might prooue fruitlesse. Howbeit the true Austine was neuer resolued that Saint Paul in this place to the Corinths speakes of purgatorie, as appeareth in his Euchiridion a worke not counterfeit, Cap. 67. &. 97. Si homo sceleratus propter solam fidem per ignem saluabitur, & sic est accipiendum quod ait beatus Paulus Apostolus, ipse autem saluus erit, sic ta­men quasi per ignem, poterit ergo saluare sine operibus fides &c. If a wicked man be saued by faith onely, by fire, and so it is to be taken which blessed Paul the Apostle sayeth, but he shalbe saued, yet so as it were by fire, therefore faith is able to saue without workes. Heere the knowne Austine makes an if at the matter, and dares not expound S. Paul as the counterfeit Austine doth, of the fire of Purgatorie, nay a litttle after he interprets this fire to be, animi dolor, saying, Cum iste animi dolor vrit, si Christus in corde fundamenti lo­cumhabet, id est, vt ei nihil anteponatur, & malit homo qui tali dolore vritur, rebus quas ita diligit carere magis quā Chri­sto, per ignem sit saluus. When this griefe of mind doth burne, if Christ haue the place of a foundation in the heart, that is to say, if nothing be preferred before him, and the man which is burned with such a griefe, had rather want the things which hee so loueth than Christ, he is saued by fire.

Yea but what say you to the place of Austine in his homi­lies, where the doctrine of purgatorie is so confirmed out of Paul to the Corinths, and out of the Prophets, that you cannot auoid it? Alas, this is but a Popish brag, for this [Page 77] testimonie is as very a counterfeit as the other, & touching the place it selfe, thus lie the words, Qui temporalibus paenis digna gesserunt, de quibus Apostolus dixit, si cuius opus arserit detrimentū patietur, ipse ausē saluus erit sic tamē quasi per ignē, per fluuium igneum, de quo propheticus sermo commemorat, & fluuius igneus currebat ante eum, transibunt &c. They which haue done things worthie temporall paines, (of whom the Apostle saith: If any mans worke burne, he shall suffer losse; but he shall be saued, yet so as it were by fire) shall passe through the riuer of fire, which the words of the Prophet mention: and a riuer of fire ranne before him. You see here that Pauls place is alleaged for nothing els but to shew that some doe things worthie of temporall paines, which we de­nie not, nay we will graunt further that our workes shall a­bide a fierie triall, yet the fire that trieth euery mans worke, is not a fire by nature, but by metaphore, and if it be meta­phoricall any where, it must be so chiefly there, where it is slaked with sic tamen, yet so, & quailed with quasi, as it were.

Now where this Austine saith further, that these tempo­rallists shall passe through that fierie streame which the Prophet speaketh of, Dan. 7.10. though I might answere that they may so passe, Abs (que) vlla violatione, without any hurt, as hath bin seene before, yet looke the place in Daniels Prophesie, & you shal soone find, that the Prophet speakes there, not of a fiery flood, that was indeed really, but which he saw in a vision; he saw in the same vision the ancient of dayes, that is, God himselfe sit vpon a fiery throne in white apparel, & the haire of his head like pure wooll: yet I trow, no man will therfore imagine, that God sits in purgatorie; or weares apparell, or hath either head or haire; moreouer the horned beast that spake presumptuously against God, and his Saints was slaine, and his body was throwne into this fire; I hope, purgatorie fire was neuer made for bodies, but for soules; neither yet for blaspheming tyrants, but for pidling offences of small moment.

There is another place out of Ezechiel which this preten­ded Austine dragges in, whether the Prophet will or no, Cap. 24. to [Page 78] countenance purgatorie, for whereas the holy Ghost eui­dently compareth the citie of Ierusalem to an emptie pot or kettle, set vpon the hot coles of Gods wrath, to the in­tent that her filthinesse might be consumed: he will needes outface vs that the scripture compareth a sinfull soule to this pot, saying, Sermo diuinus quodam in loco ellae animam peccatricem comparat, and then cries out amaine, Illic ser­mones otiosi, & cogitationes iniquae, illic multitudo leuum pecca­tum, illic stannum vel plumbū diuersorum subrepentina delicto­rum consumentur, &c. There idle speeches and wicked thoughts, there the multitude of light sinnes, there the tinne or lead of diuers secret sinnes shall be consumed. Yet the great Gregorie tels vs, that they cannot be saued by fire which build ferrum, Dial. lib. 4. cap. 39. aes, plumbum, iron, brasse, lead, vpon the foundation, for by these he vnderstandeth peccata maiora, duriora, insolubilia, greater, harder, or pardonable sinnes; and to say the trueth, such were the sinnes of Ierusalem which Ezechiel speakes of, and therefore no meat for pur­gatorie to feede on.

The Answere.

AMbrose conuerted S. Austine, and therefore, I trow, they expound S. Paul both alike, and indeed Ambrose here is cleere against Purgatory, and must be vnderstood, for ought I yet see, of the fierie tryall and afflictions of this life; 1. Pet. 1.7. for tell me, what substance doth a false teacher consist of? doth he not consist, as other men doe, of body and soule? why then his substance whereof he consisteth, is neither ex­amined nor punished in purgatory fire, which toucheth not the body, but by that same animi dolor, griefe of mind, which Austine speakes of: moreouer Ambrose here excludes me­rite, saying, that his merite cannot so saue him from bur­ning, but he must needs receyue punishment, that he may be saued, which cannot be vnderstood of the paynes of Pur­gatory, for they may be redeemed by the merits of this life, if you will beleeue counterfet Austine; De Sanctis serm. 41. Hmil. 16. totis viribus vnus­quis (que) laboret, vt minuta peccata possit ita bonis operibus redimi­re, vt de ipsis nihil videatur remanere, quod ille ignis possit ab­sumere; and againe, Illic multitudo lenium peccatorum consu­mētur, quae hic ab anima separari per eleemosynas & lachrymas compendiosa transactione potuissent, Let euerie man labour with all his might, that hee may redeeme his small sinnes with good workes, that there may seeme nothing to re­maine of them, which that fire may consume. There the multitude of light sinnes shall bee consumed, which might easily haue bin separated from the soule by almes and tears.

Againe, Ambrose applieth Pauls words to false teachers, whose euill doctrine shall perish, as hee saith, and indeede Paul speakes of the Doctors of Corinth, and of their faults in teaching and therefore if there be a purgatory to be found here, it must be a purgatory for preachers and teachers of e­uill doctrine, Bellarm. de purg. lib. 1. cap 4. Mat. 5.19. not for euery one that commits a smal pidling offence, and hath payd all but a few farthings: now where it is said, that there is the same reason of other mens sinnes, I doubt they teach euil doctrine that say so, and so make them [Page 80] selues thrall to purgatory, for he that breaketh the least com­mandement, which Papists count but a veniall slip, and tea­cheth men so, shall be called the least in the kingdome of heauen, saith our Sauiour, teaching vs, that the sinne of a teacher and of another ordinary man, euen in small things, differ much, and may not be ballanced with the same weights, for to breake and teach is a greater offence by much, then to breake onely, and so the one may goe to heauen without trouble, when the other must sticke in the bryers and stand vpon his purgation. So then this place of Ambrose, you see, is like a Carpentars toole called a twibill, which, when a man hewes with the one ende of it, is ready to pecke out his eyes with the other: and this did Bellarmine see wel inough, for he cuts off the forepart of Ambroses testimony, which speakes of substance and merite, and euill doctrine, and alled­geth onely these last words; Cum Paulus dicit, sic tamen quasi per ignem, ostendit quidem illum saluum futurum, sed poenas ig­nis passurum, vt per ignem purgatus fiat saluus, & non sicut per­fidi aeterno igne in perpetuum torqueatur; When Paul saith, yet so as it were by fire, he sheweth indeed that he shal be saued, but shall suffer the paynes of fire, that being purged by fire he may be saued, and not tormented perpetually in euerla­sting fire, as the obstinate, &c. Wherefore I like your popish fellowes simplicitie a great deale better, who cites Ambrose by whole sale, substance, accident, merite, euill doctrine, and all; for though in so doing, he haue lesse wit then Bellarmine, yet I will beare him witnesse, he hath more honesty, but to wind vp all in a word, if you be desirous to know Ambroses meaning, I thinke you may easily picke it out of these words of S. Austine, De ciuit. Dei lib. 21. cap. 13. Nos etiam in hac quidē mortali vita esse quasdam paenas purgatorias confitemur; Wee also confesse that there are in this mortall life, certaine purgatory paynes.

The Answere.

POpe Gregorie, is heere brought in with his great title to fray vs, and yet, God wote, hee pleads but simply for Purgatorie; for touching the place of Saint Paul, thus hee writes, Quamuis hoc de igne tribulationis in hac vita nobis ad­hibitae possit intelligi, tamen si quis hoc de igne futurae purgationis accipiat, &c. Although this may be vnderstood of the fire of tribulation, which wee feele in this life, yet if any take it of the purgation of fire to come &c. As if hee should say, though I be of opinion, that Paul speakes of the fire of affli­ction, whereby God examineth his children in this life: yet if any take it otherwise, I will not stand against it; this is but a silly proofe: and touching the other place of Saint Mat­thew, out of which hee concludeth, that [some sins are for­giuen in this world, and some in the world to come: Cap. 12.32.] his conclusion is cleane contrarie to all Logicke, for no reason will lead vs to reason thus, this one sinne is not forgiuen, Er­go, some sins are forgiuē in the world to come; this is a plain Non sequitur, and so saith Bellarmine, De purg. lib. 1 cap. 4. Non sequitur secun­dum regulas dialecticorum, It followeth not according to the rules of Logicke; but will you know now how it follow­eth? then hearken what the Iesuite saith further, Sequi­tur secundum regulam prudentiae, It followeth according to the rule of wisedome. So you see howe it followeth, and how it followeth not, it followeth by the rule of wit, it fol­loweth not by the rules of Logicke, belike Wit is a Papist; and Logicke a Protestant: but consider (I beseech you) how farre this Popish wit would goe, if it might hee suffered, Dominus ineptissimè loquitur, (saith Bellarmine) si in futuro sae­culo [Page 82] nullum peccatum remittitur, The Lord speaketh most foo­lishly, if no sinne be forgiuen in the world to come. See how this sawcie Iesuite thinks it not inough to say, Dominus non loquitur secundum regulam prudentiae, &c. The Lord speakes not according to the rule of wit, which hath some little shew of modestie; but Dominus ineptissimè loquitur, &c. The Lord speakes most foolishly, if his Iesuiticall conceit of re­mitting sinnes in another world be not admitted, this is the desperatenesse of Popish Diuinitie: but tell mee, I beseech you, is not the speech still alike foolish, if no great sinnes be remitted in the world to come? yes verily, for thus must it be conceiued, the great sinne against the holy Ghost shall ne­uer bee forgiuen, neither there where great sinnes are forgi­uen, that is, in this world; nor there where no great sinnes are forgiuen, that is, in the world to come. Is not this speech (thinke you) as farre from Bellarmines [regula prudentiae, rule of wit;] as the other? yet is it propounded according to the Popish conceit; for as wee thinke no sinne, so they think no great sin, is remitted in seculo futuro, in the world to come. Gregory in this very Dialogue saith, Dial. lib. 4. ca. 39. Serm. 41. that peccata maiora, grea­ter sinnes, be tunciam insolubilia, be impardonable; and coun­terfeit Austine saith as much in his sermons De Sanctis. Now then whereas the Pope thinkes, that our Sauiour in Ma­thew giueth vs to vnderstand, that some sinnes shall be for­giuen in the world to come; let him tell vs what sinnes those be, great or small; great sinnes be tunc iam irremissibile, as he saith himselfe: and if he meane small sinnes, then is our Sa­uiours speech as farre out of square, as if a man should say, This great heape of corne cannot bee contained, neither in this bushell, nor in a fleeting dish.

But why should the speech of Christ bee most foolish, if no sinne at all be remitted in the world to come? might not our Sauiour speake so by exaggeration, that the speech might the better pierce the vncircumcised hearts, and eares of the Pharises? No, saith the Iesuite, Exaggeratio non de­bet esse inepta, qualis est, cum fit partitio & vni membro nihil respondet, An exaggeration ought not to bee foolish, as for [Page 83] example; when a partition is made, and nothing agreeth to one of the parts. Is this the folly hee talkes of? why it is easie to see, that not to remit the sin against the holy Ghost, is answerable alike, both to this world, and the world to come, which bee the members of our Sauiours partition, for that great sin is neuer remitted, neither in the one, nor the other; 1. Cor. 13.1. Galat. 1.8. Apoc. 5.3. yet notwithstanding we haue examples of such foolish partitions in the word of God: Paul saith, Though I speake with the tongues of men and Angels, whereas Angels haue no tongues to speake. And in another place, though we or an Angell from heauen speake otherwise, &c. Yet Angels be no Preachers; so likewise the spirite of God saith, No man is able to open, read, or looke vpon the Booke, neither in hea­uen, nor in earth, nor vnder the earth: yet be there no openers, or readers, or lookers vpon Bookes in heauen, or hell.

Thus Pope Gregorie is answered; Cap. 12.32. yet that you may eui­dently see how insufficient this place of Mathew is to found Purgatorie vpon; I will set you downe diuers sufficient and full answeres which take away the force of all Popish col­lections. And first we may well aske what is meant by this world, and the world to come. For, albeit men commonly take this world, to be the space intermedial between a mans birth and his death, which makes as many worlds, as there be men, or shall be, and euerie world to haue a seuerall be­ginning and ending, some past, some present, some to come: yet if I should vnderstand it otherwise, for the whole cōtinu­ance of this world, 2. Pet. 3.10. till it bee dissolued in the great day of God, and that same new heauen and newe earth bee made, whereof the world to come shall consist; the case would be cleane altered, for then the Papists must not seeke for purga­torie in the world to come, as they did before, but in this world, where it is impossible to finde it, when the blind man in Iohns gospel saith [since the world began, Ioh. 9.32. was it not heard that any man opened the eies of one that was borne blinde.] I hope he means not, that such a miracle was neuer wrought since the day of his birth, but from the creation. Mark. 13.19. Math. 24.21. For so Saint Marke expoundeth Saint Mathew, where he sayth, [there [Page 84] shall be great tribulation, such as was not from the begin­ning of the world. Againe, when wee read elsewhere in Mathew, Math. 13.39. that [the haruest is the end of the world,] he doth not meane the day of euerie mans death, but the day of Christs second comming, 1. Cor. 15.24. [for then shall bee the end] saith Saint Paul. And then the reapers, that is, the Angels shall gather the tares to the fire, and the wheat to Christs barne, so shall it bee, Math. 13.30. Math. 13.40.49. (saith our Sauiour) in the end of the world. Now then as this present world beganne, when this heauen and this earth were created, and shall continue till they bee melted with seruent heat: so it is agreeable to reason, and not disagreeable to Diuinity, that the world to come should begin, 2. Pet 3.7. Ibid. vers. 13. when there shall bee a new heauen, and a new earth, as Saint Peter hath fore-prophecied.

But I will not hold your Papist to such hard-meat: and therefore I answere secondly out of Marke, who expoun­deth Saint Mathew thus, Mark. 3.29. Non habet remissionem in aeternum, Hath not remission for euer; or, Reus erit aterni delicti, Guil­tie of an euerlasting sinne; or, Aeternae damnationis, Euer­lasting damnation. Here comes in Bellarmine sweating, and tels vs that Mathew expounds Marke, not Marke Mathew. This is strange, that a text should be expounded before it is written, or the author extant, but why must wee take Ma­thew to be the expositor of Marke? Marry, Quia Mathae­us copiosiùs scripsit, & pluribus verbis vtitur, Because Mathew wrote more copiously, and vseth more words. So, Glossa or­dinaria, and interlinearis, or what other glosse, or briefe draught soeuer, may not be sayd to expound, vnlesse it bee more copious than the text, than which, what can be more dotingly spoken; but goe too, saith he any thing else to that purpose? Yes that hee doth, for thus hee reasoneth, Aut Christus dixit vt haket Mathaeus, vel vt habet Marcus, vel vtro (que) modo; si primum veltertium, habeo intentum, si secundum, tunc Mathaeus exposuit verba Christi, Christ spake either as Marke hath it, or as Mathew, or both wayes; if the first, or the third way, I haue my intent; if the second, then Mathew expounded the words of Christ. How like you this reason? Verily, I neuer heard a worse, for it is incredible that Christ [Page 85] spake word for word, either as Mathew or Marke haue set downe, and it is impossible hee should speake, vtro (que) modo, both wayes together, vnlesse it were by way of exposition thus, Non remittitur, idest, non habet remissionem in aeternum, ne (que) in hoc saeculo, ne (que) in futuro, id est, reus erit aeternae damna­tionis, He shal not be forgiuen, that is to say, hath not forgiue­nes for euer, neither in this world, nor in the world to come, that is, shalbe guilty of euerlasting damnatiō. But let vs grant him his partition, though euerie part of it be false; yet may you soone see he hath said nothing; for if the first bee true, then Marke hath expounded it; if the last, it is so likewise; if the second, then wee haue our desire, for then the words in Mathew haue no more in them, than Marke hath set downe; 1. Cor. 11.23. otherwise Mathew deliuered more than hee recei­ued of the Lord. Wherefore that he may be taken himselfe in the snares of his owne reason, I will send it him home, as a Proselite, or conuert to dispute against his old Maister, and to say to him, Aut Christus dixit vt habet Marcus, vel vt habet Mathaeus, vel vtro (que) modo, si primum vel tertium, ha­beo intentum, si secundum, tunc Marcus exposuit verba Christi, Christ spake either as Marke hath it, or as Mathew, or both wayes; if the first, or the third, then I haue my entent; if the second, then Marke expounded the words of Christ.

A third answere we fetch out of the vsuall knowne man­ner of the Hebrew tongue, which expoundeth one contra­rie by negation of the other; and contrarywise, Psal. 69.26. Act 1.20. Psa. 69, 29. Psal. 109, 13. Prou. 19.5.9. Esay 34, 10. Mark. 3, 29. the nega­tiue of the one, by affirming the other, as for example, [Let their habitation be voide] id est, [Let no man dwell in their Tents.] [Let them be wiped out,] id est, [Let them not be written.] [Let his wickednesse be remembred,] idest, [Let it not bee done away.] Againe, [he shall not escape or be vnpunished,] idest, [he shall perish.] It shall not be quen­ched day nor night.] id est, [It shall smoke for euermore.] And to giue one example for all, Marke the Euangelist ex­poundeth himselfe after this manner: for when he had said, [shall neuer haue forgiuenesse,] hee addeth for explication, but is vnder eternall damnation, [...]. [Page 86] So then being armed with so many examples in this behalfe, and hauing Saint Marke to be our Captaine, and as it were fore-man in our quest, we say, that not to bee forgiuen, nei­ther in this world, nor the world to come, is no more, but to be punished and perish both here and there, to be vnder e­ternall damnation, to bee out of all hope of future deliue­rance.

But what should wee labour to answere that, that needes no answere, for we confesse, there is a doing away of sinnes in the world to come; and yet you are neuer the neerer your Purgatorie: for first, as [not to forgiue] is as much to say, as [to punish,] so [to forgiue] is as much to say, as [not to punish;] in which sence, there is forgiuenes in the world to come, as well as in this world. Secondly, Saint Peter saith, Act. 3.19. [Amend you liues and turne, that your sinnes may be done away when the time of refreshing shall come, &c. that is, at the second comming of Christ to restore all thinges, where wee learne, that our sinnes are compleatly forgiuen, till death, sinne, and hell be fully vanquished, and dischar­ged at the last day.

De Purg. lib. 2. Cap. 9.Lastly, Bellarmine saith, that Mali habitus in vita contra­cti, are taken away, per primum actum contrarium animae sepa­ratae, that is to say, a habite of ill doing, which grew a long time by many bad actions, De Purg. lib. 2. Cap. 2. & 3. is cleane purged in a moment by one good deede; and yet hee holds stiffely against Luther, that soules departed can neither mereri, nor demereri; how­beit here we finde a taking away or forgiuenesse of sinnes in another world, without scorching in purgatory, by the good deedes of soules departed. Now, whether these deedes be merita or demerita, or what other name it will please him to allow them, some of his Popish friends may doe well to resolue vs.

The Answere.

HEre our popish Diuine will needs bee a Lawyer; and therefore he puts cases against vs: but his deuises and producements, are too homely to controll a truth, and to settle a mans faith and conscience. We haue seen what those Fathers and Doctors say, and we haue shewed him how vn­able they are to beare the burden hee layeth vpon them, and therfore he had need to deale couertly, by masking and dis­guising, if euer he looke to enioy his Mannor of Dale.

Howbeit, the breake-necke of all, is this, the cases differ, as may bee shewed by many instances. First, you haue not had quiet possession time out of minde; for it was distur­bed by Aerius, and so along euen to the daies of Luther, as [Page 89] Bellarmine confesseth in his Treatise of Purgatorie. Second­ly the Greeke Church was neuer seased of this mannor. Ʋs (que) in hodiernum diem purgatorium non est à Graecis credi­tum, Lib. 1. cap. 2. De haeres. libr. 8. ca. 1. Euen till this day Purgatorie is not beleeued by the Grecians, saith Alphonsus, and so saith Roffensis, in Polidore de inuentoribus rerum. Thirdly the conqueror neuer gaue it by charter, but it was taken rather from the paraclete of Mountanus, as I shewed before out of Tertullian, and so de­fended afterward by colour of charter. Fourthly your Iohn a Stile hath no sufficient record to shew that prayer for the dead, is a Tradition of the Apostles. Fiftly, if that record could be found, and were graunted, yet that which he clai­meth by Charter from the Conquerour will not follow, Lib. de fide et [...] ­per. cap. 13. & 16. & ad Dul­cit. quaest. 1. Esa. 53.5. Rom. 8.1. Apoc. 14.13 Eccles. 9.6. as hath bene seene alreadie. Sixtly, the Charter which is shew­ed, is not faire, but doubtfull, and full of difficulties, so saith Austine, one of your own iudges. Seuenthly, there is a fairer Charter to the contrary in Esay, Paul, and Saint Iohn, and Salomon saith plainely that the dead haue no part in the world of any thing, (whether it be prayer, sacrifice, Almes, or whatsoeuer else) that is done vnder the sunne, which cleerely confoundeth Iohn a Stile, and all other Iackes that plead for him. Lastly, the doctors may aduise, and giue counsell, and plead at the barre, but if they presume to sit vpon the bench as iudges, 1. Pet. 5.3. 2. cor. 24. and (Lords ouer Gods heritage) or hauing dominion ouer their faith: then are they traitors against the Conquerour.

The Answere.

IF your Papist were acquainted with such another as the witch of Endor, 1. Sam. 28.7. it seemes he would cause one ancient fa­ther or other to be raised vp from the dead to auouch Tran­substantiatiō, his companions depend vpon the apparitions of soules, the speeches of dead corpes, & dead skuls & such like strong illusions, as the heathen did vpon their oracles, o­therwise it would not be so open & cleare a matter that Po­perie is a doctrine of deuils, he hath taken vpon him to al­leage such proofe as cannot be wrested by any glosse or in­terpretation into another sense, and therefore being intan­gled with such a difficultie, he thinkes himselfe hardly able [Page 92] to mainetaine his credite without helpe from the dead: yet me thinkes a wise man should not measure other mens wits by his owne, nor imagine all glosses and interpretations to be in his owne head, neuerthelesse I see heere that hee can make glosses of words that were neuer either spoken or writ­ten; if the fathers say that the bodie of Christ is really pre­sent; that is a figuratiue speech: a figuratiue speech, quoth he? that must needs be a strange figuratiue speech, that was neuer spoken, and they be strange fathers, that driue vs to shift them of by figures, when they say nothing.

Againe, if the fathers mention the vnbloody sacrifice, or the sacrifice of the Altar, that is interpreted the sacrifice of thankesgiuing, heere is a glosse more then needs, for if the fathers should so say, they hurt not our cause: and therefore no reason we should seeke for glosses or interpretations to shift them of, Euseb. de de­monstr. euang. lib. 1. cap. 10: Sacrificium Altaris, Sacrifice of the Altar, doth no more hurt vs, then sacrificium mensae, sacrifice of the table, doth hurt him, and sacrificium incruentum, sacri­fice vnbloody, hurts him, and not vs, for the popish sacrifice wherein blood is really offered by boulefuls, and drunke vp by the Priest, if not by the people, can hardly beare the name of an vnbloody sacrifice without some charitable glosse or interpretation, if the fathers should call it the vnfleshly sa­crifice, I thinke it would do his carnall presence little good, and therefore I cannot see how the terme vnbloody can greatly further him.

Yet see how this fond Papist prattles one, as though these termes, Sacrifice, Altar, and vnbloody, were equiua­lent with Transubstantiation, they could not vse the word Transubstantiation, because it was not deuised before the Councill of Lateran: a worthie deuise, no doubt, if the bo­die of Christ be made of bakers bread, for Transubstantiati­on is a turning of one substance into another, but if the bread vanish to nothing, and then the body of Christ come into the void roomes, which the bread leaues behind it, as the Papists hold at this day: then must the word Transub­stantiation giue place too, as well as the bread, and cessio, or [Page 93] or substitutio, giuing place, succession, substituting: or some such new deuise or other must succeed it, howbeit the old fathers wanted no words to vtter their mind, they were as well able to speake, I trow, as Pope Innocent, and the priests of Lateran.

But though nothing else be commendable in this Late­ran deuise, yet may we see by it, that it was deuised onely for the Latine Church, for [transubstantiatio] is Latine, and such Latin as cannot be handsomely expressed in the Greek tongue, and the last session of the Councill of Florence, hol­den two hundred yeeres after this of Laterane giueth vs to vnderstand that the Greeke Church neuer yeelded to Tran­substantiation & touching the vanishing away of the bread, and substitution; of the body of Christ, me thinkes, when I consider of it, I heare old Nakefield tell how he came to a wild colt that lay fast a sleepe in the field, and being merrily disposed, cut a round hole in the forehead of it, like prima tonsura clericatus, the first shauing of a clearke; and then blew his horne in the eare of the colt, so as it started vp suddenly and plunged out at that hole, and left his kinne behind him: euen so the Popish priest, finding bread a sleepe vpō the Al­tar, blowes the horne of consecration in the eare of it, and makes it skip out at some hole or other, and leaue his acci­dents behind it, marry herein our good Catholickes goe beyond Nakefield, for he would go no further to tel that the colts skin stood still as plumpe as it did before, though the stuffing was run away, but these men makes vs beleeue, that the body of Christ creepes in at the hole the bread went out, and so fils the vacuity of the roome, that the accidents or skinne of the bread remaines still as well stuffed, as it was before, without corrupting, or shrinking, or any alteration in the world; so as in the Sacrament of their Altar, men shal see round thing: yet nothing is round, a white thing, yet no­thing is white, a thicke thing; yet nothing is thicke; a hea­uie thing, yet nothing is heauie; a lumpe of accidents, yet nothing denominated round, white thicke, heauie, or any thing else by any one of them all, blame me if these men [Page 94] passe not Wakefield by many degrees, they say that after consecration it is the reall body of Christ; yet if you breake it, you breake not the body of Christ; if you bite it, you bite not the bodie of Christ; and which is most absurd, you may eate the bodie of Christ, but you may neither bite, nor crush, nor grind it with your teeth.

All this may be seene in Peter Lumbards Sententious distinctions, Lib. 4. dist. 12. Est ibi vera fractio & partitio, saith he, quae fit in pane, id est, in forma panis, vnde Apostolus ait, panis quē frangi­mus, quia forma panis ibi frangitur & in partes diuiditur, It is true breaking & parting which is done in the bread, that is to say, in the forme of bread, whereupon the Apostle saith, the bread which we breake, because the forme of bread is there broken and deuided in parts. See the impudencie of these men, that dare say that is not broken, which Paul saith is broken, nay which say, that is broken which cannot be broken; for to say accidents and shewes are broken and eaten with teeth, is too great frowardnesse; and this did my friend Peter see well ynough: and therefore he intreats vs not to thinke much of the matter, 1. Cor. 10.16. saying, Ne mireris vel insultes si accidentia videantur frangi, cum ibi sint sine subiecto, Wonder not, nor insult not, if the accidents seeme there to be broken, seeing they are there without their subiect. Wel, wee are content to pleasure you in so small a matter; but when you make Saint Paul to say that broken accidents are the communication of the body of Christ; I wish you had beene better aduised, but howsoeuer you rid your hands of vs, yet Pope Leo the ninth, and Victor his successour, and Pope Nicholas the second, and the rest of their seuerall Councels gathered together at Vercels, Turon, and Rome almost a hundred yeeres before you were borne, or your Sentences written, will not be so easily shifted of: for Leo and Ʋictor condemned Berengarius, and Pope Nicholas at length compelled him violently to recant vnder this forme of words, Ego Berengarius confiteor panem & vinum, quae in altari ponuntur, post consecrationem non solum sacramentum, sed etiā verum corpus & sanguinem Christi esse, & sensualiter, [Page 95] non solum sub sacramento, sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari, & frangi, & fidelium dentibus atteri, I Berengarius doe confesse that the bread and wine which are layd vpon the Altar, are not onely a sacrament, but the very body and blood of Christ, and that they are sensiblie handled by the priests, and broken and torne with the teeth of the faith­full, not onely in sacrament, but in trueth. This is a Popes iniunction sitting in his chaire, president in Councell in a matter of faith and doctrine, which is of irrefragable au­thoritie in the Popish Church: moreouer, being a publicke confession, it was drawen plainely without gards or welts, and must be vnderstood literally & Grammatically without shifs or sleights, according to the simple purport of the words; wherefore my good friend Peter, when you pre­sume to say thus, Illa Berengarij verba ita distinguenda sunt, vt sensualiter non modo in sacramento, sed in veritate dicatur corpus Christi tractari manibus sacerdotum, frangi verò & at­teri dentibus verè quidem sed in sacramento tantum: Those words of Berengarius are so to be distinguished that the bo­die of Christ is said sensibly to be handled by the Priests, not onely in a sacrament but in trueth: but to be broken and torne with teeth, truely indeed, but onely in a sacrament. Your glosse sets the text vpon the racke, & violenlty drawes the members of it a sunder, which are copulatiuely chained together in the text, tractari, & frangi, & fidelium dentibus atteri, distinguenda sunt, quoth he; alas euery child may see it cannot beare such a distinction, and therefore either suf­fer your Popes text to stand still in force, or else set downe plainely like honest meaning men, that your Pope and his Councell haue grossely erred.

Howbeit the former part of the Popes words haue most need of a glosse, for when he saith, that bread and wine, af­ter consecration, is not onely a sacrament, but also the true body and blood of Christ, if he meane the accidents; they can be neither body nor blood, if he meane the substance, thats vanished, Lib. 4. dist. 1 [...]. if he meane substantia mutata in id quod facta est, the substance changed into that which it is made, that is, [Page 96] in carnem & sanguinem Christi: Lib. 4: dist. 11. Into the bodie and blood of Christ: as Lumbard some where seemeth to tell vs: then is it not both a sacrament, and the true bodie and blood of Christ too, but only one of them, namely id quod facta est, that whereinto it is changed, and here you may smell Transub­stantiation, though it were not yet deuised, but it stunke so, that Lumbard himselfe could hardly abide it, Ibid. for thus hee writes, Si quaeritur qualis sit illa conuersio, an formalis, an sub­stantialis vel alterius generis, definire non sufficio, If a man aske what manner of conuersion it is, whether formall, or sub­stantiall, or of some other kind, I am not able to determine it. Which is as much to say as I cannot tell whether the substance of bread be changed into the bodie of Christ, or no, for graunt me this antecedent, substantia panis mutatur, the substance of bread is changed, the conclusion wil follow of necessitie, ergo, est substantialis mutatio, a substantiall change, & so he that tels me that he cannot define whether the change of bread into flesh, and wine into blood be sub­stantiall, tels me withall that he cannot define whether the substance of bread and wine, be changed into the body and blood of Christ.

These be the colours, and shewes, and accidents that haue bewitched a great part of the world, and these be the glosses and interpretations that haue caused men to runne mad, and at length to sleepe in their owne excrements, but if you looke into the ages before Berengarius, you shall find such as did write openly against these Popish accidents, and formes without subiect, and against all vntoward glosses, in defence of the sacramentarie heresie, as heretickes now call it, without all controlement or contradiction, which is a maine euidence to perswade, that these reall conuersions and transmutations, which be defended so stoutly and per­emptorily in Poperie, are not Catholicke, but hereticall. Iohn Scotus a learned man, venerable Beds scholler taught the same doctrine wee hold at this day, Iohan. Scotus almost two hundred yeeres before Berengarius, so did Bertram Bertram. a famous man in his time, as appeareth by his booke, De corpore & sanguine [Page 97] Dei, written at the request of Charles the Great, and Do­ctor Tonstall witnesseth, Lib. 1. de Sacr. Euchar. that before Transubstantiation was concluded in the Counsell of Lateran, it was lawfull for eue­rie man freely to thinke of it as he thought good; and if this euidence be not stronge inough to carrie away the matter; then would I faine learne, how they dare stand against Pope Gelasius, that tels them plainely, that the substance and na­ture of bread and wine remaineth still, Gelas. contr. Eutych. Non desinit esse sub­stantia panis & natura vini, There ceaseth not to bee the sub­stance of bread and nature of wine. They tell vs verie de­murely, that by vertue of Christs prayer, Luk. 22, 32. the Popes faith cannot faile, and that hee is to confirme his brethren: yet herein they make Gelasius faith to faile, and vtterly refuse to bee confirmed by him, yet was it not Gelasius owne pri­uate opinion, De Sacram. li. 4. cap. 4. Dialog. 1, & 2 Ambrose saith of the consecrated bread and wine: Sunt quae erant, & in aliud commutantur, They are the same they were, and are changed into another thing. Theo­doret, Signa mystica post sanctificationem non recedunt à natu­ra sua, manent enim in priori substantia, & figura & forma, The mysticall signes after sanctification, do not depart from their owne nature, for they remaine in their former substance, fi­gure and forme. Chrysostome, Ad Caesarium. in Math. hom. 15. Panis sanctificatus dignus est dominici corporis appellatione, etsi natura panis in illo remanserit, The sanctified bread is worthy the name of the Lords bo­die, although the nature of bread remaine in it. Origen, Ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei, & per obsecrationem, iuxta id quod habet materiale, in ventrem abit, & in secessum encitur, That meat which is sanctified by the word of God, and by prayer, according to that which is materiall in it, goeth into the bellie, and is cast out into the draught. And if all these authorities be reiected, yee shall they neuer bee able to auoide the words of our Sauiour Christ, who after the ministration of the Sacrament in both kindes, conclu­deth after this maner, [I say vnto you, Math. 26, 29. Mark. 14, 25. I will drinke no more of this fruit of the vine, till I drinke it new in the Kingdome of God,] vnlesse they can make men beleeue, that blood may be the fruit of a Vine.

[Page 98]Let vs now returne to the examination of the ancient Fa­ther, which our Papist imagineth to bee raysed from the dead. What if hee should say, saith he, that the verie bodie of Christ is present in the Sacrament in forme of bread? Many then, (say I) hee should lye, for Chrysostome saith, In oper. imper. in Math. hom. 11. In vasis sanctificatis non est ipsum corpus Christi, sed my­sterium corporis eius continetur, In the sanctified vessels is con­tained not the verie bodie of Christ, but the mysterie of his bodie. But forasmuch as it is heere confessed, that if this Doctor raised from the dead should answere, that the bread is called the bodie of Christ in a figuratiue sense, and that in Sacraments the signe is many times called by the name of the thing signified, he doth cleerely in so answering, de­termine the controuersie on the Protestants side: what should wee labour further, it being too too manifest, that the Fathers doe answere so in their Bookes extant at this day, and that in as plaine manner as can be wished. Qui se­ipsum vitem appellauit, Dialog 1. ibid. saith Theodoret. Ille Symbola & signa quae videntur, appellatione corporis & sanguinis honorauit, Hee that called himselfe the vine, did honor the signes which are seene with the name of his bodie, and blood. And againe, Seruator noster commutauit nomina, & corpori quidem symboli nomen de dit, symbolo verò nomen corporis, Our Sauiour chan­ged the names, and gaue to the bodie the name of the sym­bole, and to the symbole the name of the bodie. Chryso­stome, Ad Caesar. Mo­nach. ad Bonis. Epist. 23. Contr. Adim. cap. 12. Panis sanctificatus dignus est dominici corporis appella­tione, The sanctified bread is dignified with the name of Christs bodie. Austine, Sacramenta plerun (que) rerum ipsarum nomina accipiunt, Sacraments doe often take the names of the things themselues. And againe, Non dubitauit Dominus dicere, Contr. Marci­on. lib. 4. In 1. Cor. 11. De his qui init. myst. cap. vlt. hoc est corpus meum, cum daret signum corporis sui, The Lord did not sticke to say, this is my bodie, when hee gaue the signe of his bodie. And againe, facinus vel flagitium vi­detur inbere, figura ergo est praecipiens passioni domini esse com­municādū, & suauiter at (que) vtiliter recondendū in memoria, quod pro nobis caro eius crucifixa & vulnerata sit, He seemeth to cō ­mand a heinous or horrible wickednes, therfore it is a figure [Page 99] instructing vs to communicate of the passion of the Lord, and pleasantly and profitably to keepe in memorie, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. Tertullian, Hoc est corpus meum, hoc est, figura corporis mei, This is my bodie, that is to say, this is a figure of my bodie. Ambrose, Quia morte domini liberati sumus, huiusrei memores in edendo & po­tando, carnem & sanguinem, quae pro nobis oblata sunt, significa­mus, Because wee are deliuered by the death of the Lord, be­ing mindefull thereof in eating and drinking, we doe signi­fie his flesh and his blood which were offered for vs. And againe, Post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur, After consecration the bodie of Christ is signified. Such places as these, be so common in the writings of the ancient Fathers, that it is vtterly needlesse to rehearse any more of them. Thus is your Papist preuented, for our cause, you see, is cleerely determined. Yet notwithstanding it is pittie the poore mans tale should not be heard, if this Doctor (sayth he) should answere that God is omnipotent, and able to doe what he will, that he was able to make heauen and earth, & to doe great wonders and miracles in Aegipt, were not the matter cleerely determined on the Papists side? No verily were it not, neither would any man euer thinke so, if he knew the vertue and power of a Sacrament. Pope Leo, speaking of the water in baptisme, though it be not transubstantiate, saith thus, Christus dedit aquae, quod dedit matri, De Natiuit. serm. 4. virtus enim altissimi, & obumbratio spiritus sancti, quae fecit vt Maria pare­ret saluatorem, eadē fecit vtregeneraret vnda credentem, Christ gaue that to the water which he gaue to his mother, for the power of the most high, and the ouershadowing of the ho­ly spirite, which caused Marie to bring foorth the Sauiour, made the water to regenerate a beleeuer. So Austine, Cont liter. pe­t tan. lib. 3. cap. 49. Nec iam baptizare cessauit Dominus, sed adhuc id agit non ministe­rio corporis, sed inuisibili opere maiestatis, Neither hath the Lord now ceased to baptize, but he doth it still, not by the ministerie of his bodie, but by the inuisible worke of his ma­iestie. So Chrysostome, Angeli qui adfuerunt (in baptismo) iam inenarrabilis operis modum non possunt enarrare, adfuerunt [Page 100] tantum & viderunt, In Ioh. ho. 24. nihil tamen operati sunt, sed pater tantum & filius, & spiritus sanctus. The Angels which were present in baptisme, were not able to declare the manner of that vnspeakable worke, onely they were present and beheld, but wrought nothing, but the father onely, and the Sonne, and holy spirite. This verie power of the most high, and ouer­shadowing of the holy Ghost, this verie worke of the Ma­iestie of God, is it, and onely it, that maketh these outward elements, Rom. 4.11. Eph. 4, 15, 16. Ephe. 5, 30. seales of the righteousnesse of faith, and effectuall signes and meanes of our regeneration, and growing vp in­to him which is the head, euen Christ; so as we be made, flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, Immortalitatis alimonia datur à communibus cibis differens, Cypr. de caena domini. corporalis substantiae reti­nens speciem, sed virtutis diuinae inuisibili efficientia probans ad­esse praesentiam, A food of immortality is giuen differing from common meats, retaining the forme of a bodily substance, but proouing that a diuine power is present, by the inuisible efficacie of it. You see now, I trow, that Gods omnipoten­cie, hath somewhat else to doe, than to transubstantiate, bread and wine, and to vphold emptie accidents that haue no subiect.

And touching the words of Saint Ambrose, which bee counted so pregnant for transubstantiation, as we are here willed to read them in his Booke, De ijs qui initiantur myste­rijs: So you may read them obiected by Steph. Gardiner, and Chedsey, and so answered by Peter Martyr, that few Papists or none at al frō that day to this euer durst propound them. Ambrose doth not say, that the substance of bread and wine is abolished, for he flatly auoucheth the contrarie, when he saith, sunt quae erant, they are the same they were; but that the nature of them is changed; that whereas before they were common creatures and prophane by nature; now by consecration, they be holy signes, such as doe not onely re­present, but exhibite the bodie and blood of Christ to the faithfull receiuer, and bee effectuall and powerfull instru­ments, whereby life and immortalitie is conuayed into vs, and this exposition doth Ambrose himselfe confirme, where [Page 101] he saith, toward the end of the Chapter, that this is a Sacra­ment of the true flesh of Christ, and that after consecration the bodie of Christ is signified. Nowe to make light of so wonderfull a change, which passeth the capacitie of An­gels (as Chrysostome saith) and to make it inferiour to the wonders of Aegypt, whereof most were done by sorcerers, as well as by Moses, argueth an vnderstanding darkened, with deepe ignorance, and too much addicted to Popish de­uises. I could adde that this place of Ambrose, is obiected also by Harding, and answered by Bishop Iuell, Art. 10, diuis. 3. and that this Booke is thought by many wise and learned men to bee falsely fathered vpon Ambrose, but this that I haue sayd al­readie is sufficient to beat downe the fond bragges of our Papist, and to shew him cleerely, that Ambrose is wrested long agoe out of Gardiner, Tresham, Chedsey, and Hardings hands, who were farre better able to hold him, than our wandring Papists be at this day; and therefore this is none of those inanswerable proofes he hath taken vpon him to alleage, and Saint Ambroses Faith or Opinion in this point, is not yet found to be Papisticall.

The Answere.

ANother ancient Father, is brought to speake for tran­substantiation, whether he will or no, and his testimo­nie is so tediously dilated with multitude of words, and false translations, and blinde lessons, that it wearieth me to looke them ouer, yet may I not suffer such loquacitie to triumph against the truth. Ambrose is raised, as it were from the dead, leading Saint Austine in a string, and carrying the vniuer­sall Church vpon his backe, as though his words had neuer been nor could be answered, and this facing may become a Papist reasonably well, but when he brings in Ephanius with a wrong translation to second the matter, whose testimonie hath ben often answered, and the edge & point of it turned long agoe to the very throte and bowels of transubstantiati­on: I may truely say of him, as the wise man doth of vnad­uised pratlers; Prou. 29.20. & Cap. 26.12. namely, that there is more hope of a foole than of him. Epiphanius saith, Et accepit haec, And hee tooke these; speaking plurally of many round cakes, or peeces of bread, which after hee cals, hoc, & hoc, this, and this, more distinctlyt: his our translator cleane omitteth, and englisheth hoc est meum, hoc, & hoc, this is mine, and this, and this; this is my bodie, and so forth. Againe, hoc est rotundae figurae, & insensibile quantum ad potentiam, this is of a round figure & insensible, he translateth, that is of a round figure, and im­possible to be discerned of vs. And againe, qui non credit esse ipsum verum, hee that beleeueth not that it is true: Hee translateth thus; who so beleeueth not that it is hee, where­as [Page 105] ipsum verum agreeth grammatically with sermonem im­mediately before.

These forgeries bee verie materiall, for when Epiphanius saith, hoc meum est, hoc, & hoc, as of three round cakes, wher­of euerie one seuerally and separately is sayd to bee the bo­die of Christ; verily, we must either admit a new trinitie in vnitie, whereof euerie one seuerally is the bodie of Christ, and yet all three but one bodie, or else we cannot hold tran­substantiation, it will not be so hard a matter to exemplifie the mysterie of the Trinitie, which is beyond all example, if hoc, hoc, & hoc, be a trinitie in vnitie. Secondly, when Epi­phanius saith, that the round cake is without sense, and pow­erlesse, for so wee are taught to translate it by opposition following, in these words, Dominum verò nostrum nouimus to­tum sensum, totum sensitiuum, &c. Wee know that our Lord is all sense, and all sensitiue. We see plainely that it cannot be sayd of the bodie of Christ simply and absolutely, vnlesse we imagine the bodie of Christ to be senselesse and power­lesse. Lastly, when Epiphanius saith, that wee must beleeue the words of Christ to be true, as hee spake them; we may not thinke that he vnderstood by ipsum verum, verie Christ himselfe, bodie, blood, and all, as this man translateth in fa­uor of the popish single sacrilegious communion, for thats not sicut dixit, as any man may easily perceiue. The Counsell of Trent decreeth thus; Sess. 13. cap. 3. Si quis negauerit totum & integrum Christum, & omnium gratiarum fontem & authorem sub vna panis specie sumi, anathema sit. If any man shall denie that whole Christ, and the author and fountaine of all graces is contained vnder the onely forme of bread, let him be accur­sed. But I beseech you, tell vs by what wordes this strange consecration is made? hoc est corpus meum, makes but the bodie that is broken, and bloud is not broken, but shed. A­gaine, hic est sanguis meus, makes but the blood that is shed, and the bodie is not shed, but broken. Verily our Sauiour himselfe when he gaue bread, gaue his bodie, and not blood, for that he gaue after supper, when he took the cup, Luk. 22, 20. and if he gaue integrum Christum, whole Christ, when he gaue bread, [Page 106] then he gaue nothing, when he gaue the cup, and therefore these good fellowes had need take heede they inuolue not the Sonne of God himselfe within their, 1. Cor. 12, 3. Anathema sit, for no man speaking by the spirite of God calleth Iesus exe­crable. In decret pon­tiff. dist. 2. cap. Comper. No, no, they that diuide this holy mysterie bee Sa­crilegi, saith Pope Gelasius, and so by good consequent this Anathema sit, must returne home, and fall vpon their owne bald pates that made it.

But to leaue these fashoods, and to giue you the true mea­ning of this ancient Father, in a summary Compendium, wee must beleeue that bread in the Lords supper, is the bodie of Christ, not simply, but in such a figure as taketh not away the truth of the Scripture, as we also beleeue man to be af­ter a true vnderstanding, Gent. 1.26, 27 the Image of God, for as man is af­ter a sort the Image of God, as the word of God testifieth, though hee be not throughly so, neither in regard of bodie, nor soule, nor minde, nor baptisme, nor vertuous liuing, not any other euident and liuely similitude wee see him to haue with God, so doe wee beleeue that the bread which is of a round figure, and without sense and feeling, is after a true manner and meaning the bodie of Christ, as the wordes of Christ teach vs, though it be not so by substance or apparant proportion and portraiture of bodily members. Wherefore though bread by nature be but a prophane common element appointed of God to feede our bodies: yet (by grace) it pleaseth the Lord to make it, and to call it his bodie, that is a Sacrament of his bodie, whereby, as by an effectuall in­strument, the faithfull receiuers are spiritually fed and nou­rished to eternall life.

This I take to be Epiphanius meaning, whereunto I will adde a few lessons for more perspicuitie, and for the ouer­thwarting of those two lessons, which our Papist heere gi­ueth vs. Frst Epiphanius being learned and industrious, knew well inough wherein the Image of God consisted, Ephes. 4, 24. Coloss. 3, 10. for Paul teacheth it plainely in his Epistles to the Ephesians and Co­lossians. Secondly, this Image is so defaced and ouersha­dowed in the posteritie of Adam, that nothing in man or a­bout [Page 107] man, seemeth answerable or agreeable vnto it. Third­ly, notwithstanding this obscuritie, wee must beleeue the truth of Gods word, that man is created after the Image of God, and not ouerthrow that truth by allegoricall subtil­ties. Fourthly, wee haue the like example in the wordes of Christ at his last supper; namely, this bread is my bodie, which Epiphanius knew to be spoken per gratiam, by grace; whereby that common element was aduanced supernatu­rally and mystically; yet truely to haue the name of the bodie of Christ, whereof it was a Sacrament. Fiftly, there is no apparant equalitie, or likelyhood, or outward sensible similitude or proportion of members, why bread should be so called. Lastly, notwithstanding this difficultie, we must beleeue that by bread, is meant true bread, and by bodie, the true bodie of Christ, and that the one is sayd of the o­ther, figuratiuely indeed, because they be dispanita, yet tru­ly as our Sauiour spake, and not flye to origenicall allego­ries, which ouerthrowe the hystoricall truth of Gods holy word, and turne it into fables.

These lessons (I trow) be plaine inough, yet I doubt our Papist will not think his knot is yet loosed; there is nothing (saith hee) in the Sacrament that is incomprehensible, but Epiphanius saith not so, though he say it, neither can it bee inferred, out of quot sunt & similia sunt, for the Image of God was comprehensible in Adam, though it be defaced in vs, and things may be, Similia secundum magis & minus, but not to multiply quarrels, let vs graunt that he saith to bee true, what then? Marrie then I would learne (saith hee) if it bee not Christs true bodie really present, but a figure ther­of, what wonder or incomprehensible matrer is there, here is a little prety It, three times repeated in the knitting of this knot, It, is his bodie, It is not like to a naturall bodie, and if it be not Christs bodie, &c. I beseech you what meanes this man by his It? is [It] something, or is [It] nothing, or what is [It?] Epiphanius saith, It, is of a round forme: therefore It, is not accidens, for rotundum is not accidens, but rotunditas; if It be a substance, then It must bee either [Page 108] the bodie of Christ, and so the bodie of Christ is of a round forme, or else it must bee bread, and so indeed all the three Euangelists are bold to call It, Math. 26, 26. Mark. 14, 22. Luk. 22, 19. 1. Cor. 10, 16.17. 1. Cor. 11, 23, 26, 27, 28. and so is the Apostle Paul twise in one Chapter, and foure times in another, and hee himselfe for all this mincing of the mattter, comes downe in the end out of the clouds, and confesseth the Sacrament to be of a round forme, whereof it followeth, that it is neither an accident, nor the reall substance of Christs bodie, but bread as the Scripture cals it. Now, for the vnloosing of his knot, I say, that it is incomprehensible, howe a round peece of bread should bee such a figure, as is worthy to bee called the bodie of Christ, and so to exhibite and conuey the graces and merites of Christs passion into vs, that our sinnes are remitted, our faith encreased, and wee incorporate, and made members of his bodie, of his flesh, and of his bones. Let him shew me, that this is not farre beyond the compre­hension of mans reason, and I will giue him his asking.

But for a full cleering of Epiphanius, it is to bee remembred that Manes and his disciples, liuing vpon the sweat of other mens browes, and supposing all things to haue life & soule, as man had, were wont to consecrate the bread and wine, that was giuen them to fill their slowe bellies withall, after this sort, Ego non seminauite, non messui te, non molui, in cli­banum non misi, alius obtulit & comedi, innoxius sum, &c. I sowed thee not, I reape thee not, I ground thee not, I baked thee not, another offered it, and I did eate, I am innocent, &c. Wherunto Epiphanius answereth, ipsi non recidunt botrū, sed edunt botrū, Haeres. 66. cir­ca medium. vtrum grauius est? etenim vindemians semel re­cidit botrū, qui vero comedit, per dētes sectores ac manducatores singula grana edomat, & per hoc magis multipliciter torquet ac secat, & non amplius similis erit, ei qui semel secuit, is qui man­ducauit & consumpsit, They cut not the bunch of grapes, but they eat it, which is greater? the Grape-gatherer did once cut the vine, but he that eateth it doth cut and grinde with his teeth all the graces, and in the respect he doth torment it much more, and hee that hath eaten and consumed it, is no longer like to him that onely once cut it. You heare what [Page 109] Epiphanius saith for confutation of the Manichies. Now cō ­sider how that he saith can possibly be good, if the liuing sen­sitiue bodie of Christ, blood, and all be eaten of the Catho­lickes; might not the Manichies then reply, that they were more to be borne withall, that were compelled by hunger and thirst to eat and drinke liuing things of meane regard, crying for griefe, Ego non seminaui te; non messui, non molui, &c, Than Epiphanius and his Catholickes that presumed to eat the liuing flesh of Christ, and to drinke his blood? veri­ly Epiphanius being learned & wise, would not haue left his reason in this case wide open without either fence or shel­ter against the aduersarie, if the reall presence and mandu­cation of the bodie and blood of Christ, had been catho­lickely beleeued in his time. Peter in the Acts, when a voice from heauen commanded him to kil and eat, though he were hungry, and in a traunce, yet he forgat not the law of God, but answered, [God forbid Lord, for nothing polluted, or vncleane hath euer entred into my mouth,] and shall wee thinke, that the same Peter, when our Sauiour saith [take, Act. 10, 10. &c. Et cap. 11 5, &c. eat, this is my bodie,] and [take, drinke, this is my blood:] would neuer make any question, neither he, nor any of his fellow Apostles, against the eating of mans flesh, and drin­king mans blood, if they had vnderstood the wordes of Christ after the popish fashion? Euen so, hee that thinketh that Epiphanius, holding the reall eating and drinking of the bodie and blood of Christ; would dispute, so loosely as he doth, against the Manichies: must needs thinke withall that his wits were in a deeper traunce than Saint Peters, and so fitter to gather wooll, than to confute heretickes.

The Answere.

THe knot he talks of, was so loosely tyed, that it was no masterie to vndoe it, but now we shall haue such an ar­gument as shall prooue vnto vs the consent of all ancient Fa­thers, and the vniforme practise of the vniuersall Church for transubstantiatiō, these be great words; yet notwithstanding, when he grounds this doughty argument vpon Austine, Am­brose, and Tertullian, concluding thereof, that in all these ages the church did offer a sacrifice for the quicke and the dead, I can take them for no better than the words of a man beside himselfe; he knew well inough, that Ambrose and Austine were both of an age, for he hath told vs once or twise, that the one conuerted the other, and if he knew not that the an­nuall offerings of a widow woman vpon the day of her hus­bands death, enioyned her by Tertullian in these wordes, Et offerat annuis diebus dormitionis eius, was not the sacrifice of the Masse, I must needes thinke his head was out of tem­per, if these three Fathers had written in three seuerall ages, [Page 112] it had been the least number that the word [all] could bee spoken of, Aristot. de cae­lo lib. 1. cap. 1. for we call two [both,] and not all, and therefore by what wit or common sense, he could say all these ages of one age, or two at the most, if Tertullian had not been mis­taken, I cannot possibly imagine; but for answere to these Fathers, Contr. Collyr. haeres. 79. Epiphanius saith truely, Deo abaeterno nullatenus mu­lier sacrificauit, A woman did neuer in any case offer any sa­crifice to God: And againe, Nusquam mulier sacrificauit, aut sacerdotio functa est, A woman neuer sacrificed, nor exerci­sed the priestly office. Dialog. cum Tryphon. Whereunto adde out of Iustine Mar­tyr, that God receiueth no sacrifice, [...], but onely of his Priests, whereof it followeth, that the an­nuall oblation that Tertullian speakes of, was no sacrifice, vnlesse you will say, Epiph. haeres. 49. that Tertullian was a Priscillianist or Ar­totyrite, that allowed of Romane Priests and women Bi­shops to offer bread and cheese in Sacrifice to the Lord.

And touching Ambrose, I shewed before, that hee offe­red not the verie bodie of Christ, which is receiued of merite, not of mercie, how irreuerently soeuer it be hand­led, but celebrated the communion of the bodie and blood of Christ, ioyned with prayer and thankesgiuing; so nowe Austine is left alone, of whome I may say, as our Papist taught me a while agoe; namely, that it is not probable, that Saint Ambrose was a Protestant in this opinion, and Saint Austine (whome hee conuerted to the Christian faith) a Papist; howbeit, you shall bee further instructed out of Lumbard, Lib. 4. dist. 12 that the ancient Fathers doe not vse the word Sa­crifice, and immolation in proper sense, these be his words, Ʋocatur sacrificium & oblatio, quia memoria est & representa­tio veri sacrificij, & sanctae oblationis factae in Ara crucis, It is called a sacrifice and an offering, because it is a remem­brance and representation of the true sacrifice, and holy of­fering made vpon the altar of the crosse. And a little after, Quotidié immolatur in sacramento, Hierar. cap. 3. quia in Sacramento recor­datio, fit illius quod factum est semel, We sacrifice dayly in the Sacrament, because in the Sacrament there is a remēbrance of that which was once done, or of that Sacrifice which [Page 113] was once made. Dyenis, in his Hierarchy, calleth it, De demonst. si. 1. cap. 10. Ad Hebr. hom. 17. De ciuit. Dei. lib. 20. cap. 15. [...] a figuratiue sacrifice, and Eusebius, memoriam magni sacrificij, a remembrance of the great sacrifice, and Chrysostome, recordationem sacrificij, a remembrance of the sacrifice, and Austine himselfe, signum & representationem sa­crificij, a signe of representation of the sacrifice: wherefore we can agree with your papist no farther in this point, than to confesse that the ancient fathers, called the sacrifice of the body & blood of Christ improperly [a sacrifice] because it is a memorial and representation of that one all sufficient, vniterable, euerlasting sacrifice, which our Sauiour, the last true Priest that euer liued or shall liue vpon the earth, offe­red to God vpon the Altar of the crosse, and so the ground, whereupon this popish argument is builded, is sandy and deceitfull.

Now let me shew you that prayers, and supplications, and prayse, and thankesgiuing are the onely true sacrifices of the new testament, and that the ancient Christians of the Primitiue Church neuer knew or hard of any other; to this purpose therefore you must remember that God receiueth no sacrifice but at the hands of a Priest, for so we learned a little before out of Austine Martyr, [Priests] we read of none specially so called in Gods holy word, but either Le­uiticall, or after the order of Melchizedech, Heb. 7.12.18. wherof the one gaue place to Christ, the other hath place in Christ, and in Christ onely, for this priesthood is said to be, [...], Heb. 7.24. that is, such as passeth not from one to an other successiuely, as did the Priesthood of Aaron, and this is yet further strengthened in that the ministers of Christ hauing so great varietie of names in the new Testament to shew what their office is, and what they haue to doe in Christs Church, are no where named [priests] which the holy Ghost, that knew best how to giue fit names, would neuer haue done, if Christ had euer instituted such a kingly priesthood to succeed him, wherefore the Priesthood of Melchisedech figuring onely the euer-standing, & neuer-passing priesthood of Christ, for no other Priesthood can possibly be answerable to the pa­terne [Page 114] of Melchisedechs priesthood) it must follow that such as challenge to be Priests after Melchisedechs order, are sacrilegious traytors against Christ, and lay violent hands against his royall prerogatiues.

Neither is this doctrine preiudicall to the sacrifice of prayer and thankesgiuing, which needeth no erection of a speciall priesthood, for as it is a common duetie, so we are all in generall a holy and a kingly priesthood to offer vp spirituall sacrifice acceptable to God through Iesus Christ, 1. Pet. 2.5.9. & Reuel. 1.6. and to shew foorth the prayses of him that called vs out of darkenesse into his marueilous light; so then the sacrifice of prayer and thankesgiuing may euery Christian offer in pri­uate by himselfe, and publikely by the mouth of Gods mi­nister, other sacrifice the old fathers knew none; Iustine Martyr saith, In dial. cum Triphone. that supplications and giuing of thankes, are the onely perfect and acceptable sacrifices to God, [...], for these onely Christians haue learned to offer, where the force of the preposition [...] for [...] is to be obserued, Vide Bez. An­not. in Math. 1.20. which teacheth vs, that these Christians of these times had receiued this on­ly kind of sacrificing, and no other, of the fathers and tea­chers that were before them. Ad Scapulam. Againe, Tertullian saith, Sacrificamus pro salute imperatoris, sed Deo nostro & ipsius, sed quomodo praecepit deus pura prece, The dead must be prayed for, when they are remembred at the sacrifice in their order, and it must be declared that it is offered also for them. In which words after he had sayd generally, we sacrifice for the health of the Emperour: he then restraines this sacrifice, first to the true God, and then secondly to the Christian ma­ner of sacrifycing in pure prayer, as the true God had com­manded, teaching vs that God neuer gaue commandement to offer any other sacrifice vnto him; and if he had, no doubt but the Christians of Carthage and other places in Afrike would haue offered most readily and willingly for the safety of the Emperour.

These two fathers, both in regard of their great anti­quitie & plainesse of their testimonie, are of sufficient force [Page 115] to shew that the first Churches neuer knew what the Po­pist sacrifice of the Masse meant, yea but will you say like­wise that they knew not the sacrifice of the Almes, for these two testimonies are as full against the one as the other; not so, by your leaue, Dulcit. questio. 2. & Enchir. cap. 209. Phil. 4.18. Mat. 9.13. & 12. epist. 6.6. for Almes is contained vnder gratiarum actio, and Austine saith it is gratiarum actio pro valde bonis, and propitiatio too pro non valde malis. Howbeit Almes, though Saint Paul call it a sacrifice, yet needeth it no speci­all priesthood to offer it, neither is it an immediate seruice of God, as prayer is, but mediately pleaseth him as a worke of the second table, and therefore our Sauiour saith, [...], I will haue mercy and not sacrifice, and so sayd the Prophet Osea long before, opposing sacrifice to the exercise of mercy. Now comes in our Papist crying, thus doe I prooue that the sacrifice, spoken of in the fa­thers, was neither prayer nor thankesging, and therefore Iustine Martyr and Tertullian had neede to looke to them­selues; well let vs heare these worthie proofes, and consider of them, whether they be strong ynough to outface two fa­thers of so great antiquitie; Austine, saith he, maketh men­tion of the prayers and sacrifices of the Church, Lib. 10. cap. 15 as of two difficult things, ergo, it was not prayer, No, nor sacrifice neither, by your leaue, but a representation of the sacrifice of Christ; for thats Austines meaning, as himselfe tels you in his booke De ciuitate Dei, and so is the other argument to be answered, where your papist tels vs out of Austine, that the dead are releeued by the sacrifice of our redeemer, whereas thankesgiuing can neither be so called, nor yet re­lieue soules, because we giue thankes for benefits receiued, not for benefits to be receiued. For Austine knew well y­nough that, to speake precisely, there was no sacrifice of our redeemer in his time, nor any time els after the death of Christ, Dyonisius, Eusebiu [...] Chrysostome, &c. but that which himselfe cals signum & representatio­nem sacrificij, a signe and representation of the sacrifice: and other fathers, a token, a memoriall, a recordation of the sacrifice of Christ: now whether this recording the Lords death till he come, 2, Cor. 11.26. doe releeue the soules of the [Page 116] dead, it hath been already disputed.

But to graunt him more then either may bee graunted; or he can possibly euince, namely, that it is indeed a sacrifice, as it is called, yet may it be said, that it is so, and is called so, not absolutely in it selfe, as it consisteth of dumme and deafe elements; but in regard of prayer and thankesgiuing, which be inseparably annexed vnto it, otherwise it is not like that Austine would say, that the sacrifice of the Altar, for those that be valde boni, Enchir. ca. 109. & Dulcit. quaest. 2. is thanksgiuing: now if this sacrifice pro valde bonis be thankesgiuing, as Austine faith it is, why may it not be said likewise that the same, sacrifice pro non valde malis, is prayer? I am sure Austine saith it is propitiatio, which includeth prayer: and heere againe consider how weakely he disputeth, when he saith that thankesgiuing which is for benefits receiued, August. ibid. not for benefits to be recei­ued, cannot releeue soules &c. For, though it may be sayd, that God rewardeth a thankefull remembrance of benefits receiued, with new blessings: yet Austine writes not any where that the vse of the sacrifice is alwayes to releeue, but sometime to giue thankes, in which regard it is called the Eucharist; but for as much as Iustine Martyr, and Tertullian testifie, that the Christians in their time did sacrifice not on­ly by thanksgiuing, which is for benefits receiued; but also by prayer, which is for benefits to be receiued, the edge of this wise dispute is vtterly blunted.

To goe yet a little further, if it should bee graunted him that this sacrament is a sacrifice absolutely in it selfe, yet I hope it cannot releeue soules, nor doe any such feat by it selfe, as it consisteth of dead elements, vnlesse prayers and supplications, and giuing of thankes be annexed vnto it, for he that neither prayeth, nor giueth thankes, be hee priest, or king, Aaron or Melchisedecke, cannot be said to offer this sacrifice: and relieue soules it cannot, vnlesse it be offered. Now then see the vnskilfulnesse of this prating disputer, who teareth into pieces things that be inseparably knit to­gether, and so in this foolish fit, desireth to know whether this sacrifie was the sacrifice of the Masse, the sacrifice of [Page 117] the Protestants communion, the sacrifice of prayer, or the sacrifice of thankesgiuing; let him shew me that either his Masse, or our communion is said or song without prayer and thankesgiuing, or else let him hold his peace till he haue learned to dispute better. Augustine distinguisheth his sa­crifice from prayer and thankesgiuing, but he doth not se­parate them, and so his meaning must needes be that our prayers and supplications are profitable at all times, but spe­cially then, when the Communion of the bodie and blood of Christ is ministred, and our soules inflamed thereby, and stirred vp to greater deuotion, In Philip hom. 3. and hereunto Chrysostome accordeth, saying, Stante vniuerso populo, manus in caelos ex­tendente, caetuitem sacerdotali, verendo (que) posito sacrificie: quo­modò deū non placaremus pro istis orantes? The whole people standing, and lifting vp their hands to heauen, as also that companie of the Priests, and the reuerend sacrifice layed be­fore, how should we not appease God when we pray for them?

This is sufficient to shew that the pricking arguments you speake of, draw no blood, and that they may be answe­red, sine sanguine & sudore; yet a knacke or two of Popish knauerie is heere to be discouered, that you may the better see the sleights of these cōpanions, for when he foresaw out answere to Austine like to be as I haue set it downe: hee thought it his best way to falsefie Austines testimonie after this prettie fashion; Austine saith, that at the time of the sacrifice, prayers were made for the dead, and that the sa­crifice was also offered for them, but doth Austine say that the sacrifice was offered, at the time of the sacrifice? is it credible that Austine spake so foolishly? no, friend Papist, Austines wordes are these, pro defunctis, cum ad ipsum sa­crificium loco suo commemorantur, oretur, ac pro illis quo (que) id offerri commemoretur, The dead must be prayed for, when they are remembred at the sacrifice in their order, and must be declared that it is offered also for them. That is, when the dead are mentioned in their order at the time of the sa­crifice, let them be prayed for, and (that the people may [Page 118] be stirred vp to pray the more deuoutly) let it be told them also, that the same sacrifice is offered for them, and for the better explication of his meaning: Austine presently after in the same place (as Chrysostome in the place before allea­ged) mentioneth prayer, and not the sacrifice, saying, Ora­tiones Deo non inaniter allegantur, Prayers are not directed in vaine to God, whereby inclusiue such prayers are to be vn­derstood as were sharpened and set on edge by the cele­bration of the sacrament.

Againe obserue how your Papist lets slip the Pro­testants communion through his fingers, and concludes no more but thus, therefore this sacrifice of the Church was ei­ther the Protestants communion, or else the sacrifice of the Masse; well, but is this all he purposed to prooue with his sprinckling arguments? if this be all, our controuersie will soone be at an end; and yet he neuer the neerer his transub­stantiation. no, no, this is not the daysie which he skipt at; he must prooue that the sacrifice of the Church, which the ancient fathers speake of, was the sacrifice of the masse, and no other, and that shall he neuer be able to doe till he haue remoued the Protestants Communion, as wel as prayer and thankesgiuing, out of his way. This he could not but know if he had any wit in his head, & therefore what can be sayd else to this, but that the Protestants Communion was too to hot for him han-dle, and that all the wit and learning he had, was not able to out-face it.

The Answere.

OVr Protestant here is worse afraid than hurt, the big lookes of his aduersary made him afraid, but his wi­thered armes could not hurt him; hee telleth vs with full mouth, and face enough, that he will proue the sacrifice of the masse which implyeth transubstantiation, by the con­sent of all ancient fathers, and the vniforme practise of the vniuersall Church, but when all is come to all, hee runnes away, and leaues this withered conclusion behind him, ergo, the sacrifice of the Church was either the masse, or the Pro­testants communion, I trow, such arguments as these may soone bee answered: but now that our Protestant calleth forth sense and reason to witnesse against him, and to de­monstrate infallibly that his assertion is not to be beleeued; he comes backe againe, and intreats him to shut his eies, and suffer himselfe to be hudwinked, and then he will take paines to lead him into a popish ditch. If we relie vpon the censure of our senses and reason, saith he, wee are in the hie way to all Atheisme and heresie: Iohn 20.27:29. a strange thing that that which was a meane to faith in Christs time, should now be­come a fountaine of heresie: our Sauiour saith to Thomas, [Page 122] because thou hast seene, thou beleeuest: and againe, put thy finger here, and see my hands, and put forth thy hand, put it into my side, and be not faithlesse, but beleeue: and in ano­ther place he saith, Luke 24.38. why are yee troubled? and wherefore doe doubts arise in your hearts? behold my hands and my feete, for it is I my selfe, handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me to haue. Now I beseech you tell me, if the consecrated bread had a mouth to speake, as it hath an inuisible mouth, if Papists may be beleeued, and should say to vs, why are yee troubled? and wherefore doe doubts arise in your hearts? behold my forme and co­lour, handle, taste, and see, for the body of Christ is not round, white, sweete, heauie, thicke, grosse, earthie, as you taste, feele, and see me to be. Shall wee answere that this is the fountaine of heresie and Atheisme? No, by your leaue, answer so who will, and who dare, this shall be my warrant to settle my conscience, and without further trouble of minde, or doubt of heart, to beleeue that it is very bread, and not the body of Christ. Moreouer the holy Apostle S. Iohn assureth vs of the certentie of his doctrine by the infal­liblenesse of the outward senses, 1. Iohn 1.1. saying, that which we haue heard, which wee haue seene with these our eies, which wee haue looked vpon, & these hands haue handled of that word of life, that I say, which we haue seene and heard, declare we vnto you, not that you may be Heretickes and Atheists, but that you may haue felloship with vs, and that our fellowship may be with the father, and with his sonne Iesus Christ.

Now touching humane reason, I would gladly know whether our Papist haue framed his arguments with it, or without it? if with it; let him take heede he be not an Here­ticke or an Atheist: if without it; I doubt, he shall hardly mooue either Hereticke or Catholicke to be of his opinion: much lesse conuert Infidels. It were strange doctrine to teach men neuer to vse the helpe of humane reason, because Saint Paul saith, Rom. 1, 19. the wisedome of this world if foolishnesse, for though the mysterie of our redemption in Christ Iesu, be farre beyond the reach of mans wisedome: yet the same [Page 123] Paul saith, that [...] that you may be knowen concerning God, is ingraffed in the heart of man, where­by Gods eternall power and Godhead shining in his works is knowen vnto him, and Peter Lumbard, Lib. 3, dist. 24. his owne Pro­phet saith, Quaedā fide creduntur, quae intelliguntur naturali ra­tione, Somethings are beleeued by faith, which are vnder­stood by naturall reason. But to make short worke, Paul saith indeed, that the naturall man perceiueth not the things of the spirit of God, and God forbid we should denie it, but yet the same Apostle presently after saith, 1. Cor. 2.14. &c. againe the spi­rituall man discerneth all things; now let him shew vs that papists are spirituall men, and Protestants naturall men, and then we will vayle the bonnet of his insensible and vn­reasonable assertions, otherwise we may not become fooles and run mad at his pleasure.

Againe, where he disputeth that an infidell may reiect the resurrection of the dead, the mystery of the Trinitie, the eternitie of the sonne of God, the comming in of Christ in his naturall bodie to his disciples the doores being shut, and such like Articles of our Christian faith, as well as we may reiect the reall presence in the Sacrament; you may see the pure simplicitie of this man, who makes Christs entrance through a shut doore, to be an Article of faith. Howbeit his master of sentences findeth documents of the Trinitie in things created, and Saint Austine saith, Lib. 1. dist. 3. De Trinitate lib. 6. cap. 20. Oportet vt creato­rem per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspicientes, Trinitatem in­telligamus, It behooueth vs, that we beholding in vnder­standing the creator by the things which were created, should vnderstand the Trinitie. Againe, Tertullian hath written a booke De resurrectione carnis, and Athenagoras a Christian Philosopher hath written another [...], Of the resurrection of the dead, Tertullian. Athenagoras. wherein this ar­ticle of faith is soundly prooued by humane reason, and it being a sure ground that God cannot be without his power and wisedome, and that the father is, Fons & origo Deitatis, as, sol, is, fons & origo lucis, The fountaine and originall of the Godhead, as the sunne is the fountaine and originall of [Page 124] light. It will not be so hard to conceiue by reason, that the son of God may be begotten, & yet coeternal with God his father, but I shal not need to labor further in this point; there is a Treatise written purposely of this argument by Philip Morney a noble man of Fraunce, Phil. Mor­ney. wherin you may see how far reason may wade in these & such like articles of Christi­anity, & therfore if [an infidel] flie to humane reason, he shal haue some stay to leane vpō in matters of faith, wheras nei­ther he, nor we, nor any man els liuing, can find any possibili­ty of reason or sense to induce vs to beleue the real presence.

Howbeit he may do well to teach vs from what an infi­dell should appeale to the arbiterment of humane reason? is it like that any man will presse an infidell with Scriptures, Fathers, & Councels, & so to driue him to appeale to reason? Paul saith, that prophecying serueth not for infidels, but for them which beleeue, 1. Cor. 14.22 where the Apostle meaneth such infi­dels, as be altogether strangers from Christian doctrine, and must be won by signes, not by prophecying, as for Fathers & Councels we may not prefer them to Paul and Peter in the conuersion of an infidell: and besides that, infidels will make more account of their own Prophets Epimenides, Menander, and Aratus, Tit. 1.12 Plato, Hesiode, and Homer, & such like, than of our Fathers and Councels: yet notwithstanding if we should confesse that other matters of faith cannot be measured by humane reason without danger of heresie: yet if you cleaue to his faith, & not to your owne reason in the reall presence: you cannot choose but be an hereticke, Dial, 2. in con. The Symboles or signes of the Lords bodie, after the priest hath inuocated, are charged & made other shings. and this doth Theo­doret euidētly declare in one of his Dialogues, where the he­reticke saith, Symbola dominici corporis & sanguinis post inuo­cationē sacerdotis mutantur, et alia fiunt. And this he speakes of a substantial change, as our Papists do at this day; but the Catholicke answereth, Signa mysticapost sanctificationem non recedunt à natura sua, manent enim in priori substantia, & figu­ra, & forma. Thus hath Theodoret a learned and auncient father of the Greeke Church, written almost 1200. yeeres agoe, giuing cleerely to vnderstand, that the doctrine of transubstantiation was not Catholicke in his time, but he­reticall, [Page 125] what the Greeke Church thinketh of it at this day, may better be learned by the last Session of the Coun­cell of Florence, than by the bold face of this Papist, whose head is so full of vniforme consents and arguments of cre­dibilitie, Council. Flo­rent. sess, vlti­ma. that he forgets how many of the Euangelists speake of the Lords supper.

See then what ill lucke this poore man hath, that both his vniforme consents faile him, the one confuted by Theo­doret and the Councell of Florence, the other by Saint Iohns Gospel, where you shall not finde one word spoken of the Sacrament: all the foure Euangelists, quoth he? how I pray you? in thought, word, or deed? marry, saith he in direct and plaine words? Indeed the words of three Euangelists are direct and plaine against him, but the fourth saith no­thing; Matthew & Marke say, that the Sacrament of Christs blood after consecration, is the fruit of the vine: Math. 26.29. Mar. 14.25. cap. 22, 20. and Luke saith, that the cup is the new Testament in his blood; now if you vnderstand by the cup, not wine, but reall blood, it will follow that Christ had twoo bloods, or a double blood, for then is it all one, as if Saint Luke reported our Sauiour to haue spoken thus, This blood conteined in this cup, is the new Testament in my blood, Againe all these three E­uangelists say, This is my body, where the demonstratiue pronowne must needs shew some visible thing or other, els our Sauiour dallied with his disciples, willing them to take and eat, when they saw nothing; & the disciples themselues were witlesse, to reach out their hands to take and eat, that which they saw not, neuer asking where the thing was which our Sauiour spake of: now what was this visible thing, trow ye? the body of Christ, they say is inuisible, if we say it was a lump of accidents thē we must imagine our Sauior to speak thus, this lumpe of accidents is my body, which cannot be taken directly and plainely as the words lie without figure, and therefore that sense may not be abidden, what then? can this visible thing be but bread which our Sauiour did breake, and his disciples did eate, whereas neither brea­king [Page 126] nor eating can agree either to accidents or the inuio­lable body of Christ.

But goe too, let vs admit that our Sauiour spake thus after the Catholicke fashion [this that lieth hid inuisibly vn­der these visible accidents, is my body] then will it follow inanswerably either that Christ had two bodies, one visible that spake to the disciples, another inuisible that lay hid vn­der accidents; or else, if both were but one bodie by mira­cle, that the same one body is both visible and inuisible at once which is impossible, yea but God is omnipotent and nothing is to God impossible, yes, by your leaue, and so will Peter Lumbard tell you, Lib. 1. dist. 24. if it please you to heare him: Howbeit because the popish doctrine of transubstantiation cannot be maintained, vnlesse we hold that the bodie of Christ is visible and not visible at once, and also circumscri­bed and not circumscribed at one and the same time; I will set you downe the iudgement of Saint Thomas of Aquine, who auoucheth in plaine and direct termes, that these con­tradictions cannot be auoided by appealing to Gods omni­potencie whereunto they are not subiect, these bee his wordes, Sum part. 1. quaest. 25. arti [...]. 3. Quicquid potest habere rationem entis continetur sub possibilibus absolutisre spectu quorū deus dicitur omnipotens, nihil autem opponitur rationi entis nisi non ens, hoc igitur repugnat rationi possibilis absoluti, quod subditur diuinae omnipotentiae, quod implicat in se, esse & non esse simul: hoc enim omnipotentiae non subditur, non propter defectum diuinae potentiae, sed quia non potest habere rationem factibilis ne (que) possibilis: quaecun (que) igitur contradictionem non implicant, subillis possibilibus continentur, re­spectu quorum dicitur Deus omnipotens; ea vero qua contradi­ctionem implicant, sub diuina omnipotentia non continentur, quia non possunt habere possibilium rationem, vnde conuenientiùs dici­tur quod ea non possunt fieri, quàm quod Deus ea non possit face­re; Luke 1:37: ne (que) hoc est contra verbum angeli dicentis, non erit impossi­bile apud Deum omne verbum, id enim quod contradictionem implicat verbum esse non potest, quia nullus intellectus potest illud concipere, Whatsoeuer hath the reason of ens is contei­ned [Page 127] vnder absolute possibilities, in regard whereof God is called omnipotent, now nothing is contrary to the rea­son of ens but non ens, this is therefore contrary to the rea­son of absolute possibility, which is subiect to the omnipo­tency of God, which implieth in it, to be and not to be at one instant: now this is not subiect to omnipotency, not for any defect of power in God, but because the same thing cannot haue the reason of possible to be done, and impossi­ble: whatsoeuer things therefore doe not imply contradi­ction, are contained vnder those possibilities whereof God is called omnipotent; but the things which imply contra­diction are not conteyned vnder G [...]ds omnipotency, be­cause they cannot haue the reason of possibilities, where­upon it is more fitly sayd, that these things cannot be done, than that God cannot doe them; neither is this against the speech of the Angel, which sayd, No word shall be impossible with God; for that which implyeth contradiction, is not a word, for no vnderstanding can conceiue it. Thus hath S. Thomas, the Angelicall doctor, the crowne and foretop of all poperie, dragged out transubstantiation by the heeles from vnder the shelter of Gods omnipotencie, and will not suffer such popish contradictions and impossibilities, as it is maintained by, to haue any succour in the almightinesse of Gods power.

The Answere.

THis point of popish doctrine may well be called a do­ctrine of diuels, and therefore wee answere them that defend it, and vrge it vpon vs, as our Sauiour answered the deuill, Matth. 4.10. Deuter. 10.20 Rom. 10.14. auoyd Satan, for it is written, thou shalt worship the lord thy God, and him onely shalt thou serue, when Paul saith, how shall they call on him in whom they haue not beleeued? hee shew­eth vs to whom this seruice belongeth, namely, to him in whom wee beleeue, De ciuit. Dei lib. 22. cap. 10 which cannot agree to any creature in heauen or earth, and therefore well saith Austine, whose authoritie is here pretended, Ʋni Deo & Martyrum & no­stro sacrificium immolamus, ad quod sacrificium, sicut homines Dei qui mundum in eius confessione vicerunt, suo loco & ordine nominantur, non tamen à sacerdote qui sacrificat inuocantur. Wee doe offer sacrifice to one and the same God both of the Martyrs and ours, at which sacrifice, though the men [Page 129] which haue ouercome the world in the confession of his name, are in their place and order named, yet are they not inuocated by the Priest that sacrificeth. This is a plaine te­stimonie against the inuocation of dead Martyrs, and there­fore we must not accept of these places, which our Papist here offereth vs, according to the first view, but looke bet­ter into them, and so expound them, as they may agree to­gether with that other place which I haue quoted, and here I offer you three seuerall expositions, agreeable (I thinke) to Austines words heere alleaged by our Papist; the first is, that the commending of vs to the Martyrs prayers here spo­ken of, is not by praier made vnto them when they are dead, but by request made vnto them before their Martyrdome, when they are aliue, as the theefe in the Gospell prayed our Sauiour vpon the crosse before his death, [Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy Kingdome, Luk. 23, 42. Libr. 1. Epist. 1 in fine.] Cyprian writes so to Cornelius, Si quis hinc nostrum prior diuinae dignationis ce­leritate precesserit, perseueret apud Deum nostra dilectio, pro fratribus & sororibus nostris apud misericordiam patris non ces­set oratio, If any of vs through the goodnesse of God goe hence first before other, let our loue still continue when we are with God, that we cease not to pray before the Fathers mercie, for our brethren and sisters. Secondly, when Au­stine saith, that the Martyrs are therefore remembred at the Altar, that they may so be mooued to pray for vs, he taketh the thankefull commemoration of their names at the Lords table without any further praying vnto thē, Contr. Fau­stum lib. 20, Cap. 21. to be a sufficient spurre to exercise them to yeeld vs such helpe, as they can af­ford vs, & therfore he teacheth vs elsewhere, that Christians celebrated the memories of Martyrs for these two intents, Ʋt meritis eorum consocientur, at (que) orationibus adinuentur, That they may be associate to the merits, De tempore serm. 244. and holpen with their prayers. And in another place, that Martyrs do make intercession for vs, quando in nohis aliquid de suis virtutibus recognoscunt, when they find any of their vertues to lie in vs. Thirdly and lastly, the one of these two places alleaged for this superstitious kinde of praying, may serue for an expo­sition [Page 130] of the other, for when the one saith, Iniuria est pro Martyre orare, cuius nos debemus orationibus commendari, It is iniurie to pray for a Martyr, to whose prayers we ought ra­ther to be commended. The other telleth you that the word magis, rather, is wanting, whereby wee are informed, that we ought rather to pray to Martyrs, than for Martyrs, and yet neither the one simply lawfull, nor the other.

Now, touching the last authoritie out of the counterfeit Sermons De sanctis, it is shamefully derogatorie to the me­diation of Christ Iesus, so as a Christian heart can hardly brooke it; we thinke it a foule speech, that Cardinall Bem­bus vsed in an Epistle he wrote to Clarles the fifth, Bembus. wherein he calleth the blessed Virgine, Dominam & Deam nostram, Our Ladie and Goddesse. But here in these Sermons she is called, forma Dei, the forme of God: so likewise Ambrose Catherine in the Councell of Trent calleth her, Sess. 2. fidelissimam Dei sociam, the most faithfull mate of God; and these Ser­mons say little lesse, where we read, Te rex regum vt sponsam sibi associat, Thee the King of Kinges doth associate to him­selfe as his spouse. To be short, this wretched author cal­leth her, Sponsam Dei, reginam coelorum, Dominam angelo­rum, mundi redemptricem, reportatricem gratiae reconciliatio­nis, The Spouse of God, the Queene of heauen, the Ladie of Angels, the Redeemer of the world, the bringer of the grace of reconciliation; and teacheth vs to inuocate her after this manner, Tu es spes vnica peccatorum, per te speramus veniam delictorum, in te nostrorum est expectatio praemiorum, Thou art the onely hope of sinners, by thee we hope for pardon of our sinnes, in thee we looke for our rewards. And then followeth immediately, Sancta Maria succurre miseris, &c. Holy Marie helpe vs wretches, as our Papist here hath alleaged; if this Diuinitie may bee tolerated, then let our gathered stickes, Ierem. 7.18. and the Fathers kindle the fire, and our women knead dough to bake cakes for the Queene of hea­uen, and let the Collyridians bee heretickes no longer, Chri­stus dixit (saith Epiphanius) quid mihi & tibi est mulier? non dum venit hora mea, Heres. 59. Ioh. 2.4. quo non putarent aliqui magis eximiam esse san­ctam [Page 131] Ʋirginē, mulierem eam appellauit veluti prophetans, quae essent futura in terra sectarum & haereserie genera, vt ne aliqui nimium admirati sanctam, in hanc haeresim eius (que) deliramenta dilabantur, Christ said, what haue I to doe with this wo­man? mine houre is not yet come, that some might not think the holy Virgine to be more excellent than she was, he cal­leth her woman prophesying as it were, what kindes of sects and heresies there should bee in the world, least some admiring too much her holy person, should fall into this do­ting heresie. And Ambrose, In Rom. Cap. 1 Isti se non putant reos qui hono­rem nominis Dei deferunt creaturae, & relicto domino creaturas adorant, nam & ideo ad reges per Tribunos & Comites itur, quia homo vti (que) est rex, & nescit quibus debeat rempub. crede­re, ad Deum autem, quem nihil latet, omnium enim merita no­uit promerendum, suffragatore non est opus, sed mente deuota, vbicun (que) enim talis loquutus fuerit ei respondebit illi, These men thinke not themselues guiltie, which giue the honour of the name of God to a creature, and leauing the Lord, adore crea­tures: for therefore indeed, wee goe to Kings by Tribuues and Earles, because the King is a man, and knoweth not to whome to commit the publique affaires; but to God, from whome nothing is hidden, for hee knoweth all mens need, we haue no need of any to speak for vs, but a deuout mind, for wheresoeuer a man so qualified speaketh, he wil answere. These be reuerend witnesses, such as cannot be excepted a­gainst, to whom Chrysostomes witnesse may bee added out of his Homilies de poenitentia, Homines vtuntur atriensibus, Homil. 4. (saith hee) in Deo nihil est tale, sine mediatore est execrabilis, Men vse dore-keepers, in God there is no such thing, for he is execrable or easie to bee intreated, without a mediator. And againe elsewhere, De profect. Euang. Nihil tibi opus est patronis apud De­um ne (que) enim tam facile Deus audit si alij pro nobis orent, quam si ipsi òremus, et si pleni simus omnibus malis, With God thou hast no neede of any Patrons, for God doth not so readily heare, if others pray for vs, as if we pray our selues, although we bee full of all manner of euils. Wherefore they that set vp to themselues new mediators, whether it be of redemp­tion [Page 132] or intercession, for by such nice distinctions our good Catholickes elude the authoritie of Saint Paul, those men dishonour Iesus Christ our onely mediator, 1. Tim. 2.5. and so make o­pen shew to the world, that they are the members of Anti­christ.

The Answere.

THese Vowes, and single life of Priests, which our Pa­pist here propoundeth for Catholicke, proceeded first from the Deuill the spirite of errour, and so Paul teacheth vs in the first to Timothie, Cap. 4.1.3. neither is it any thing to the pur­pose, that the ancient Fathers allowed of these errours, and gaue them countenance in their writings, for heretickes did so likewise aswell as Catholickes, and the Fathers did it not of a set deliberate iudgement, but of an extraordinary zeale and loue they bare to that kinde of life, especially in Gods Ministers, Castitas blanda est, & quemlibet ad se alliciens, Ier: in Math. cap. 19, Orig: in Rom. ca. 12, lib. 9. Cha­stitie hath a faire shew, and doth easily entice any man to it, saith Ierome, and Origen, Potest aliquis de Castitate plus sa­pere quàm oportet sapere, A man may haue a better conceit of Chastitie, than hee ought to haue; and that the Fathers sometime went beyond the bounds of sobriety in this point of doctrine, let Chrysostome serue for example, who writes thus in his first Homilie vpon Mathew, Chrysost: in Math. Hom. 1. Haec ipsa coniunctio maritalis malum est coram Deo, non dico peccatum, sed malum, This verie coniunction of married couples is euill before God, I do not say it is sin, but euill. And yet presently after in the same place he sayth, Non potest fierie vt vna eadem­que res pro parte sit iustitia, & pro parte peccatum, aut enim to­ta est iustitia, aut totum est peccatum, quia libido in maritis & adulteris res vna est. It cannot be that one & the same thing, should be partly righteousnesse, and partly sinne, but it must be either all righteousnesse, or all sinne, because lust in ma­ried persons and adulterers is one thing. You shall haue another example out of the west, I meane out of Tertullian, who though he were a Priest himselfe, as Ierome witnesseth, Descrip: eccle­siast: lib. 1, ca. 11. Tertul: lib. de exhort. ad ca­stitat. and maried too, as appeareth by his Booke written to his wife, saith notwithstanding, In matrimonio deprehendo, quae stupro competunt, In matrimonie I finde some things, which are competent to adulterie. And againe, Nuptiae ex eo con­stant [Page 134] quod est stuprum, Marriage consisteth of that which is whoredome. The like vnciuill out-roads against Gods ho­ly ordinance, may you finde in Ierome against Iouiniane, and Heluidius, and in his Letter to Gerontia, and in some other of the ancient Fathers, and therefore in all equitie you must thinke they are not fit Iudges to determine either of Priests marriage, or vowes of Chastitie.

Howbeit, let vs heare what they say, The first is Ambrose, whose reason (drawn from the Priests vnder the law) is now nothing worth among vs, where neither of the Sacraments is so often to bee attended vpon, but that your Priests, for ought may appeare, haue time inough to be purified in, nei­ther was this often baptizing and communicating general e­uery where, or most where in Ambroses time. Againe, what impuritie or pollution can there bee in the true and lawfull vse of marriage? doth Saint Paul say, [the bed is vndefi­led, Hebr. 23, 4. De bono con­iug. cap. 11. Socrat. hystor. lib. 1. cap. 8.] and Austine, Sancta sunt corpora coniugatorum fidem si­bi & domino seruantium? The bodies of married folkes are holy, if they keepe their faith betweene themselues, and to the Lord. And doth not Paphnutius that worthy Confes­sor, say in the hearing of all the Fathers in the Counsell of Nice, Viri cum vxore legitima concubitus, castimonia est? The companying of a man with his lawfull wife, is chastity? Ve­rily, I see not why I may not answere Saint Ambrose, as the voice of God from heauen answered Saint Peter in the like case, [those thinges that God hath purified, pollute thou not.] I am sure Ignatius giueth him a sharper answere, [...], Act 10, 15, & 11, 9. ad Philadelph. That is to say, Hee that calleth lawfull copulation and procreation of children, corruption and pollution; that man hath the apo­staticall Dragon, the Diuell dwelling in him.

Thirdly, wee must vnderstand that those legall impure things were not so, all of them in their owne nature, but so layd apart by Gods lawe as vncleane to signifie the inward puritie, that God required in the soules and spirites of them that approached vnto him, for there is no other reason of [Page 135] worth why a Conie, Leuit. cap. 11. or a Hare should be more vncleane than a Bull, or a Cow, or why a Duck or a Goose should be more pure, than a Swan or a Hernshaw. And this appeareth by the generalitie of Gods graunt or Patent giuen to Noah, Genes. 9.3. and his Sonnes in the ninth of Genesis. Now this outward bodily puritie was requisite in all that medled with Gods mysteries both priest and people, 1. Sam. 21, 4. Exod. 19.15. as that noble priest Abime­lech teacheth, who would not suffer Dauid and his men to eat of the hallowed bread of God, vnlesse they had beene cleere before for some good time, from the companie of their wiues. Here-hence then we learne three things; first, that as meat, so marriage of it selfe polluted not, no not in time of the law, but because the ceremonial law which then had place, had so appointed. Secondly, that if it were to bee obserued still in this point of companying with wiues, then not onely the Priest that ministreth, but the people that receiueth, should bee subiect vnto it; nay, ra­ther the people than the priest, because the priest hath no such particular commaundement. And thirdly, that out­ward cleanesse appointed in the law, Lib. 1. Epist. 4. signified inward puri­tie, and so Cyprian applyeth it in one of his Epistles. Now those outward shadowes, hauing serued out their prenti­ship, are now made free, and may not still be counted sha­dowes vnder the Gospel, wherin the thing signified by them, is required of God with open face without any ceremoniall obscuritie, Imagines transeunt admipletae, Tertul. de Monog. definitiones perma­nent adimplendae, imagines prophetant, definitiones gubernant, the figures passe away being fulfilled, or definitions remaine to be fulfilled, that figures prophecie, but the definitions go­uerne. Cap. 21, 17. &c. There be a number of blemishes reckoned vp in Le­uiticus, whereby the seed of Aaron was made vncapable of offering the bread of his God, yet haue they no place in the ministerie of the Gospell, further than to signifie how free it should be from the blemishes of the soule.

But to send Ambrose away with his quietus est, 1. Cor. 23, & 24, &c. Exod. 30.7, 8. wee must vnderstand that before Dauid in the end of his raigne ap­pointed the courses and orders of the Priests, and Leuites; [Page 136] the high Priest himselfe was to offer incense morning and euening, and otherwise to minister in the tabernacle, yet is it cleere, that hee abstained not from his wiues compa­nie, Quest. 82. but begate Sonnes and Daughrers, and this doth Au­stine acknowledge vpon Leuiticus, where hee demaundeth how the high Priest could offer incense dayly morning and euening, which by reason of sicknesse incident, and the due­tie of marriage hee must intermit? and then he answereth, that God might preserue him in health for his seruice, and that the high Priest might haue prerogatiue aboue other men, not to bee defiled by the act of matrimonie; yet this last answere pleased him not, Retract. lib. 2. and therefore in his retracta­tions he saith, that the high Priest after morning Sacrifice might vse his wife, and then wash his clothes and purifie himselfe against the euening, which vtterly defaceth Am­broses argument, for if the Priests vnder the law had such a prerogatiue, as the act of matrimonie could not make them vncleane, or being made vncleane in the morning, might so hastily purifie themselues before euening: then verily their example yeeldeth no reason against the marriage either of popish Priests, or our Ministers.

The Answere.

CHrysostome is next, but it is not an Homilie, but an Epi­stle to Theodorus which is here fathered vpon Chryso­stome; howbeit, supposing that Chrysostome is the true author & founder of that counterfeit Epistle. I answere that hee is so hot in his amplifications that hee forgets himselfe, for if the marryage of one that hath vowed chastitie bee the sinne of adulterie: how can it bee so farre worse than adulterie, as he saith it is? and if it be so farre worse than adulterie, as an Angell is greater and better than a mortall man; then why may not we pronounce likewise, that it is not the sin of adul­terie? but (I beseech you) consider what fellowship of An­gels the promise of chastitie ioyneth vs into: doth not the holy Ghost say as much, and more a great deale of all the faithfull children of God married, and vnmarried? [Yee are come vnto Mount Sion, Hebr. 12.22. and to the Citie of the liuing God, the celestiall Ierusalem, and to the fellowship of innu­merable Angels, & to the companie of the first borne which are written in heauen, and to God the Iudge of all, and to the spirites of the iust and perfect men, and to Iesus the me­diator of the new testament, and to the blood of sprink­ling that speaketh better things than that of Abel, &c.] We see here that a true Christian is ioyned in fellowship with innumerable Angels, and farre more than that comes to, yet I would reckon him for a hastie disputer, that durst not ven­ter thereof, to conclude, that euerie man or woman, taking a wife or a husband after profession of Christianitie, defi­leth himselfe with the sinne of adulterie, and farre worse too.

Howbeit, it may bee Chrysostome had respect to that place, where our Sauiour saith, Math, 22.30. &c. Mar. 112.25. that in the resurrection they neither marrie, nor are married, but are as the Angels of God in heauen; if it be so, then his votaries wait, till the re­surrection be past, and then lay claime to the fellowship of [Page 138] Angels, for being as the Angels of God, is not there spo­ken of onely in regard of not marrying, but also in regard of not dying, Cap. 20.36. as Saint Luke expoundeth it, looke the Bible ouer and ouer, and you shall neuer read that Angels refused man or womans fellowship because they were married, or accepted of it, because they were vnmarried and single, and therefore these vehement speeches of the ancient Fathers, especially Chrysostome, may not be racked to the vttermost, but charitably and friendly construed to the best, Chryso­stome here in his vehemencie, goeth beyond measure in re­prehending, & the Christians of his time in their lightnesse went beyond measure in vowing, yet the East-Church then neuer exacted any such promise or vow, but left euerie Chri­stian man and woman to their owne libertie, Socrat. histor: lib. 5. cap. 21. Illustres pres­byteri in Oriente, & Episcopi etiam, modo ipsi volluerint, nulla lege coacti ab vxoribus abstinent, nam non pauci ipsorum, dum Episcopatum gerunt, etiam liberos ex vxore legitima procreant, Famous Ministers in the east, yea, and Bishops also are not compelled by any law to abstaine from wiues, for many of them euen when they are Bishops, doe beget children of a lawfull wife.

Well, but whats that charitable construction you speake of? I pray you let vs heare it, and so an end. Content, Chry­sostome saith, that such marriage is worse than adulterie, and Austine saith as much, yet Austine expoundeth himselfe presently in the same place, De bono vidu­it. cap. 9. saying, Non quod ipsae nuptiae vel talium damnandae iudicentur, daemnatur propositi fraus, dam­natur fracta voti fides, &c. Not that the verie marriages e­uen of such men as ought to be iudged damnable, their de­ceitfull purpose is damnable, the breach of their vow is dam­nable. And againe, Damnantur tales, non quia coniugalem fidem posterius inierunt, sed quia continentiae primam fidem irri­tam faecerunt, Such are condemned, not because they did af­terward enter into the state of mariage, but because they brake their former vowe of continencie. You see heere howe Austine expoundeth himselfe, and therefore if wee charitably expound Chrysostome after the same manner, we [Page 139] haue as good warrant as Austine can giue vs, neuerthelesse to speake yet more precisely, wee may not take the breach of faith to be so great a sinne, as the giuing of it vnaduised­ly beyond our strength, if a man should vow to fast bread and water all the dayes of his life, and afterward feeling his strength to faile, should fall to better fare, for the recouerie of the same: there is no reasonable man that will find fault with him for breaking that yoake of bondage at the last, but for thrusting his necke vnto it at the first Si quis castita­tem promiserit, & seruare non poterit, In Leuit. lib. 3 pronunciet peccatum su­um, (saith Cirill in one place,) If any man haue promised continencie, and cannot keepe it, let him confesse his sinne, But he saith againe in another place, In Leuit. lib. 16. Oportet commetiri do­ctrinam pro virium qualitate, & huiusmodi, qui non possunt ca­pere sermonem de castitate, concedere nuptias, We must measure the doctrine according to mens strength, and graunt marriage to such as cannot receiue that doctrine of conti­nencie.

The Answere.

EPiphanius comes in now to tell his tale, and our Papist bearing good will to traditions, englisheth quae tradi­ta sunt, which were deliuered, those traditions which were deliuered, and yet when all comes to all, those traditions are found in Paul to Timothie and Titus, and they are as cleere against the necessitie of single life in a Bishop, as can be de­sired. Paul saith, [a Bishop must be the husband of no more but one wife] at once, Cap. 3.2. Tit. 1.5.6. for thats his meaning in the first to Timothie. Now in the Epistle to Titus, he willeth Titus [to ordaine Elders in euerie Citie,] such as hee found irre­prooueable, the husbands of one wife, &c. euidently tea­ching vs, that marriage was then no barre against being a Bishop, or a Minister of the Gospell: and so saith Chryso­stome, Ita pretiosa res est, vt cum ipsa etiam possit quis ad san­ctum Episcopatus solium subuehi, In Tit. Serm. 2 It is so precious a thing, that a man with it may be aduanced to the seat of a Bishop: A­gaine [Page 141] hee translates, qui abvna continuit, which hath con­tained from one, him onely that was neuer married, adding the word [onely] to the text, and peruerting the meaning of Epiphanius, who thought it commendable for a man to renounce his wife, ob continentiam, for continencie, and tels vs elsewhere, that Priests were chosen, Here. 61. cont. Apost. in com­pend. doctr: eccles. ex his qui continent à proprijs vxoribus, aut ab vnis nuptijs viduitatem seruantibus, Of these which contained from their owne wiues, or after their first wiues were dead, liued vnmarried. Whereby we learne that he speakes here of such as kept their bodies cleere from the vse of their wiues, which Saint Paul forbids, 1. Cor. 7, 3, &c. not of such as were neuer married, as our Papist dreameth.

But what be these Canons that Epiphanius talks of? where may a man finde them? what Councell decreed them? what words are they conceiued in? I feare me, when all is done, they will prooue Apochryphall, agreed vpon in some Pro­uinces where the chiefe Bishops had beene wanton, and written loue Sonnets in their youth, as one Heliodorus did, who to prooue himselfe a new man in his age, caused such Canons to be made against the Ministers of Thessalia. The like may be thought of such Bishops as were chosen from among such as led vitam solitariam, a solitarie life; Socrat: eccles: hyst. lib. 5, cap. 21. Epiphan: in Comp: doct: eccles. as the maner was in Epiphanius time, who being magnified in the world for their chastitie, thought good to impose it as a law vpon their brethren. Againe, it might well be, that these Canons being borne and bred among heretickes, such as the Montanists, Catharans, Apostolickes, and such like, were layd hold vpon by Catholicke Bishops with some mitigati­on, thinking it no small disgrace, that heretickes should goe beyond them in a vertue: then so highly esteemed in the world, howsoeuer it was, Sorom: lib. 6, 23. Epiph: her: 26 yet Epiphanius being brought vp solitarily among the Monkes of Aegypt and Palestine, and hauing escaped the filthy enticements of the Guostickes, to his great prayse; it is no maruaile though hee were some­what hardly conceited of the marriage of Priests, and talke flyingly of I wote not what apochryphall Canons, whose authors knew them not, nor they their authors.

[Page 142]Wherefore, till these hidden Canons be brought to light, it is fit other knowne Canons should take place. In the Ca­nons of the Apostles, thus it is written, Episcopus, aut pres­byter, Can. 5. aut Diaconus vxorem suam pretextu religionis ne abij­ciat, aut si abiecerit à communione segregetur, etsi perseueret de­ponatur, Let not a Bishop, Elder, or Deacon put away his wife, vnder pretence of religion, if he doe, let him be bar­red from the communion, if he continue in his error, let him be deposed. Can 4. In the Councell of Gangra thus, Si quis discer­nint presbyterum coniugatum, tanquā occasionē nuptiarum quod efferre non debeat, & abeius oblatione abstinet, Anathema sit, If any man iudge of a maried Bishop, as if because hee is maried, he ought not to minister, and doe abstaine from his ministration, let him be accursed. In the Councell of An­cyra thus, Can. 9. Diaconi, si in ipsa ordinatione protestati sint, velle se matrimonio copulari, hi, si postea vxores duxerint, in ministerio maneant, Deacons, if in their verie ordination, they protest that they will be maried, if afterwards they do marie wiues, ought to remaine in the ministerie. In the Councell of Con­stantinople thus, Dist. 31. quoni­am, & Canon. Tertullianis Conc. 6. can. 13 Si quis praesumpserit contra Apostolicos Cano­nes aliquos praesbyterorum & Diaconorum priuare à contactu & communione legalis vxoris suae, deponatur, similiter & praesbyter aut Diaconus, qui religionis causa vxorem suam expellit, excom­municetur, If any shal presume contrary to the Canons of the Apostles to separate any Elders, or Deacons from the com­panie and societie of his lawfull wife, let him be deposed, & likewise the Elders or Deacons, which vnder colour of Re­ligion putteth away his wife, let him bee excommunicated. To be short, when the Councell of Nice purposed to seuer Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons from the vse of their wiues, Paphnutius thought it vnlawfull and intollerable so to doe, and brought the whole Councell to bee of his minde, Serem. lib. 1.22. Paphnutij sententiam approbauit Concilium, & de hac nullam legem tulit, sed eam in cuius (que) arbitrio, non in necessitate poni voluit, The Councell did approoue the sentence of Paph­nutius, and made no decree concerning this matter, but left it in euery mans choise, and made not a matter of necessitie.

[Page 143]But what should we talke of sincere Canons, in such mat­ters as bee ouer-ruled and determined in the Canon of the Scripture? for if it be doubted whether a Bishop may marie; Paul saith, to auoide fornication, let euerie man haue his wife, and in another place, [mariage is honourable among all. And againe, [if thou takest a wife, thou sinnest not. 1. Cor. 7.2. Heb. 13, 4. 1. Cor. 7.28. 1. Cor. 7, 9, 39. Tertul. de Mo. nog.] If you doubt whether hee may marrie a second wife, Paul saith, [if they (meaning widowers) cannot abstaine, let them marrie,] and Tertullian after his fall to Montanisme, obiecteth against Christians, that their Bishops maried se­cond wiues, quot & digami president apud vos. If you doubt whether a Minister may containe from the vse of his wife, Paul saith, [let the husband giue to his wife due beneuo­lence.] And againe, [the husband hath not the power of his owne bodie, but the wife. 1. Cor. 7, 3. 1. Cor. 7, 4. 1. Cor. 7.5.] If you doubt whether a Mi­nister may containe with his wifes consent; Paul saith, [de­fraud not one another, except it bee with consent for a time, that ye may giue your selues to fasting & prayer, and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your inconti­nencie:] & in another place, [art thou bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed. 1. Cor. 7.27.] Marke well these places of holy Scrip­ture, and then iudge how sincere those Canons were, that Epiphanius talkes of, I doubt you will easily finde, that the word of God and sinceritie would agree better.

Now, where this reuerend Father speakes of the Super-eminencie, and excellent dignitie of Priest-hood, as if the honourable institution and ordinance of God did abase it; we must needs thinke him too partially affected: for the A­postles of Christ, whome our Sauiour aduanced to the high­est degree that euer was in ministerie, were almost all ma­ried men, & to say that Peter was not as excellent an Apo­stle as S. Iohn, and that the maried Priests of the primitiue Church were not as excellent men in all respects, as the rest that liued singly without wiues, is more than any godly lear­ned man will venter to auouch; yet notwithstanding, the dignitie of Priest-hood, doth not free any mortall man from the daunger of fornication, neither will Satan therefore [Page 144] cease to tempt vs, because we are Priests, but set himselfe so much the rather to mooue vs to incontinencie: and ther­fore if a man, feeling his owne weakenesse, shall sooth him­selfe with an ouer-weening conceit of the excellencie of his Priest-hood, and so neglect the remedie that God hath ap­pointed; how can that man promise to himselfe any assi­stance from God to keepe him from falling?

Thus much briefly of euerie point of Doctrine, and euery testimonie thereto belonging, whereof you may gather, that this second wound is easily healed, I hope the disagree­ment that was between Paul and Barnabas, doth not prooue them to be of two Churches, or either the one or the other to be a damned hereticke. The ancient Fathers were men, and might erre, and did erre many of them together, euen whole Councels, as it is apparant to the world, yet God for­bid that therefore wee should count them Heretickes, and throw them ouer-boord out of the Arke of Gods Church; No friend Papist, though wee discent from them in some points of doctrine, as they likewise discented from such as were before them, yet all of vs hold one foundation, and it was no part of their beleefe, that such as held not these points, were out of the Church, neither is it any part of our beleefe, Ad Fortunati­anum Epist. 111. that such as held them, were damned Heretickes; Austine saith, Catholicorum, & laudatorum hominum dispu­tationes velut scripturas Canonicas habere non debemus, vt no­bis non liceat, saluae honorificentiae quae illis debetur hominibus, aliquid in eorum scriptis improbare at (que) respuere, We ought not to haue the same, in regard the discourses of Catholicke and laudable men, as the canonicall scriptures, that we may not sauing that honour which is due to those men, disallow and refuse something in their writings. And when Ierome had alleaged the authoritie of sixe or seuen Fathers against Au­stine, Epist: 19. in defence of Peters hypocrisie; Austine is bold to answere him thus, Solis eis scripturarum libris, qui iam Cano­nici appellantur, didici hunc timorem honorem (que) deferre, vt nullum eorum authorem scribendo aliquid errasse firmissimè cre­dam: Alios autem italego vt quantalibet sanctitate doctrina (que) [Page 145] praepalleant, non ideo verum putem quia ipsi ita senserunt, sed quia per illos authores canonicos, vel probobabili ratione, quòd à vero non abhorreat persuadere potuerūt. I haue learned to giue this reuerence and honour only to those bookes of the holy scriptures, which are now called Canonicall, to beleeue as­suredly, that no authour of them did erre in writing any thing. But others I read, so that of how great learning or holinesse soeuer they be, I do not therefore thinke a thing to be true because they thought so, but because they were able to perswade it by those Canonicall authors, or by some pro­bable reason agreeing with the truth.

The Answere.

WEe are come now to a great deale of void talke of the errors of the fathers, and doctors, and Austines retracting, and wauering in the doctrine of purgatorie. The first is confessed, not simply, but vnder hope that wee will also confesse that the doctors were not onely admired for their learning & pietie, but accepted also for the princi­pall workemen, next vnto the Apostles, which cannot be confessed without iniurie to the Euangelists, and other that had extraordinary graces, and power from aboue a long time after the Apostles, Iren. lib. 2. 28. & lib. 5. 1. Eusebius histo. eccles. lib. 3. 34 & lib. 5. 7. 9. as appeareth in Irenaeus and Euse­bius, besides that we may not thinke a few fathers, whose writings remaine extant, to be excellenter workemen than a thousand other, whose writings are lost, and their names forgotten in the world. These few doctors whose bookes wee haue, were worthy men, yet one more worthy than [Page 151] another, and no one of them nor all of them together, to be preferred to those that were before them. And heere let it be obserued that Tertullian, as he is a Montanist, is set down for one of of these admirable doctors of the Church, for he erred not in the case of second marriages while he was a Catholicke doctor, but when he was an hereticke and fal­len from the Church; nay see further how intollerably hee defaceth the fathers, when he goeth about to magnifie, for if they looke vpon them to handle high mysteries beyond their capacitie, and were caried in heat against heresie to the contrary extreame, verily their learning and piety may well be doubted of, and if they could not see the trueth vnlesse it were called into question, & determined by the Church, there is no great reason why they should be so highly ad­mired, and had in reuerence.

What man? why say you so? the doctors had their er­rors and imperfections no otherwise then Saint Peter had, whom Saint Paul withstood to his face, and will you not admire and reuerence Saint Peter? Yes, sir, that I will, for wee speake not here of errors in liuing, which neuer any but Christ was free from, but errors in writing, whereof Saint Peter was neuer guiltie, and therefore bethinke you how, this suspicious and irreuerend calling of Saint Peters credite into question, to cloake the fathers errours withall, can be the part of a good Catholicke, we beleeue Saint Peter neuer erred in any thing he hath written, but you shal hardly driue vs with all your wharting; to beleeue the like of our new writers, or your old doctors, much lesse the au­tors of prophane Histories, but why keepes this man all this doe, trow ye? would he haue vs pinne our religion vpon the sleeues of the doctors, and ciuill Historiographers too? will nothing else please him? Yes, hee tels you he will be content if you will credit an vniforme consent and harmo­nie of diuers doctors, producing themselues for eye witnes­ses, and a thousand other like witnesses with them: well, when I heare those thousand other speake, then he shall haue my answere, In the meane while haue we commended [Page 152] to him, and tell him that I cannot beleeue a million of thou­sands, when they say nothing; and heere, I beseech you, note how his wit ebbes, and his tongue flowes beyond the bankes of all possibilitie, they write saith he, that pray­ing and sacrificing for the dead, was vniuersally obserued in all Churches, they were present themselues and hard and saw it done, and thousands moe with them &c. Quid audio? Did they heare and see it done in all Churches vniuersal­ly? this is no lie, my Lord, and thats all that I will say to it.

Now touching Austine, we so much the more admire him, in that he retracted his former errors, as many as hee could well-obserue in his owne workes, neither doe wee doubt, but that he would haue retracted more if he had li­ued longer, & could haue considered deliberately of all that hee had written, howbeit he wrote diuers bookes after his [retractations], neither could he so narrowly looke into e­uery corner of his workes, but that many things worthy to be [retracted], slipt through his fingers: to be short, his [retractations] do euidently shew, that as he was a good and an honest minded man, so he altered in opinion as hee grew in yeeres, and was better instructed by long experience and trauell in diuinitie, and so consequently, that he is so farre forth to bee receiued, as he buildeth vpon the founda­tion of the canonicall scripture, such building will stand without [retracting], all other doctrine, as it begins in man, so man may end it, neither can it stand any longer than man listeth to vphold it.

This wauering in the matter of Purgatorie, our Papist denieth impudently, & cryeth in an agony, shew me where Saint Austine doth deny purgatorie, as I haue shewed you he hath affirmed it? alas, he hath shewed Austines affirma­tion, out of the counterfeit sermons and Homilies neuer ei­ther written or preached by Saint Austine, which is a most simple kind of shewing, but why doth he aske where Au­stine denieth purgatorie, and neuer asketh one word where he doubteth of it? These be fine fellowes that aske after [Page 153] such points as they thinke they can hold talke of, and can suffer other things to passe by, as if they saw him not: How­beit our Protestant heere cites a place out of Austines Ser­mons, De verbis Apostoli, which is little to the purpose, Serm. 4. yet notwithstanding where our Papist answereth, that he know­eth no third place for infants, but either heauen or hell; what doth he else but disclaime his [limbus puerorum] which Pope Innocent the third, Cap. maiores extra de bapt. and most of the schoolemen place aboue purgatorie, and will needs haue it to be eternall: but to helpe out our Protestant, let him take these places out of Austine against purgatorie, Hypognost. lib. 5. Primum locum fides Catholico­corum diuina authoritate credit regnum esse caelorum, secundum Gehennam, vbi omnis Apostata vel à fide Christi alienus aeterna supplicia experietur, tertium penitus ignoramus, imo nec esse in scripturis sanctis inueniemus, The first place the Catholicke faith doth by the authoritie of God beleeue to be the king­dome of heauen, the second to be hell, where euery Apo­stota and alien from the faith of Christ, shall be punished e­uerlastingly, a third place we knew not at all, neither shall we find in the holy scriptures that there is any such. Againe, In Ioh. tract. 49. Habent omnes animae cum de seculo exierint diuersas receptio­nes suas, habent gaudium bom, mali tormenta; sed cum facta fuerit resurrectio, & bonorum gaudium amplius erit, & ma­lorum tormenta grauiora, quando cum corpore torquebuntur, All soules after they goe out of the world, haue diuers re­wardes, the good haue ioy, and the bad torments; but when the resurrection shall come, the ioy of the good shall bee greater, and the torments of the bad more grieuous, when they shall be tormented with their bodies. Againe, In Psal. 32. Si texit peccata, noluit aduertere, si noluit aduertere, noluit animaduer­tere, si noluit animaduertere, noluit punire, noluit agnoscere ma­luit ignoscere, If we haue hid our sinnes, he would not see them; if he would not see them, he would not iudge them; if he would not iudge, he would not punish; he would not acknowledge, he had rather pardon them. Againe, Ad Hesick. epist. 80. In quo quem (que) inuenerit suus nouissimus dies, in hoc eum comprehen­det mundi nouissimus dies, quoniam qualis in die isto quis (que) mo­ritur, [Page 154] talis in die illo iudicabitur, In Psal. 25. In what state any mans last day findeth him, in the same shall the last day of the world take him, because as a man dieth in this, so shall he bee in that day adiudged. And againe, Valeat mihiad perfectionem liberationis tantum praetium sanguinis Domini mei, So great a price of my Lords blood is sufficient for my perfect deliue­rance. Sermon. 57. Adde to these, if you will, out of the Sermons Ad fratres in Heremo, Scitole quod cum anima á corpore euellitur, statim aut in Paradiso pro meritis bonis collocatur, aut certe pro peccatis in inferni Tartara praecipitatur. Know this, that so soone as the soule is taken out of the bodie, by and by it is either placed in Paradice for good deserts, or else certainly cast headlong into hell for sinnes.

Thus haue I shewed where Austine doth denie purga­torie, and though our Papist list not to heare of that side, yet let me shew him likewise where Austine doubteth of purgatorie, Encharid. cap. 69. Tale aliquid post hanc vitam fieri incredibile non est, & vtrum ita sit quaeri potest, That some such thing is done after this life it is not incredible, and whether it be so done it is a question. Ad dulcit. quaest. 1. & lib. de fide & oper. cap. 16. de ci­uit. dei lib. 21.26. Ibid. cap. 27. Againe, Siue in hac vita tan­tum homines ista patiuntur, siue etiam post hanc vitā talia quae­dam iudicia subsequuntur, non abhorret quantum arbitror, ara­tione veritatis iste intellectus huius sententiae, Whether men suffer these things onely in this life, or whether after this life some such iudgements follow, this vnderstanding of this sentence is not without some shew of trueth as I suppose. Againe, Siue ibi tantum, siue hic & ibi, siue ideò hic vt non ibi, saecularia, quamuis à damnatione ventalia, concremantem ignem transitoriae tribulationis inueniant; non redarguo, quia for­fitan verum est, Whether things committed in this world though veniall in respect of damnation, doe find a transito­rie fire of tribulation here onely, or here and there, or ther­fore here because not there; I seeke not to conuince, because perhaps it is true. And againe, Quis sit iste modus, & quae sint ista peccata, quae ita impediunt peruentionem ad regnum Dei, vt tamen sanctorum amicorum meritis impetrent indulgen­tiam? difficilimū est inuenire, periculosissimum definire, ego certè [Page 155] vs (que) ad hoc tempus, cum inde satagerem ad eorum indagationē, peruenire non potui, What is this manner, or what be those sins which so hinder the comming to the kingdome of hea­uen, that yet the merite of holy friends may obteine pardon for them? it is very hard to find, and very perillous to deter­mine: surely though I haue laboured earnestly to search, yet can I not find it out vntill this time.

These places be sufficient to shew Austines wauering in the matter of purgatorie, and if it were not for shame, I would shew also where he affirmeth it, because our Papist hath shewed it so sillily, yea, but it were a hard matter, to perswade any man to credite you herein: then let him cre­dite his owne eyes, let him looke vpon the places, and con­sider of them, and they, I trow, will be sufficient to persuade so much as you say; not so, I hope, for Austine was a great learned man before his conuersion, and after his conuersion the most learned doctor, and subtilest disputer that euer flourished in the Church, what then? altering in iudgement is an argument of increase in learning, and our Papist him­selfe told vs a while agoe, that to consist in errour is brutish if therefore Austine say one thing at one time, and after­ward, vpon better triall and trauell, say otherwise at ano­ther; I doe not see how it can hinder his estimation, much lesse proue him to haue neither learning, wit, nor regard of his reputation, as our Papist here without either learning or wit, hath concluded. What? if a man set downe an er­rour, or many errours in his young dayes, doubt of them in his middle age; and write the cleane contrary when he is of greater yeres and experience; shall he therefore be thought to haue neither learning nor wit, nor regard of his reputati­on? No, friend papist, it would not hurt your reputation a whit, to deny that in a new booke which you affirme in this, and to affirme that which you denie here, and to doubt of that whereof here you seeme to be resolute, remember your owne conclusion, to erre is incident to mans frailtie, but to persist in error, is brutish.

Touching the quickenesse and acutenesse of Austine [Page 156] in disputing: I easily confesse it, for hee was a learned do­ctor, and a most subtile disputer indeed; yet a quicke wit doth soonest fall into contradiction, and the heat of a quick disputer, carieth him sometimes, as our papist telleth vs out of Erasmus, De Genes. ad liter. lib. 10. into the contrary extreame. Austine him­selfe, speaking of Tertullian, saith thus, De Deo noluit aliter sapere, qui sane quoniam acutus est, inderdum contra opinionem suam visa veritate superatur, quid enim verius dicere potuit, quam id quod ait quodam loco, Esse corporale passibile est, debuit ergo mature sententiam qua paulò superius dixerat, etiam Deum corpus esse, ne (que) enim arbitror eum ita desipuisse, vt etiam Dei naturam passibilem crederet, &c. He would not con­ceiue otherwise of God, who indeed because he was of quicke iudgement, sometimes he is ouercome by the sight of the truth contrary to his owne opinion; for what could he speake more truly, than when hee saith in a certaine place, that to be bodily is to be passible, therefore he ought to haue altered that sentence in which he had said a little be­fore, that God is a bodie, for I doe not thinke that he was so vnwise as to thinke that the nature of God is passible. Heere is a contradiction, namely to be bodily is to be pas­sible, and God is bodily, which be the premises of a Syllo­gisme, and if you adde the conclusion, which ariseth of them, Ergo, God is passible, the falsehood of it will prooue the one of them to be false likewise: now the maior is most true, saith Austine, ergo, say I, the minor is false, and so con­sequently the one agreeth no better with the other than truth and falsehood, you will say then, debunt ergo mutare sententiam, it is true, but he changed it not for ought wee know, but left this, and some other contrarieties behind him vnretracted, yet was he still accounted a very learned man, Cyprian when he called for Tertullian, was woont to say, da magistrum, giue me my master, Austine saith, acutus est, he is a quicke and subtile disputer, and Erasmus, Inter Latinos Theologos multò omnium doctissimus Tertullianus, Tertullian was the learnedest by much, In praefat. oper. Hilaric, of the Latine di­uines.

[Page 157]Now, where our papist still goeth on, and tels vs, after his absurd manner, that the Iewes tare the writings of the Euangelists with contrarietie, and that great apparance thereof seemes to be therein: heere is but a seeming of ap­parance against the Euangelists, and therefore, I hope, he is well able to stop any Iewes mouth in that behalfe, and to defend the writings of the Euangelists against seemings of apparance: if he cannot doe the like for the fathers and doctors, then hath he sayd nothing to purpose, but bred a suspition in his reader, that he had rather the Euangelists should miscarie, than the Fathers, and this suspition is yet increased, in that he accounteth the holy Scriptures with­out Churches, Fathers, and Councels, to be the fountaine of all Heresie and Atheisme, for may not a mans fancie mis­lead him in the fathers as well as the Scriptures, and sucke poyson out of the one, aswell as the other? I am sure Dio­scorus crieth out in the Councell of Chalcedon, Ego testimo­nia habeo sanctorum patrum Athanasij, Gregorij, Action 1. Ibidem. Cyrilli in multis locis, ego cum patribus eijcior, &c. I haue the testimo­nie of the holie fathers Athenasius, Gregorie, Cyrill in ma­many places, I am cast out with the Fathers &c. So Eutyches, Ego legi scripta beati Cyrilli, Athanasij, Ibid. Action. & sanctorum pa­trum. So Carosus, Ego secundum expositionem trecentorum de­cem & octo patrum sic credo, &c. I beleeue thus according to the testimonie of three hundred and eighteene Fathers. Heere bee Fathers and Councels alleaged by arrand here­tickes as the grounds of their poyson: but of the Scripture, Ad pompeium cont. epist. Steph. de peccac. me­rit & remiss. lib. 1. 12. Cyprian saith, Si ad diuinae traditionis caput & originem reuer­tamur, cessat error humanus, If wee returne to the head and fountaine of Gods tradition, the error of man doth cease. And Austine, Scriptura sacra nec falli potest nec fallere, The holy Scripture can neither deceiue nor be deceiued. As for the Church he talkes of, if he be straitly examined, he will tell you he meanes the Church of Rome, and so no Scrip­ture, nor enarration of Scripture may goe currant, but that which Rome will affoord vs, thats the Church which hee takes to be, as he said a while agoe, the sure rocke and pillar [Page 158] of trueth, De expresse. verbo Dei. Hosius saith, Si quis habeat interpretationē ecclesiae Romanae de loco aliquo scripturae, etiāsi nec sciat nec intelligat, an, & quomodo cum scripturae verbis conueniat, tamen habet ipsissimum verbum Dei, If any man haue the interpretation of the Church of Rome of some place of scripture, although he neither know not vnderstand, whether and how it doth agree with the words of the Scripture, yet he hath the very word of God. How like you this my maisters? you need talke no more of Fathers and Councels, no, nor of learning, nor wit neither; for the Church of Rome, whether it agree, or agree not with the words of the Scripture, will serue the turne, you may burne your bookes and goe about other businesse, the Church of Rome will watch for you, but sirs, I pray you tell vs? wil your Church of Rome, when she hath giuen vs an interpretation, stand to it like a post, and neuer alter? that would be knowen before we yeeld to this which you vrge vpon vs. Nicho. Casa­nus. No, we dare not promise you that, for we haue a great man, one Nicholas Cusanus once a Cardinall in the Church of Rome, who hath intituled a book which he hath written in defence of the Church, thus, De authoritate ecclesiae, & conciliorum supra, & contra scrip­turam, of the authoritie of the Church, & Councels aboue, & contrary to the Scripture. And in that booke he hath set downe, Praxis ecclesiae vno tempore interpretatur Scripturā vno modo, & alio tempore alio modo, nam intellectus currit cum praxi, &c. The practise of the Church interpreteth the Scrip­tures at one time one way, and at another time another way; for the vnderstanding runneth with the practise. Mar­ry then, fie vpon you and vpon your Church, our owne fan­cie will prooue as good an interpreter, as either you, or your Church.

Now let vs consider of his three differences betweene the errors of the Fathers, & those points of doctrine where­of we haue disputed, I pray you looke vpon them, and you shall find the two first to be the same, and the third little differing from the other two: the Fathers errors, saith he, were priuate opinions, thats the first, one doctors opinion, [Page 159] thats the next; reiected of the Church, thats the last. Now, if this word reiected, be no more but not receiued or allow­ed, for the Church neuer condemned euerie seuerall errour of the Fathers by publicke sentence or decree; then all three is but one, for one Doctors priuate opinion, includeth a non-allowance or approbation of the Church. Againe, the fore­sayd points of Doctrine, (saith hee) are set downe as recei­ued and practised through the vniuersall Church, thats the first; vniformely consented vnto by many, thats the next; re­ceiued and practised by the Church, thats the last; these three likewise, for ought may appeare may goe for one: and therefore this man delights rather in number than weight, and layeth his learning abroad, as wide and side as hee can, to fray men rather, than to teach them.

Howbeit, if wee giue him his differences to be as many as he would haue them, what differences be they? Marry they be differences of errours from points of doctrine, and what bee those points of Doctrine, true or false? Marry they bee true, else the Church would not receiue them and praise them: Why then you see this man laboureth to shew differences betweene errour and truth; which is no contro­uersie, let him shew those points of Doctrine to be true, and we will easily yeeld that they differ from errour, but if they be errours and falshoods in religion, as they be indeed, the consent of the Church, cannot helpe them to bee truths. It is a fond conceit, to imagine that the Church receiueth & practiseth nothing that is erroneous, for if the Church can­not tread awrie, why saith Chrysostome, In oper. im­perf. in Math. hom: 49. Ne ipsis quidem eccle­sijs credendū est, nisi ea dicant vel faciant quae conuenientia sunt scripturis, We are not beleeue the Churches themselues, vn­lesse they say and doe those thinges which are agreeable to the scriptures. If an vniforme consent of many cannot erre, why saith Austine, Ad Paulum Apostolum, ab omnibus qui aliter sentiunt literarum tractatoribus prouoco, Epist. 19, ad. Ierom. I appeale to the Apostle Paul, from all other learned men that thinke other­wise. If the vniuersall Church can decree nothing but truth; why saith the same Austine, Ipsa plenaria concilia quae fiunt [Page 160] ex vniuerso orbe Christiano, De bapt. cont. Donat. lib. 2. cap. 3. saepe priora posterioribus emendan­tur, Euen of plenarie Councels which are gathered out of all Christendome, the former are mended by the latter. And Gregorie Nazianzen, Ad procopi­um. Concilia non minuunt mala, sed augent potius, Councels doe not diminish, but encrease euils rather. As for the Church of Rome which our Papist takes for his vniuersall Church, In Math. Can. 8. S. Hilarie giueth vs a rule to cast her state by, saying, Ecclesiae, intra quas verbū Dei non vigilauerit, nau­fragae sunt, The Churches, in which the word of God doth not watch, haue suffered ship-wracke. Wherefore, if there be any grace in the Romish Church, let mee councell her, not to bragge and vaunt that Christ hath prayed for Peters faith, Luk. 22.32. Math. 16.8. Luk. 22.57. and that she is built vpon a rocke that cannot be sha­ken: for Saint Peters faith fayled almost as soone as our Sa­uiour had done praying, and therefore there is no doubt, but she may be shaken. This is Saint Pauls councell too as well as mine, for thus hee writes euen to the Church of Rome, when she was in better case than she is now, by size ase and the dice, Rom. 11.20. &c. [Thou standest by faith, bee not high minded, but feare, for if God spared not the naturall branches, take heed he spare not thee, for if thou continue not in Gods bountie, thou shalt also be cut off.]

Thus much of his differences; now let vs see how he doth apply them to the assoyling of our Protestants obiections: [You may see the reason, (saith he) why the Doctors are to be reiected in the one,] thats in their priuate opinions, [and receiued in the other] points of doctrine, [and why we doe not exclude them out of our Church, as you haue excluded them out of yours.] You shall not need exclude them, for they neither are, nor euer were, or will bee of your Church, and where you say [wee haue excluded them;] it is but a cast of your tongues office, which cannot be made good by any of your differences, we exclude their errours, not them, and these points, how generally soeuer they were receiued and practised, are no better than errours; Howbeit, (I be­seech you) obserue the temeritie of this man, who talkes thus hand ouer head of receiuing Fathers, and yet some of [Page 161] these Fathers he nameth were schismatickes and heretickes, as Tertullian for example, who was not [homo ecclesiae, Contr. Heluid. Austin. de Haeres.] as Ierome saith, and Saint Austine hath registred him for an Hereticke and Schismaticke too in his Booke de haeresibus ad quod vult Deum; neither is Hilarie, howsoeuer the Romish Church hath made him a Saint, ouer hastily to be receiued, De Trinitate libr. 10. if he spake as hee thought, that Christ had Corpus ad patien­dum, non naturam ad dolendum, A bodie to suffer, not nature to be grieued; Ibid. lib. 12. & alibi. and knew not whether the holy Ghost were God proceeding from the Sonne, as well as the Father, and to be adored as well as promerited; Hierom. Ierome against the Luci­ferians, saith, That Hilarie did Segregare se cum suis vermi­tis, & nouum balneum aperire, Did separate himselfe with his wormlings, and open a new bath, and wrote Bookes against the Church, De haereticis rebaptizandis, Of rebaptizing He­retickes.

Obserue further, that our Papist reiects Ireneus, Tertulli­an, Hilarie and Cyprian, in their priuate opinions which he specifieth, and receiueth them in the other points in con­trouersie, whereof they say nothing at all, neither hath hee alleaged any one of these Fathers to that purpose, but Ter­tullian onely, who speakes not of these points after the po­pish fashion. Is not this a proper reiecting and receiuing thinke ye? he reiecteth for a [priuate something,] and recei­ueth for an [vniuersall nothing,] yet the more vniuersall an errour is, the more hurtfull it is, and therefore till he prooue these points to bee true, as well as vniuersall, hee doth con­firme, not answere our obiections, yet were they neuer any of them so vniuersall, as Cyprians rebaptization, Austines necessitie of cōmunicating, and some other errours of the Fathers. Thus haue I taken away his answeres, and vnloo­sed his knots without cutting, and shewed him withall that not one cause, but his hanging of his Faith and Religion vp­pon the Doctors authority, is desperate.

The Answere.

HEere our Protestant layeth three capitall errours to the charge of the Church of Rome. First, iustificati­on by our owne workes, and the merites of dead Saints. Secondly, free-will to merite heauen. Thirdly, forgiuing sinnes by the power of the keys, Mar. 2, 7, & Luk. 5, 21. which the Scribes and Pha­risies, as blind as they were, knew and professed to be blas­phemous, [herein I will answere you (saith our Papist) as briefely as I can,] yea, but when shall wee haue your briefe answere?] Marry [first I must desire you (saith he) to vn­derstand rightly the doctrine of Rome in these points;] Well, but will you then be so good as [answere vs as briefely as you can?] Yes marrie will I, for I will say nothing at all, and thats as briefe an answere as can be deuised. Thus this mans pleasure is to delude vs with expectation of an an­swere, which hee (God wote) is not able to afford vs, and therefore we must be content with [we hold,] and [we con­fesse,] and whats that thinke you? Marry, [the iust man of­fendeth dayly, the death of Christ is sufficient for the sinnes of the whole world, and our righteousnesse is as a polluted cloth,] which is sufficient to perswade any man that is not contentious, that we are not iustified by our workes, for that which is sufficient needeth not to be pieced and patched with a polluted clowt of our righteousnesse, yea but our workes iustifie not so long as they bee polluted, but after they are clensed in the blood of Christ, and so they are both accep­table and meritorious: Alas man, thats not the question whether they be acceptable and meritorious; but whether they iustifie, and the filly fellow himselfe, telling vs that our workes are clensed in the blood of Christ, tels vs withall, that we are iustified not by our workes, Act. 15, 9, & Mar. 7, 21. that want clensing, but by faith in the blood of Christ, which clenseth our works, and makes them acceptable; howbeit, all the world together in a heape will neuer be able to proue, that works [Page 165] polluted with an arrogant conceit or intention of iustifying, can bee possibly clensed in the blood of Christ, his blood can no way else clense that which euacuateth his crosse and passion, but by taking it away quite, and reforming the proud conceits of such heretickes.

And touching meritoriousnesse, the verie name is odious to the seruants of God; Paul saith, 1. Cor. 4, 4. Luk. 17, 10. [I know nothing by my selfe, yet am I not thereby iustified,] and our Sauiour hath taught vs to say, wee are vnprofitable seruants, and haue done that which our dutie bound vs vnto, when wee haue done all that is commaunded, but what should I labour to take away merites, which this man himselfe groundeth vp­pon the promise of Christ? Genes. 15, 6. Ro. 4, 3, 9, 13. Galat. 3.18, 22, &c. I hope the promise of Christ was free, and must be layd hold vpon by faith, not workes, as Abraham did, for hee beleeued God, and it was coun­ted to him for righteousnesse. Againe, this promise may bee vnderstood of temporall rewards, which the Lord be­stoweth oftentimes vpon such as neither be, nor euer shall be iustified, beside a cup of cold water, Cap. 20, 23. can merite no great matter, vnlesse it bee such water, as wee read of in the Epi­stle to the Hebrewes, Math. 10, 42. Mar. 9, 41. adde to this that our Sauiour speakes of doing good to his Disciples, whom hee sent to preach in the Cities of Israel, for so Marke expoundeth it. To be short, here is a reward spoken of, which we denie not, for he that freely promised it, is true of his word and promise that hee made to a thousand generations, Psal. 105, 8. yet here is nothing sayd of Iustification, I hope no man lookes to bee iustified by giuing a cup of cold water.

But now (I trow) hee comes to the point, [grace goeth before, (saith he) and draweth vs vnto good works, our will consenteth, and worketh together with the grace of God, and so God crowneth his owne gifts in vs, as Saint Austine saith:] Indeed Saint Austine saith, Coronat dona sua, non me­rita tua, He crowneth his owne gifts, not thy merites; spea­king of the Apostle Saint Paul. And againe, Coronat in no­bis Deus dona misericordiae suae, God crowneth in vs the gifts of his owne mercie. But whats this to [iustification by [Page 166] workes?] As for that which he addeth in the same tractate, that [we receiue grace for grace;] he tels you that the first of these graces is faith, Accepimus de plenitudine eius, primò gratiam; rursum accepimus gratiā pro gratia, quam gratiam pri­mò accepimus? fidem, in fide ambulantes, in gratia ambulamus, We haue receiued of his fulnesse, first grace; againe we haue receiued grace for grace; what grace haue we first receiued? faith, walking in faith, we walke in grace. Againe, Si conse­quutus es istam gratiam fidei, eris iustus ex fide, iustus enim ex fide viuit, If thou hast obtained this grace of faith, thou shalt bee iust by faith, for the iust shall liue by faith. Moreouer thus he expounds gratiā pro gratia, Ipsa fides gratia est, (saith he) Et vita aeterna gratia est pro gratia, Faith it selfe is grace, and eternall life is grace for grace. And againe, De plenitu­dine eius omnes accepimus, de plenitudine misericordiae eius, de plenit adine bonitatis eius accepimus, quid? remissionem pecca­toram vt iustificaromus ex fide, & in super quid? gratiam pro gratia, idest, prohac gratia, in qua ex fide viuimus, recepturi samas aliam, Of his fulnesse haue we all receiued, of the ful­nesse of his mercie, of the fulnesse of his goodnesse haue we receiued: What? forgiuenesse of sinnes, that we may be iu­stified by faith, and what more? grace for grace, that is to say, for this grace, in which we liue by faith, we shall receiue another. Now then, where our Papist talkes of [grace go­ing before,] let him tell vs plainely without clowding whe­ther it be faith or not: if it bee faith; then hee pleads our cause, and lets his owne fall; if it bee not faith, then let him intreat Saint Austine to hold his peace.

Moreouer, see (I pray you) how handsomely this mans dreames agree with the word of God: For whereas Saint Paul saith, Rom, 3, 24, & 11.6, Eph. 2, 8 9, we are iustified freely by grace, and not of works, hee is not ashamed to talke of grace going before, which draweth vs at length, to worke together with the grace of God, as if the grace of God in Christ Iesu, were not able to iustifie vs without the assistance of our workes, or as if the Apostle did not euidently exclude workes, when hee sayth in one place, wee are freely iustified, and in another, if by [Page 167] grace, not of workes, else were grace no grace. Besides this the same Apostle saith, that if Abraham were iustified by workes, he hath wherein to reioyce, but no man, Rom. 4, 2. Rom. 4, 2. & 3 27, Eph. 2.9. Rom. 4, 5. &c. Rom. 4, 4. Rom. 11.35. De Rom. pont. lib. 3. cap. 23, & Aurithes. 2 cont. Chytrae­um. no not A­braham himselfe, hath any thing wherein to reioyce with God. Ergo, no man liuing is iustified, or euer was or shalbe iustified by workes. No, no [faith is accounted for righte­ousnesse to him that worketh not, saith Saint Paul,] he that worketh hath his wages, neither by faith nor by fauour, but by debt, and who is he that hath giuen, or can giue to God first, and he shall be recompensed?

A man would thinke such euident testimonies as these be, should bee past the reach of all wrangling; Yet Bellar­mine tels vs, that Abrahams works, which Paul speakes of, proceeded from nature without either faith or grace, Cap. 12.3. & cap. 15, 6. Cap. 11.8. & Act. 7.2. &c. as if Paul had spoken of Socrates, or Aristides, not of Abraham the Father of the faithfull; yet I am sure he had the righte­ousnes of faith before he was called Abraham, as appeareth in Genesis, and the Author to the Hebrewes testifieth, that hee had faith before hee went out of Chalde, to dwell in Charran. Now (I beseech you) must wee needs thinke, that Paul speakes of such workes as Abram wrought in Mesopo­tamia, when hee and his Father Terah serued strange Gods, Iosh. 24. not of such as Abraham wrought afterward, when hee was called away from his Fathers house, kinred, and countrey?

Moreouer, the same Iesuite tels vs, that there is a se­cond kinde of workes, which proceed from faith and Gods grace, and those works doe but disponere ad reconciliationem cum Deo, & remissionem peccatorum. Dispose vs to reconcilia­tion with God, and remission of sinnes. But what doth faith and Gods grace in the meane time? doe they still bring forth good workes, and good workes a disposition, and so neuer actually reconcile vs? Marrie looke the Tridentine councell for your answere, Ideò gratis iustificatur homo, quia nec fides nec: opera, iqu [...] iustificationem praecedunt, ipsam me­rentur, nimirum ex iustitia quasi eiusmodi operibus esset debita iustificatio, A man is therefore freely iustified, because nei­ther faith nor workes which goe before iustification doe de­serue [Page 168] it, to wit, of right, as if iustification were due to such workes. Well sayd, hold you to that, and goe no further, for wee teach not, that faith properly iustifieth, but layeth hold vpon Christ, that iustifieth the vngodly, & makes them blessed by imputation of his righteousnesse without works, as Paul teacheth out of Dauid, Rom. 4, 5, 6. but here followeth a [tamen,] that marres all, Fatemur tamen haec opera, quatenus ex fide & adiutorio diuino proficiscuntur, diuina esse opera, & suo modo me­reri, hoc est, impe [...]rare peccatorum remissionem, Yet we confesse that these workes, as they proceed from faith and the help of God are diuine, and doe merite after their manner, that is to say, obtaine remission of sinnes. But (I beseech you) tell vs, how did this man speake of them before? did hee not vnderstand them as proceeding from faith and Gods grace, when hee sayd, Haec apera non dicimus esse meritoria, We doe not say that these workes are meritorious. And out of Trent Councell, Ideò gratis iustificatur homo, quia nec fides, nec opera merentur iustificationem quasi eiusmodi operibus esset debita, A man is therefore freely iustified, because nei­ther faith, nor workes which goe before iustification doe de­serue it, to wit, of right, as if iustification were due to such workes. Thus wily beguiles himselfe, for though the truth sticke in his teeth; yet all his tamens, and quasies, and quate­nusses cannot smother it. Wherefore let those men talke of grace, as holily as they lift, yet when they attribute their iustification to their workes of the law, either in part or in whole; they abrogate the grace of God, either in part or in whole, and so either diminish or disanull the glorie of the crosse of Christ. Well, saith Austine, Detur totum Deo, tu­tiores viuimus si totum Deo demus, Galat. 2, 21. De bono. per­seuer. cap. 13. non autem nos illi ex parte, & nobis ex parte commuttimus, Let vs giue all to God, wee liue more safe if we giue all to God, and not if wee com­mit our selues to him in part, and in part to our selues. And so Bellarmine confesseth, De Iustificat. lib. 5, Cap: 7. when the fit is ouer; for thus hee writes, Propteer incertitudinē propriae iustitiae, & periculū inanis gloriae tutissimum est, fiduciam totam in sola Dei misericordia & benignitate repanere. Because of the weakenesse of our owne [Page 169] righteousnesse, and danger of falling into vaine glorie, it is the safest way for vs to repose our whole trust in the mercie and fauour of God also.

Touching free-will, or libertie of will, we shall speake of it anone in his order and place, in the meane time see, I pray you, how your Papist doth part stakes with God, wee attri­bute nothing to our selues, (saith he) but the libertie of our will. And againe, [wee acknowledge our free-will to bee the gift of God,] so free-will is attributed to God, and to our selues too. Now let him tell vs whether this gift come by nature or by grace, if by nature, then grace is excluded, vnlesse ye confound nature and grace with the Pelagians: if by grace; then our will must not worke together with the grace, as he sayd before, but follow after grace, as an effect and fruit of regeneration, but to leaue this till anone, wee are nowe come, from our owne merites, to the merites of dead Saints, which laboured so hard in their life time, that they earned heauen for themselues, and left a surplussage to helpe others, which is cleane contrarie to the law of works, which saith, doe this and thou shalt liue; Rom. 3.27. and not let ano­ther doe it, and thou shalt liue: we must either bee saued by the law that saith, Doe this, or by the Gospell that saith, Rom. 10.5, 6, 7, &c. Be­leeue this, Nihil est tertium, There is no third: No is? doth not the Lord spare the wicked for the righteous sake, that liue among them? yes that he doth, but hee doth not saue, one for anothers sake; temporall bleshngs, and eternall sal­uation are not both of one weight, but what of that? mar­ry euen so God doth many times spare the liuing for the righteous sake that are departed hence. This fellow hath forgotten what hee should prooue, for the question is not whether the Lord doth temporally spare the liuing for the dead sake, but whether the merites of dead Saints can saue them from hell, and bring them to heauen; this is a farre greater matter, 2. Reg. 13. than the deliuerance of the Children of Is­rael from the hands of the King of Aram, vnlesse the King of Aram were the Deuill of hell: Howbeit, Rom. 11.28, there is ano­ther place in the new Testament, that fits his turne better, [Page 170] where it is said, Rom. 11.28. Lib. 2, 13. that the Iewes were beloued for the Fathers sakes, yet notwithstanding both this place, and that other of the Kings, is not to be vnderstood of the Fathers merits, whereof Abraham himselfe had none to spare, Rom. 4, 2. but of the free promise and couenant made vnto the Fathers, for so it is written expresly to the Romanes, Rom. cap. 11.27. Cap. 13.23. and more expresly in the second of Kinges, though your Papist heere hath no list to see it, and therefore where hee inferreth that a man may as well pray to God to be mercifull to his sinnes for Saint Pe­ter and Saint Pauls sake, hee ouer-reacheth as tyred Hack­neys vse to doe, vnlesse hee can shewe, that God made the like couenant with Peter and Paul, that hee made with the Fathers.

Yea, but there bee other places, where not onely the co­uenant is remembred, but also the iustice and holynesse of the Fathers and Patriarkes, as for example in the Psalmes, [Lord, Psal. 132.1: remember Dauid with all his humilitie or afflicti­on.] This is one of Bellarmines quotations, more easily an­swered than quoted, De sanct. beat­tit. lib. 18. cap. 19. 2. Sam. 6. & 1. Cron. 13 & 15. for this is a Psalme appointed to bee sung in Dauids life time when the Arke was brought from Baalath in Kiriathiarim, or, from the house of Obed Edom; and whereas the same man alleadgeth another place out of the Kings, where it is sayd, that for Dauids sake, the Lord gaue King Abijam a light in Ierusalem, 1. Reg. 15.4, 5 that is, a Sonne to raigne after him, because Dauid did that which was right in the sight of the Lord. I answere, that this was a condition annexed vnto the couenant made with Dauid and his poste­ritie, 1. Cron. 28.7. as Dauid himselfe giueth it out againe to Salomon his Sonne.

Touching Austines Bookes of Meditations, I will medi­tate vpon the matter before I admit it for Canonicall; yet me thinkes crauing mercie for our sinnes at Gods hand for Pe­ter and Pauls sake, and attributing saluation and deliuerance from all euill to the merits of dead men, bee they Patriarks, or bee they Apostles, or Prophets, or whosoeuer else liuing or dead, being so derogatorie to the passion and obedience of the Sonne of God, should be forborne for verie shame, if [Page 171] the feare of God cannot bridle vs. De Sanctor: beat. lib. 1. ca. 17. Bellarmine a Captaine Papist sets downe this for a generall rule; Sancti non sunt im­mediati intercessores nostri apud Deum, sed quicquid à Deo no­bis impetrant, per Christum impetrant, Saints are not imme­diate intercessors for vs with God, but whatsoeuer they ob­taine of God for vs, they obtaine it by Christ. I hope per Christum, by Christ, doth include Christi merita, Christs merites, for so the same popish Doctor confesseth, willing vs to note three seuerall persons in our prayers, Ʋnam ipsiùs Dei, à quo petimus; alteram Christi, per cuius meritum peti­mus; tertiam eius qui petit, One of God himselfe; the second of Christ through whose merite we aske; the third his that asketh. And so concluding, that neither the first, nor the second may be attributed to dead Saints: and therefore to craue mercie, not for Christs sake, but for Peter and Pauls sake, and to bee deliuered from all euill, not by the merites and mediation of Christ, but by the merites of the Pro­phets, or the Patriarkes, or whosoeuer else dead or aliue, is not allowed by his owne Doctors.

Yea, but the last words of that Chapter, De Sanctorum beatitudine, teach you, that we mention Saints in our pray­ers after this forme, Concede nobis Deus, intercessione huius sancti, tale beneficium per Christum dominū nostrum, Grant vs O God, by the merite of such a Saint, such a benefit through Christ our Lord. I graunt you that this is set downe as a patterne of Catholicke prayer, wherein by intercession, he vnderstandeth not onely the prayers, but also the merites of dead Saints, for so wee learne before in the same Chap­ter, in these words, Sancte Petre da mihi hoc & illud tuis preci­bus & meritis, Saint Peter giue me this or that, by thy pray­ers and merits: Also per Christum, is as much to say, as per Christi preces & merita, by Christs prayers and merits, as I shewed before. Now shew vs how you can tel, that either hic sanctus, or haec sancta hath or will pray, or pawne their me­rits for you? and if you know it not; what makes you so bold, as to speake more to God, than you know to bee true? Againe, the liuing know not, whether the merits of these or [Page 172] those Saints bee drawne drie, for they cannot supererrogate more than they haue, Bellar. de purg. lib. 2. cap. 2▪ haue still, and giue still, they cannot without a new supply, and supply they can haue none after this life: so likewise the dead know not whether their pray­ers and merites shall preuaile, vnlesse they knew who bee chosen, who bee reprobates, that cannot bee knowne, be­cause God hath sealed it, as Paul saith, the foundation of God of remaineth sure, 2. Tim. 2, 19. and hath this seale, the Lord know­eth who are his, &c. Wherefore either the Saints pray, and bestow their merits at all aduenture without faith, or as­surance of Gods acceptance, which Peter Lumbard likes not of: Lib. 4, distinct. 45. or else this popish doctrine, is but a dreame of a drie Summer. Thirdly, it would be knowne, when these super­fluous workes are made acceptable to God? Is it as soone as the breath is out of the Saints mouth, or before, or else a week, or a month, or a yeere after, or when else? if before, or presently after his death, as they must either begin then or neuer, then Christ hath done that which belongeth to him alreadie, so as wee need not now conclude our praiers with per Christum dominum nostrum. Last of all, I would know whether any of these Saints, that had so many spare works, did themselues in their time, pray after Bellarmines popish fourme? did they pray that other Saints, that were dead be­fore them, would procure them this or that benefit, which they had need of? either they knewe their owne stoare, or they knew it not; if they knew it, they were much to blame to ioyne prayer with the Church after Bellarmines patterne, and so to lauish needlesly the treasure of the Church, wher­as they might haue prayed, as neuer any durst pray, Lord, graunt me this or that, for my owne merites sake; if they knewe it not, and so continued all their life time, howe come wee to knowe it when they are dead? Iwis, it is not the Popes Canonization that can stoppe this gappe, for it cannot bee shewed that euer Pope presumed to canonize any one Saint before the time of Charles the great, and if there had been any certaine rule to dubbe Saints by in Au­stines time, hee would neuer haue sayd, Multorum corpora [Page 173] honorantur in terris, quorum animae torquentur in Gehenna, Many mens bodies are honoured in earth, whose soules are tortured in hell. Wherefore it behooues our good Catho­lickes to looke better about them, before they put them­selues and their prayers to so dangerous a venter.

Now in conclusion, let mee intreat you to note further, how these men open their owne shame there, where they would faine hide it, for when Bellarmine knewe, that the Church of Rome prayed to the Virgine Marie, and the A­postles not as secondarie mediators, but principals: thus hee slubbers vp the matter, as though it were but a triflle, De Sanct. be­at. lib. 1. ca. 17 Non agimus de verbis, saith he, sed de sensu verborum; nam quan­tum adverba licet dicere, S. Petre miserere met, salua me, ape­ri mihi aditum coeli, &c. dummodo intelligamus salua me, & mi­serere mei orando pro me, da mihi hoc & illud tuis praecibus & meritis, Wee deale not about the wordes, but about the sense of the wordes; if we respect the wordes, it is lawfull to say, Saint Peter haue mercie vpon me, saue me, open mee the gate of heauen, so that wee vnderstand, saue mee, and haue mercie vpon me, by praying for me, and giue me this and that by the prayers and merits. As if he should say, Be sure ye name Peter, or the Virgine Marie, or the Saints to whome ye pray, else all is marred, but God the Father, 1. Tim. 2, 5. and Christ his sonne, the onely mediator between God and man: You may vnderstand them as accidentall implements, that may adesse & abesse sine interitu subiecti. You neede not care greatly for naming them, for the holy Virgine Gods mo­ther, and Peter, and Paul, and the rest of Gods friends, will excuse the matter. Thus these men can remember dead Saints, and let God, and his Christ go, as though they coun­ted it but a small matter to forget God, Psa. 9.17. Rom. 10, 9.10. and knewe not that we must confesse the Lord Iesus with our mouthes, as well as beleeue in him in our hearts. Howbeit, they that forget the mediation of Christ in their Masse-booke, Durand. lib. 4. parte 2. vide Sect. 8. where they pray for the acceptation of his bodie and blood, and that God would looke vpon them, propitio ac sereno vultu, (for they cannot pray pro Christo, and per Christum both at once) [Page 174] will hardly remember it when they are let loose, to wander in the wildernesse of Bellarmines Intelligamus.

The Answere.

ABsolute [freewill] either to good or euill is hardly to be found vpon the earth, yet our papist heere makes as though he had found it, and might hold it by Saint Austine, though Saint Iames and Saint Paul say no, howbeit mans [freewill] may begge his bread well inough, if it haue no better friends then Saint Austine, for where that good fa­ther in his Tractats vpon Iohn, Tract. 26. saith that the father draweth vs vnto Christ, as a greene bough draweth a sheepe: you must vnderstād that this green bough resembleth our faith, as our Sauiour expoundeth it, Ioh. 6.64. &c. Ad simplician. lib. 1. quaest. 2. and Saint Austine else where is bold to say, Quis habet in potestate sua, vt sua mens tali vi­so tangatur, quid voluntas moueatur ad fidem. Who hath it in his owne power, that his mind might be touched with such a sight, whereby his will may be moued vnto faith. Againe, you must presuppose that the sheepe is hungry, and is not a­fraid of him that holdeth & offereth that bough, otherwise he may hold it till his armes ake: Matth, 5.6. 1. Iohn 4.18. Ephes. 3.12. and euen so it fareth with the sheepe of Christ, for they are first brought to hunger and thirst after righteousnesse, and to haue the loue of God which casteth out feare, before they will regard the pleasant pasture that is offered vnto them, and therfore the same fa­ther else where saith, that the Lord draweth men, De correct. & gratia ad Va­lantin. cap. 14. Ibid. cap. 2. Suis vo­luntatibus, sed quas ipse operatus est, By their wils, but yet such as himselfe hath wrought in them. And againe, Ideo volunt, quia Deus operatur vt sic velint, Therefore they will, because God worketh that they will say so. Besides this, the sheepe is naturally drawen to feede vpon a greene bough whē she is hungry, but our hunger after righteousnes is not naturall, but Gods extraordinary and supernaturall blessing, Matth. 5.6. which may not be confounded with nature, vnlesse we will shake hands with Pelagius the hereticke; and yet if you con­sider of that generall flying power to choose or refuse good or euill, which the papists call grace, for feare of Pelagia­nisme: [Page 176] you shall hardly discerne it from nature, and there­fore well saith Saint Austine against Pelagius, and Celestius, and the papists their successors, Lib. 1. cap. 10. Non satis est confiteri qua­lemcun (que) gratiam, sed illam qua per sua deamur, qua trahamur, & qua detur ipsum bonum, It is not inough to confesse any kind of grace, but that by which wee are perswaded, by which we are drawne, and by which the good it selfe is giuen.

Touching the place in Austines Homilies; I answere in a word that [eligere] and [repudiare consililum diaboli] is [nostrum] the one by nature, Ephes. cap. 2.23. the other by grace: by nature we are the children of wrath, and walke after the counsell of the deuill, but by grace wee haue some freedome from that captiuitie, yet would I wish you to haue a more parti­cular regard of this allegation: man saith your papist can doe no good worke except he be drawen, thats true, and in­spired from aboue, thats true to, and what then? marry then after this drawing and inspiring, it is in the election of mans free will either to obey or refuse, and how is this prooued? marry, you shall heare it proued out of Austines Homilies, Diabolus dat consilium, Homil. 12. sed Deo auxiliante, nostrum ect eligere vel repudiare quod suggerit, The deuill giueth vs counsaile, but it is in our power, the Lord assisting vs, to chuse or refuse that which he suggesteth. Is not this a worthy proofe? the question being of Gods worke in vs, Cap. 3. he answereth that the deuill doth counsell vs, and we by the freedome of our wils, may either [ eligere or repudiare quod suggerit] what? dare you accuse Saint Austine of so hainous a crime? they be Austines very words. But by your leaue, you must prooue that before it will be beleeued, I am sure Saint Austine would not say that we may choose, that which the deuill entiseth vs vnto, by the helpe of God, indeed the regenerate man may [repudiare consilium diaboli] by the helpe of God, but I am sure God will not helpe him to yeeld to his sug­gestions. The child of God thats borne againe hath freewill in some measure, but to good, not to euill, and so haue the wicked, but to euill and not to good, and both their wils [Page 177] are therefore free, because neither the one is constrained to that which is good, nor the other to that which is euill, but farre was it from Saint Austines thought, that God should affoord any helpe to choose the councels and suggestions of the deuill.

As for quenching the spirit, 1. Thes. 5.19. which Saint Paul some­where speakes of, I answere that the Greeke word signifieth keeping vnder, or shaking, as wel as extinguishing, & so the word quenching, is sometime taken in our English tongue: secondly, the same Apostle saith else where, Eph. 4.30. greeue not the spirit, which may well be interpreted, slake not, or quench not, or keepe not downe the power of the spirit, yet it fol­loweth presently, by whom ye are sealed to the day of re­demption. But let it signifie (vtter extinguishing and put­ting out) in this place to the Thessalonians, yet me thinkes he should know what Beza answereth in his Annotations, Annot. in. Thes. epist. 1.5.19. where this obiection is extinguished, thus he obiecteth. Si in electis nun (que) extinguitur, frustrà hoc praecipitur, If it be ne­uer quenched in the elect, this precept is giuen in vaine. Then he answereth, Imo verò ideo non extinguitur in electis, quoniam eum fouent, vt autem foueant, istis exhortationibus ad­ducuntur, Yea rather therefore it is not extinguished in the elect, because they cherish it, and that they doe cherish, they are prouoked by these exhortations. And hereof it com­meth that Saint Paul addeth immediately in the very next verse, despise not prophecying, that is, Vers. 20. giue heede to Gods holy word preached and opened vnto you, whereby this fire of the spirit was first kindled, and must still be kept bur­ning in your hearts; moreouer it may be considered, that the Prophet Dauid, Psal. 51.10, 11, 12. euen in the same verse where he calleth vp­on God to create in him a new heart, addeth further, and re­nue a right spirit with in me, & where he saith, cast me not away from thy presence, then he saith also, take not thy ho­ly spirit from me, & he had not so soone sayd, restore to me the ioy of thy saluation, but he sheweth againe, that all was not lost, saying, stablish me with thy free spirit. And so we find the creating he speaketh of, to be a renuing, the not ca­sting [Page 178] of him away, to be the not taking of Gods holy spirit from him, and lastly restoring to be establishing.

One dusty reason yet remaineth, which our papist shakes out of the bottome of his bag, in these words, if there be no power in man to repent, or to doe good workes, why doth the Scripture exhort vs to repentance, newes of life, and good workes, and threaten to punish vs for not do­ing that we cannot doe? 2. Tim: 2.25 doe you aske why? marry Paul tels you why, saying, instruct them that be contrary min­ded, proouing if God at any time will giue them Repen­tance, that so they may come to amendment out of the snare of the deuill, where that we learne cleerely that God by the meanes of the Scripture draweth vs to repentance and amendment of life. Repentance and remission of sins was gi­uen freely to Israel, Act. 5.31 Act: 11.18 likewise God graunted repentance to the Gentiles; if we at this day be neither Iewes nor Gen­tiles, or if God worke not in these dayes, as he did in those: then may we brag of our freedome and manumission, if not, then are they ouer-sawcie that honour themselues with the spoyles of God.

And touching Gods threatnings for not doing that we haue no abilitie to performe, who but a blind papist can or will therefore charge God with iniustice, considering that he gaue vs abilitie in the loines of Adam, though now by his fall, Iohn 15.5 and ours in him, we haue lost it. Our Sauiour when he saith, without me yee can doe nothing, doth he there­fore leaue off exhorting, conuincing, and threatning? or doth S. Paul hauing once testified that it is not in him that willeth, Rom 9.16. nor in him that runneth, but in God that sheweth mercy; neuer after exhort men to will and to run aright, nor threaten them, if they happen to will and to runne amisse? when Christ saith, Mark. 1.15 repent and beleeue the Gospel, must we needs conclude against the plaine euidence of Gods word, that repentance and faith, Phil: 1.29. & hebr: 12:2 Ad simplicia­num lib. 1. quest. 2. are not the gifts of God, but the home-spunne fruit of our owne wils? wherefore I will con­clude this point with Saint Austine, whom our Papist here seemeth to follow as his speciall guide, Quis potest rectè vi­uere [Page 179] ac iustè operari, nisi iustificatus ex fide? quis potest credere­nisi aliqua vocatione, hoc est, aliqua rerum testificatione tan­gatur? Quis habet inpotestate sua, vt sua meus tali visu tanga­tur, quo voluntas moueatur adfidem? Who can beleeue ex­cept he be touched with some calling, that is to say, some testification of the things, who hath it in owne power that his mind should be touched with such a sight, Despir. & li­ter. Cap. 34. whereby it may be moued to faith? Againe, Cur hnic ita suadeatur, vt persuadeatur, illi autem non ita: duo sola occurrunt quae mihi placeat respondere, ô altitudo diuitiarum, Rom: 11.33 Rom: 9.14. & nunquid iniquitas est apud deum? cui ista responsio displicet, quaerat doctiores sed caueat presumptores. Why this man is so instructed that he is perswaded, but another is not so, I haue found two onely answeres that doe please me: O the depth of the riches, and is there iniustice with God? he that is not pleased with this answere, let him seeke him learneder instructers, but withall let him take heede he find them not presumptuous. Now let your Papist tell Saint Austine, that the one was persua­ded, the other not, because it is in mans freewill either to obey or refuse, for so he may prooue a presumptuous foote like his fellowes, but better learned then Saint Austine will he neuer be.

Yet for all this, we must read Saint Austine for our full satisfaction, as if Saint Austine were a patrone of such li­centiousnesse, or as if a man liuing or dead, by his owne au­thoritie could fully satisfie any Christian conscience, yet S. Paul in that place which Austine expounds, Ephe: 3.13. writes to rege­nerate men that had their wils freed by the mercy of God, & were to go on by the same mercy to a further perfection. Austine saith, Quod peto à vobis, rogo det vobis, De verbis A­post. serm. 7. That which I require of you, I desire for you. And againe, Hoc à Deo pe­tit, quod ab hominibus exigit, This he desireth of God, which he requireth of men. And againe, Det vobis, inquit, non enim habetis, nisi det vobis, Let him giue you (saith he) for you haue it not, vnlesse he giue it you. Yea but what say you to Irenaeus, Hilarie, and Epiphanius, doe not they satisfie you? No, nor any man else that is not a Pelagian hereticke, [Page 180] Irenaeus saith plainely, Lib. 4. cap. 72. Omnes eiusdem sunt naturae, & poten­tes retinere & operari bonum, & potentes rursum amittere id, & non facere, All men are of the same nature, and able to re­teine and to worke that which is good, and able againe to loose it, and not to doe it. Againe, Liberae sententiae ab initio est homo, est liberae sententiae est Deus, cuius ad similitudinem factus est, Man had freewill from the beginning, and God hath freewill, according to whose similitude he was made. To be short, the same Father, when he saith, In fide liberum & suae potestatis arbitrium hommi seruauit Dominus, God hath reserued to man in faith, a will free and in his owne power. What doth he else but place faith in the free will and power of man, than which nothing can be more contrary to the doctrine of the Gospel, Hilar. in psal. 118. neither is the testimonie of Hilarie and Epiphanius of much better regard, for when the one saith, Est à nobis cum oramus exordium, The beginning is from our selues when we pray. Idē. in psal. 2. Againe, Vnicui (que) nostrum libertatem vitae sensum (que) permisit, He hath graunted to euerie of vs libertie of life and sence. And againe, Voluntas nostra hoc proprium ex se habere debet, vt velit Deus incipienti cre­mentum dare. This our will ought to haue proper of it selfe, that when it beginneth, God would giue increase. And the other, Epiph. heres. 16. Possumus peccare & non peccare, It is in our power to sinne, and not to sinne. And againe, Circa hominem est bona operari, aut malas res appetere: It it in mans power to doe good, or to desire euill things. I see no inckling of any grace, but onely of the naturall force and power of mans will, I will not charge these auncient fathers with all that may be gathered out of their writings, but this I may say, vnder benedicite, that such sayings as these, were the first grounds and foundations of the Pelagian heresie, August: contra Iulianum Pe­lag. lib. 1. ca. 2. Pelagia­nis nondùm litigantibus securius loquebantur, saith Austine, the Fathres spake with lesse circumspection, before they were combred with Pelagianisme.

The Answere.

THe Keyes now remaine to bee scoured from popish rust, and to this purpose wee may consider that Saint Peters keyes are first taken in hand, Math: 16.19. Iohn 20.23. Bellar. de pon­tif. and then those keyes that were committed by our Sauiour to the Apostles; yet if you will beleeue Bellarmine, the first place out of Matthew, doth but promise that Saint Peter should be a keykeeper (I will giue the &c. and the other out of Iohn, Rom. lib. 1. cap. 2. giueth the A­postles no more but Potestatē ordinis ad remittenda peccata, Power of order to remit sins. Thus must your papist either be at oddes with Bellarmine, or else giue claues iurisdictio­nis, the keyes of iurisdiction, onely to Peter and his succes­sors, and to the rest nothing but potestatem ordinis, and so consequently he must find other places besides these, or else his keyes will neither open nor shut as he would haue them. Wherefore let him consult with Bellarmine his master, be­fore he presume ouer farre vpon the doctrine of the Church of Rome, and he will tell him that the keyes both of order and iurisdiction were giuen to Peter in these words, Iohn 21.15. &c. Iohn 20.21. &c. Pasce oves meas, Feede my sheepe: and to the other Apostles in these, as my father sent me, so send I you, and in these words to receiue the holy Ghost, whose sinnes ye remit, they are remitted vnto them, and whose sinnes yee reteine, they are reteined, and here note by the way, how solemnely Father Bellarmine tels vs that our Sauiour in these two places gaue Summam potestatem; Chiefe power to all his Apostles, Sed cum quadam subiectione ad Petrum, But with a kind of sub­iection to Peter. As if [summa potestas] and [subiectio] could possibly agree together, or as if Peter himselfe receaued that same high power among the rest, vsed it, Cum quadam subiectione ad se ipsum, with a kind of subiection to himself. Such ridiculous absurdities doe men runne headlong into, [Page 184] when they are ouer hastily carried away with their owne dreames.

But goe too, let vs intreat the Cardinall to beare with his friend, and to procure him a dispensation to vnderstand these two places, which he citeth, after his owne liking; what hath he than to say? Marry then I say, our sense is more literall then yours, well, and what saith he else? Nay we say, that our Sauiour by these words, doth giue autho­ritie and commission to his disciples and their successors to forgiue sinnes, not by their owne power and authoritie, but by the power and authoritie of him whose commissio­ners they be. Yea, but haue they commission to forgiue sinnes wheresoeuer they find it, or else in them onely that God is willing to forgiue? Their commission I trow, is not vniuersall to all without discretion, and to dreame who it is that God purposeth to shew mercy vnto, is beyond the capacitie of any man liuing, Papist to Protestant; he that hath a letter of Atturney from his master to giue possession of, and knoweth the man to whom he is commaunded to conuey his masters interest, Rom. 9.18. but our master hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will hee hardeneth, neither may your popist Priest presume that hee knoweth the mind of the Lord, Rom. 11.33.34. and can find out his wayes and iudge­ments which be insearchable, and so this silly papist heere confesseth, when he saith, that man giueth remission to pre­tended penitents, which God who seeth their hearts, doth not ratifie: now then conferre this power thus exercised hand ouer head to good and bad, as papists vse it, with our preaching or publishing remission to penitent sinners, and then iudge whether is most like to be the better.

And because he bragges of the literrall sense, that it makes wholly for him, let him tell mee how the generall words of the Scripture, whatsoeuer thou shalt bind, what­soeuer thou shalt loose, whosoeuers sinnes yee remit, and whosoeuers sinnes ye retaine, can be literally restrained to such onely as be truely penitent? if this cannot be done without a quatefication, let him not bragge that his sense is [Page 185] more literall than ours, we preach remission to all that be penitent, and so open vnto them the kingdome of heauen; to the impenitent, Rom. 2.8. and such as contentiously disobey the truth, wee denounce indignation and wrath, Esay. 5.14. and so shut heauen, & open hell wide, that their glory, their multitude, & pompe may descend into it, neither can this sense seeme strange to such as be conuersant in the writings of the Fa­thers, Thus saith Tertullian, Contr. Marci­on lib. 4. Esa. lib. 6. cap. 14. De Cain & Abel lib. 2. cap. 4. In Oper. im­perf. in Mat. cap. 23. Quam clauem habebant legis doctores, nisi interpretationem legis, What keyes had the do­ctors of the law, but the interpretation of the law. Thus Ierome, Soluunt Apostoli sermone Dei & testimonijs scriptu­rarum, & exhortatione virtutū. The Apostles doe loose, by the word of God, and testimonies of the Scriptures, and ex­hortation vnto vertues. Thus Ambrose, Remittuntur pec­cata per verbum Dei, cuius Leuites est interpres, Sinnes are remitted by the word of God, of which the minister is in­terpreter. Thus Chrysostome, Clauicularij sunt sacerdotes, quibus creditum est verbum docendi & interpretandi scriptu­ras, The key-keepers are the Priests, vnto whom the word of teaching and interpreting the Scriptures is committed.

But it may be our papist, by comparison of his inter­pretation and ours will find out the truth, thus hee writes, you build your faith vpon the opinion of Luther, or Cal­uine, or the conceit of your owne braine, and we vpon the authoritie of the auncient fathers, and continuall practise of the vniuersall Church through the whole world continued from the Apostles, and remaining to this day. Heere is a tale told with all circumstances pressed downe, and run­ning ouer, for hee might haue left out either [vniuersall Church,] or, through the whole world; either continued, or continuall practise, or remaining to this day: if he had not purposed to dazle vs with emptie wordes, but is this the comparison he crakes of? Now surely we must needs bee hard hearted that cannot yeeld to such comparisons, can you prooue that wee build our faith vpon Luther, or Cal­uine, or our owne braine? or doe you compare together our faith and yours, when you compare the opinion and [Page 186] conceit of Luther or Caluine, with the authority of the an­cient Fathers? Alas good Papist, you cannot but know that our faith is no mans conceit or opinion, and it is a shame for you to confesse that you build your faith vpon the authoritie of the Fathers, or practise of the Church, be it neuer so ancient; I hope the fathers builded not vpon o­ther Fathers that were their ancients, but vpon the infalli­ble word of God, and what should ayle vs, that we may not vse that meanes the Fathers vsed before vs? you may talke long inough of Fathers and traditions, and your toppe gal­lant [Church of Rome,] as though no one Father sayd any thing for vs, yet when you haue all done, you must giue vs leaue, ot we will take leaue to found our faith and reli­gion vpon the written word of the Almightie.

Thus is your Popish fellowes Rhetoricke come to small effect, and therefore he will now trie what his Logicke can doe. Thus I argue, saith he, to the vtter ouerthrow of your interpretation; how, I pray you? marry you shall heare, if Christ giue authoritie of building and loosing onely to his disciples, and their successors, then cannot preaching be that building and loosing, why so man? because a learned lay man may bind and loose in that sense, as well as an igno­rant and vnlearned minister, what is this I heare? may a lay man preach the word? or any ignorant and vnlearned minister either? we allow no such blind preachers, as you doe Priests, Rom. 10, 15. Hebr. 5, 4. and Paul excludeth the laity from preaching when he saith, how shall they preach, except they be sent? And againe, no man taketh honour vnto himselfe, but he that is called of God as was Aaron, but marke this arguing a little better, preaching forsooth cannot be binding and loosing, because a learned lay man is able to preach, and may not a learned lay man bind and loose too, as formally as your popish Priests? you will say no, because he is not authorised so to doe by the Church, and I say againe, that he hath as good right to bind and loose, as to preach the Gospel, and therefore our papist must looke out some new premises, if euer hee looke to haue good of his conclusion.

[Page 187] Harding, one of the captaines of his hoste, saith, that if remitting sinnes consist in pronouncing and denouncing of the Gospel, euery lay man, yea women, Cont. Apolog. Cap. 6. Diuis. 2. yea yong boyes & girles may assoile sinners, yea euery man may assoile him­selfe, but these fellowes neuer looke at the order of their owne Synagogue, where an old wife, or a young girle is authorised to baptize, and so consequently to remit sinnes: the Church of Rome oftentimes rolleth vp the power of the keyes in a bull of lead, and sends it abroad to seeke his fortune by a lay pardoner, yet make they no doubt but remission of sinnes is annexed vnto it; but if we say, as Christ saith, Math. 23, 13. & Luk. 11.52 woe be to them that take away the key of knowledge, and so shut vp the kingdome of heauen that they that would enter, cannot come in; this forsooth must needes bee farre fetched, and the litterall sense will not beare it.

But what should a man spend his leasure with such vn­toward and insensible triflers, that will needs authorise the Pope to pardon the soules of the dead, for not performing bodily penance? we hold, saith he, that the Pope hath power to release, alter, or mitigate temporall penance, both in the life time of the partie, and also after his death; if any of his penance be vnperformed, and so our soules must fast bread and water, they must repent in sackecloth and ashes, they must whippe themselues like Iesuits, and shed teares, and wring their hands, and lie vpon the cold ground, and goe barefoot and barelegd, and such like, if it please not the Popes holinesse to release them: but by your Popes leaue, I had rather beleeue the voice of God from heauen, that tels me, that such as die in the Lord are blessed, and rest from their labours, at the least wise they must needs rest from corporall pennance. Cardinall Allens learned discourse is answered long agoe, and the answere hath meate, drinke, and lodging among you without contradiction; but let Allen and all his fellow Cardinals say what they can, yet this I am sure off, the Pope can haue no power ouer any of the dead, but onely Gods chosen, for reprobates are beyond [Page 188] his reach, Rom: 8.33.38 39. of the chosen, thus saith Saint Paul, who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods chosen? it is God that iustifieth, who shall condemne? and a little after, I am per­swaded, saith he, that neither death, nor life, nor Angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature can se­parate vs from the loue of God, which is in Christ Iesus our Lord.

But to let this passe, if it be demanded, what cause the Pope hath to pardon that which the dead cannot bee charged withall, what will or can any papist possibly an­swere? he that is charged with foure, or fiue, or two yeeres penance, or lesse, if he be preuented by vntimely death, must either be discharged, or else be punished for not do­ing that he cannot do, which himselfe a while a goe thought to be absurd; if it bee sayd that in this case God punisheth not for omission of penance, but for the sinne for which pe­nance was inioyned, Mar. 2.7. & Luk. 5.21. and not done: then the Pope must be sayd either to forgiue that which cannot be required, and thats folly; or else the sinne which remained vnsatisfied, and thats blasphemie.

Yet notwithstanding this blasphemie is rise among pa­pists, Contr. Apol. cap. 6. diuis. 2. Math. 9.2.6. Luk. 7.48. howsoeuer this fellow heere would faine hide it; as the sonne of man, saith Harding, remitted sinnes to him that was sicke of the Palsie, & to Marie Magdalen; euen so he hath transferred the same power vnto Priests: and a­gaine, sinnes are released by the power of the keyes in the Sacrament of penaunce, to the benefit of them that after baptisme be relapsed and fallen into sinne againe, of which power, Apol. cap. 6. di­uis. 1. De author. ec­cles. & concil. supr. & contr. scriptur. no Christian doubteth, vnlesse he be a Nouatian he­reticke; And againe, the Nouatians were condemned by the Church, because they denied that Priests in the Church had authoritie to remit sinnes, and so denied the Sacrament of penance: Cardinall Cusan, Haec ligandi & soluendi pote­stas non minor est in ecclesia, quàm in Christo, This power of binding and loosing, is no lesse in the Church, than in Christ. Your owne Cardinall In his Booke of Priest­hood. Allen saith, that the Pope [Page 189] forgiueth sinnes properly. And Pope Iulius, Iulius Concil. tom. 1. de pri­mat. Rom. ec­cles. Habet sacro­sancta Romana ecclesia potestatem, singulari sibi priuiligio con­cessam, aperire & claudere ianuas regni caelestis quibus voluerit, The holy Church of Rome hath by a speciall prerogatiue power graunted vnto it, to open and shut the gates of the kingdome of heauen, to and against whom it will. Where­fore, if the case be so plaine as this papist seemes to make it, why doe they not make vs a new expurgatorie Index, that may blot out these, and many moe such sawcie seazings vpon the Lords owne peculiar, out of their bookes? No, no, howsoeuer they face out the matter, yet are they the sonnes and heires of those priests that Ierome speakes off, In Math. cap. 16. who thought they had power to absolue the wicked and condemne the innocent, and were woont to say euen in Saint Austines time, Nos sanctificamus immundos, August. de fide & oper. ca. 14 nos iusti­ficamus impios, nos petimus, nos impetramus, Wee sanctifie the vncleane, we iustifie the vngodlie, wee aske, we ob­taine.

The Answere.

HEere this man would make an end, if hee could tell how, but his conscience telling him that his discour­ses are weake and insufficient, he would faine fortifie them with a little generall talke propounded and answered longe agoe: Sect. 5. & ali­bi. and therefore, though it be needlesse to keepe downe a dead Carkasse with any newe answere, vnlesse hee could blowe life into it with some newe defence; yet somewhat more would bee added in this place, for the repressing of popish insolencie. First therefore, where it is disputed, that if our description of the Church be right, then the ancient Fathers were heretickes, and the vniuersall Church hereti­call; I am content this sequele be iudged by that which hath been alreadie disputed: if euerie disagreement from truth must needs bee heresie, Gal. 2.11. &c. Act. 15.39. Act. 11.2. &c. then either Paul or Peter was an hereticke, and so was either Barnabas or Paul, who were so stirred the one against the other, that they parted asunder. Peter was chidden of the Church of Iewrie, for communi­cating to the Gentiles; yet the Church was deceiued, and not Peter: 1. Co. 3, 12.13 euerie errour is not an heresie, and euerie one that builds timber, hay, or stubble vpon the foundation, is not an hereticke, and therefore this loose talke is little worth.

Yea, but let vs admit, saith hee, that there was such a Church, as you imagine, in the first three hundred yeeres after Christ, though it bee most false: nay, you must ad­mit it maugre your head, neither is it false euer the soo­ner with a merrie word; prooue it to be false, and wee will bee as farre from either admitting it, or imagining it as your selfe; but so long as you vse such a generall defence, as they of Sodome and Gomorha, and the Cities adioyning might haue vsed against Lot, the Cananites against Abra­ham, and the old world against Noah and his familie; there is no cause why such goodly shewes of antiquitie should [Page 193] controll Gods truth; if Lot, Abraham, and Noah had beene ruled by prescription of time, by multitude, by authoritie of Princes, by traditions of Elders, or by any thing else in the world, but Gods owne mouth, they had been as Sodome, and like to Gomorha: and yet for all that, Pe­ter the head Patron of Rome, as you say, and the Iewes that depended vppon him, playd the hypocrites together, and Barnabas a good man, full of the holy Ghost and faith, Act. 11.24. was led away with them to the same hypocrisie; and though the scripture testifie of Lot, that hee was a iust man, Gal. 2.13. and that his righteous soule was vexed from day to day with the vn­cleanly conuersation of the wicked: yet, by your leaue, 2. Pet. 2.7.8, the prostitution of his daughters, his drunkenesse, and incest, Gen. 19.8.31. &c. doe plainely euince, that he was somewhat tainted with the sins of Sodome.

Yea, but Sodome was not the Church of God, neither was there any Christian Church established, when Peter and his companie playd the hypocrites. Well, Let that bee graunted, yet my reason is so much the stronger, for if Stran­gers from God, and young Nouises in religion preuailed so much, that the one drew Lot, the other Peter and Barnabas to doe thinges not conuenient, how much more may the v­suall slips, and fals, and infections of Christian Churches worke the like inconueniences in the Fathers and guides of the same! we doe not imagine that the Church of Christ was vtterly quailed and extinguished vpon a suddaine, for thats more than the gates of hell shall euer be able to bring to passe; but this we say, and are sure, that the mysterie of ini­quitie did worke in Pauls time, and fell not a sleepe as soone as Saint Paule was dead, waking againe 600. 2. Thes. 2.7. yeares after when this mysterie was disclosed, for Rome was not built in a day, or vpon a suddaine, and the Maister builders of it are none of the seuen Sleepers, and therefore no maruaile though perusing Councels, Fathers and Stories from the A­postles forward, we finde the print of the Popes feet here and there scatteringly, and so perceiue how he went on, and grewe to the fulnesse of the age of Antichrist.

[Page 194]Neither is it preiudiciall to Gods cleere truth faithfully registred in the word of God, that none tooke penne in hand to defend it against Antichrist: for the Angels of Pergamus and Thyatira, Reuel. cap. 2.14.15.20. though they were Gods faithfully Ministers, yet doe wee not read, that either they or any of their fellowes and friends wrote or spake any thing against Baalamites, and Nicholaitans, and the false prophecies of Iesabell that infected their Churches. Epist. 119. ad Ianuar. Austine saith, Mul­ta huiusmodi propter nonnull trum vel sanctarum, vel turbulen­tarum personarum scandala deuitanda, liberiùs improbare non audeo, I dare not freely as I should, improoue many scandals of this kind, because of some either holy or troublesome persons that fauour them; and therefore no maruell though the religion of Antichrist, being a compound heresie of many simples, grew on soft and faire, and plodded still for­ward by little and by little without any resistance, till the time came it should bee disclosed: if the light of truth had been suddenly eclipsed, the ancient Fathers and their adhe­rents, would haue laboured to restore it; but this eclipse growing slowly by small peeces, they knew not the deepe­nesse of Satan, Reuel. 2.24. Math. 13.25. &c. and so gaue the tares of Antichrist leaue to growe so long among the wheat, til they were past weeding; neuerthelesse looke the preface of Caluines Institutions to the French King, and there you shall finde the testimonies of Acacius, Spiridion, Ambrose, Austine, Epiphanius, Gelasi­us, Chrysostome, Calixtus, Cyprian, Apollonius, Paphnutius, and others, against outward braueries, abstinence from flesh, monkish idlenesse, painted Images, suffrages for the dead, transubstantiation, the halfe communion, vnwritten deter­minatiōs, set fastings, forbidding mariage, mans weak iudg­ment, and such like flowers of Antichrists garland: and if these had sayd nothing, yet there were many other Fathers besides these, and whether they tooke penne in hand, and wrote more fully against the seuerall branches of Poperie as they grew, it were hard to tell, yet may wee affirme it with as good probabilitie, as you may denie it, howsoeuer it be, the wisedome of God hauing so decree to punish our [Page 195] vnthankefulnesse: the doctrine of Rome, Reuel. 17.9. which is the seat of Antichirst, grew and increased a long time, but thankes bee to God, it is now in such a consumption as eats vp the flesh of it, 2. Thes. 2.8. and wee haue sufficient warrant that it shall bee abolished.

Neither is this increase and multiplication of errour, till it conquer sinceritie and truth, and breake forth into open absurdities, so strange a matter in the Church of God. Thus you may read in the Valentine Councell, In proemio. Quorundā pa­trum vtilis fuit & religiosa suggestio retractandi de his, quae nec recipere possumus ob ecclesiae sanctitatem, nec tamen vsquequa (que) consuetudinis causa damnare, ita enim per omnes ecclesias eius­modi vitiorum germen inoleuit, vt ad plena remedia non facilis sit recursus, Profitable and religious is the motion of certain Fathers, concerning retracting those thinges, which because of the holynesse of the Church, we may not receiue, and yet by reason of custome dare not condemne, for such a seede of vices hath growne by custome in all Churches, that now wee haue no easie recourse to a full remedie. Againe, Can 1. Fra­trum nostrorum vel imperitiam, vel simplicitatem, vel etiam presumptionem damnare non possumus, nec per omnes ecclesias quae sunt iam pridem male gesta corrigere, Wee cannot con­demne either the vnskilfulnesse, or simplicitie, or (if ye will) presumption of our brethren, nor correct all the thinges that haue beene of late badly done in all Churches. Againe, Quod prauae consuetudinis vitio ab Hispaniensibus Episcopis fa­ctum est, ita reprehendimus, vt propter numerum corrigendorū, Innocen prim. Epist 24 ad S nod. Tolet: cap. 1. ea quae quo quo modo facta sunt non in dubium vocemus, sed Dei potius iuditio dimittamus, That which was done by the Bi­shops of Spaine, through the corruption of euill custome, wee so reprooue, that because of the number of them that bee to be corrected, wee call not in question the thinges that were disorderly done, but leaue them to the iudgement of God. And againe, Mens potentiae auida, Leo primus ad Anathol. Con­stant. Epist. 51 nec abstinere nouit à vetitis, nec gaudere concessis, dum inordinato prauo (que) progressu impunitarum transgressionum augentur excessus & crebrescunt culpae, quae toleratae sunt studio fidei reparandae & amore concor­diae, [Page 196] A minde that is greedie of aduancement, knoweth nei­ther how to abstaine from things forbidden, nor how to vse well things that are graunted, whilest excesses are increa­sed and faults multiplyed, thorough the inordinate and wicked proceding of transgressions vnpunished, which were tolerated of a desire of repayring the faith, and loue of concord. Thus may you see, that good men and worthy Fathers of Gods Church, by bearing with small matters for the common peace and welfare of the Church, did so multiply absurdities, that in the end, they might cast their caps at them, sooner than represse them, & withall you may see what Fathers Poperie is an adherent vnto, namely, such as the Ʋalentine Councell, Pope Innocent and Leo speake of; as for the former ages of the Church, Bishop Iewell in the defence of the Apologie & Challenge, hath so vncased the face of Antichrist that hid it selfe vnder the visard of Fa­thers and Counsels, that none of the Popes Adherents, e­uer went about to couer it with any answere.

Moreouer, whereas this fellow relies so much vpon anti­quitie, as if the ancient Fathers were flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, why doth not hee, or some of his idle companions take Master Foxes booke in hand, where the substance of all antiquitie is orderly set downe, Apoc. 17.5.6. and the whole glorie and power of his Babilon, that is drunken with the blood of Saints and Martyrs, vtterly defaced? I haue heard that there is an answere abroad called, [The hunting of the Fox,] but such lustie vnmaried Priests as bee so well fedde and fatted here in England, are fitter to haunt I wote what, than to hunt such a Fox as hee is to any great purpose: it may well be nibled at, like a great chase among mice, but I perswaded, that Papist liues not at this day, that either hath, will, or can afford it a full answere. But to returne to this fellow that prates so of Fathers and Counsels, as though they were al in his bosome, let it be obserued how cunning­ly hee takes that for graunted, which neither hee, nor any man else liuing is able to iustifie, [let vs admit, saith he, that the ancient Fathers and Doctors with their adherents [Page 197] did eclipse the cleere light of the Gospel, which shined in the first 300. hundred yeeres.] Againe, how can wee ima­gine [that the Church of Christ, for the space of 1300. yeres lay hidden in so secret a corner, that none of the Doctors could heare of it?] Againe, how it can bee [that in all that time no generall Counsell should haue intelligence of the being of the Church that professed Christianitie in so different a manner?] And againe, if any of the Do­ctors, or any generall Councell had heard of them, they had been put in the Catalogue of heretickes, and their opini­ons condemned: all this silly Sophistrie called petitio principij, for we neither will, nor doe, nor euer did graunt, that the Fathers eclipsed the light of the Gospell, or that the Church in their time lay hidden in secret corners, or that no gene­rall Councell had intelligence of it: these thinges our Pet­tyfogging-Papist is faine to beg, and to take as granted, be­cause he can no more proue any one of them, than he can eat a load of logges. No, no, the Fathers were members of Gods Church, and so were, and are wee: as for Poperie, what is it else but a certaine scumme, and froth, that seethes out of the liquor of the ancient Fathers, which the Scripture hath taught vs to cast into the fire.

And here let me set you downe Doctor Whitakers words, Answere to Reinolds, cap. 6. that such blind Sophisters as haue not seene them in his Booke, may see them here, and bee ashamed: the mysterie of iniquitie, saith he, which in Papistrie is fully finished, be­gan to worke in the Apostles age, and so continued still for­ward in the Fathers dayes, vntill it came to his height and perfection in the Kingdome of Popery; they slipt a little, you are fallen headlong into the pit; they were ouerseen through infirmitie, you are blinde of malice; they scattered some darnell in the Lords field, you haue plucked vp by the roots the good corne; they suffered losse of this building, being not agreeable with the foundation, yet are saued; you ouer­throw the foundation it selfe, and therefore cannot in this opinion be saued. Againe, the ancient Fathers holding the ground and foundation of Doctrine, did oftentimes build [Page 198] thereon stubble and straw, partly by some superstitious o­pinions which themselues conceiued of such inuentions, and partly by the sway & violence of custome, wherby they were caried to a liking of those things, which they saw com­mended and practised by others, & yet God forbid that be­cause of some errours which they held, wee should raze their names out of the Kalender of Gods Saints, or thinke otherwise than reuerently of them. Againe, though they erred, yet were they notwithstanding good men and holy Fathers; were not the Apostles holy men when they drea­med of an earthly Kingdome in this world? were they void of holynesse, when they beleeued that the Gospell was to bee preached to the Iewes onely? Many holy Fathers were infected with the errour of the Chiliasts, who notwithstan­ding are worthily accounted Saints of God; Cyprian and many godly Bishops with him erred about the baptisme mi­nistred by heretickes, yet lost they not for all that the opini­on and name of holy Fathers, &c. Againe, the case of the Galatians is the same with yours, for as they thought to be iustified by the workes of the law, so doe you; as they were warned of their errour, so are you; as they without repen­tance lost the benefite of Christs sacrifice, so shall you: if the Fathers had been as often and plainely admonished as you haue been, they would being holy and sincere men, haue reformed their iudgement, and keeping the head, though they erred in some part, the Lord will not impute that error vnto them. And againe, they erred not so wilfully as you, and therefore we account not of them as of you who haue multiplyed your errours, and left almost no one ground of pure religion vnshaken.

This is a sufficient answere to such beggarly petitioners▪ yet his mouth will not be stopt, till wee shew some of the Po­pish reuolts from Gods ancient truth, to the seuerall here­sies whereof Poperie consisteth. To this end therefore, we may remember the double condemnation of Eustathius in two seuerall councels, Socrat. Hyst. lib. 2, cap. 33. Casaria, and Gangra, for such Catho­licke Articles as runne currant among Papists at this day; [Page 199] as for example, forbidding to marry, abstinence from meats, sundring men from their wiues, and seruants from their Maisters, vnder colour of Religion, abhorring the blessing and communion of a married Priest, and such like articles, as were condemned, most of them, of all Churches vnder heauen 200. yeeres before Eustathius was borne, for thus writes Apollonius a Martyr, Euseb. hystor. lib. 5. cap. 16. speaking of the hereticke Mon­tanus, Hic est qui coniugia dissoluere docuit, ieiuniorum leges praescripsit, qui Pepuzam ac Tinium modicas ciuitates Phry­giae, Ierusalem vocauit, vt cunctos vndi (que) ad illas congregaret, qui pecuniarum exactores constituit, qui sub pretextu & nomine oblationum numerum captationem artificiosè concutus est, qui salaria doctrinae praedicatoribus subministrauit, vt per ventris studium doctrina ipsius inualesceret, This is he which dissolued mariages, prescribed lawes of fasting, which called Pepuza and Tinium two little Cities of Phrygia, Ierusalem, that hee might gather men from euerie place thither, which appoin­ted exactors of money, which vnder the pretence and name of offering, did cunningly deuise to get gifts, who ministred stipends to the preachers of his doctrine, that so for his bel­lies sake, his doctrine might be euerie where declared. The same Father and Martyr sayth, that his Prophets and Mar­tyrs did extort money, not onely from the rich, but also from the poore, euen widowes and Orphanes; Marcion and Appelles forbad mariage, as appeareth in Tertullian; The Manichies were condemned first by Pope Leo, and then by Gelasius, as the first Fathers of communicating vnder one kinde; De prescrip. ad haeret. Serm. 4. de quadrag. In decret pon­tif. distinct. in cap. comperi­mus. In Catalog. dogm. Manich. lib. de anima, in fine Dialog. 2. Contra Eutyc. Can. 36. Haeres. 70. The same heretickes were the Fathers of monkish idlenesse, and therefore Epiphanius cals them, Desidentes vespae, & nihil operantes, &c. Idle Waspes, and doing no worke. The Doctrine of Purgatory was first recōmended to Tertullian by the paraclet of Montanus. The hereticke in Theodorets dialogues saith, as the Papists doe, Symbola domi­nici corporis & saguinis, post inuocationem sacerdotis, mutantur & alia fiunt, The Symboles of the Lords bodie and blood, after the inuocation of the Priest, are changed and made o­ther things. And Pope Gelasius tels the hereticke Eutiches, [Page 200] Non desinit esse substantia panis, & naturavini, There ceaseth not to bee the substance of bread, and the nature of wine. The Counsell of Eliberis enacted, that that which is wor­shipped, should not bee painted vpon wals, thereby condem­ning Popish Imagerie. Epiphanius faith of the Audians, They vse great store of Apocryphall writings. Epiphanius haeres. 46. 47. 61. &c. De preser. ad­vers. haeret. & libro de baptis. in fine. Euseb. hystor. lib. 3. cap. vlt. & lib. 2. cap. 15. De prescript. advers. haeret. Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 23. & 24 & lib. 3. cap. 2 Canus lib 3. cap. 3. fund. 4. Bellarm. de verb. non script. lib. 4. cap. 8. Ʋtuntur Apochryphis multis abunde. The Tatians, the Eu­cratifes, the Apostolickes, and such like heretickes, were the first founders of single life, and being so highly esteemed, it tooke hold in time vpon the Church. Womens bap­tisme which is currant in Poperie, came first from here­tickes wiues, of whome Tertullian sayth, that they were Procaces, audentes docere, contendere, exercismos agere, cu­rationes repromittere, forsitan & tingere, Malepart, such as boldly tooke vpon them to teach, to contend, to exercise, such as promised to cure diseases, and perhaps also to bap­tize. Papias a Chiliast was the first father and founder of Traditions, and Peters primacie, or Romish Episcopalitie. Tertullian and Irenaeus tell vs that heretickes held the Apo­stles did not reueale, Omnia omnibus, sed quaedam palàm & vniuersis, quaedam secretò & paucis, All thinges to all men, but some things openly, and to all, some thinges secretly, & to a few; as namely, Basilides, Carpocrates, Valentinus, Mar­cion, Carinthus. And this is the opinion of Papists at this day.

This is sufficient for a tast, that therby you may iudge how toothsome Poperie is, that consisteth of these, and many o­ther such roots of bitternesse: And that you may be yet bet­ter infourmed how the good corne of true religion may bee ouer-growne with the weeds of popish errours and heresies, and yet in time get the victorie againe, and ouer-maister them; Cap. 2:19. the Church of Thyatira so highly commended in the Reuelation, may bee a plaine document vnto vs; which though it seemed to be euacuated by the Cataphrygian he­resie: Epipha. haeres. 51. yet a hundred yeeres after, the Church reuiued againe and multiplyed, and so by Gods mercie conquered the wo­man Iezabel and her hereticall Prophets, & euen so it fareth with the Church of God in generall, for howsoeuer it plea­sed God for the punishment of our sinnes to giue Antichrist [Page 201] leaue by little and little to growe to such a height, that at length hee ouer-shadowed and ouer-dropped all truth, and sinceritie: yet, when God saw his time, hee began to raise vp such worthy men as lopt off his braunches, Daniel. 4. and shooke off his leaues, and scattered his fruit, and so continueth, and will continue to execute his iudgements vpon that man of sinne, that in the end he will not leaue so much as the stumps of his roots in the earth.

Touching Puritanie, which still this fellow quarrels with­all, when hee can prooue it to bee either a Church, or a Re­ligion by it selfe, we will shape him an answere; in the meane time, let him know that no Protestant in England, or out of England, holds any doctrine necessarie to saluation, but such as is warranted by Scripture, neither are we left wholly to our selues in matters of discipline, to appoint what wee thinke good, Rom. 14.23. 1. Cor. 14.26.40. but are guided by the generall rules of Gods word, how to behaue our selues in the house of God: as for wresting the Scripture, when any of you all can iustifie, that the most witlesse Puritane in England, doth wrest them more violently and ridiculously, than your selues, then will I be a Protestant no longer. You Papists, though your brawles bee endlesse one with another, Canonists against Schoole-men; Franciscans against Dominicks; Nominals, a­gainst Reals; Thomas against Lombard; Scotus against Thomas; Occam against Scotus; Alliacensis against Oc­cam; Peter Sot against Catharine; Catharine against Caie­tan; Caietan against Pighius; Iesuites against Priests; and Priests against Iesuites: yet forsooth these dogs & cats are of one Cage, they are all members of the Romish Church, but Protestants and Puritans being diuers names that differ not in the grounds of faith, but in small points, as Richard and Thomas, or Iohn and Iames, doe in colour and com­plexion and countenance, they forsooth cannot bee both members of the same Church.

But what should I spend time with such a prater, as dares face vs out, that such a Religion as is now established [Page 202] in England, was neuer heard of in the world before King Ed­wards time? I am sure there is no other Religion established in England, but that which is cleerely taught in the word of God, brought hether first by Simon Nicephor. lib. 2. cap 4. Zelotes, Ioseph Ghildas. of Ari­mathea, Saint Theodor. de cur. graecor. affect. lib. 9. Paul the Apostle, al of them, or some of them & watred stil on in the daies of Lib contra Iudaeos. Tertullian, In Ezec. ho. 4 Origen, Apolog. se­cunda. Atha­nasius, Initio lib. de Synod. contra Arian. Hilarie, Homil. quod Christus sit Deus aduers. gentil. Chrysostome, Hyst. eccles. lib. 1. cap. 10. & lib. 4. cap. 3 Theodoret; all which ancient Fathers speake honourably of the Church, and Religion, and Prelates of Britaine. Now whether this Church, and this Religion so planted, and so watred, were the same that was restored and established in the happy daies of King Edward, and Queene Elizabeth, both Princes of blessed memorie; it is so cleerely decided in the written word of God, that the crying and yelling of our forlorne Papists, shall neuer be able to perswade the contrarie.

Yea, but Aerius you know, as soone as hee denyed prayer for the dead, was confuted; and the first that impugned the reall presence, was condemned in the Councell of Lateran, and so were other of your opinion as they sprange vp in later yeeres. This man, you see, will not giue ouer as long as hee can say any thing; but goo too, let vs not thinke much to answere these triflles, Aerius indeed denyed pray­er for the dead, if Epiphanius mistake not the matter; yet I denie that hee vnderstood such kinde of praying for the dead, as the Popish Church vseth at this day: Papists pray for the release of veniall offences punishable in Purgatorie, but Aerius spake against the common errour of his time, [...]. namely, that the forgiuenesse of incurable sinnes might bee procured to the dead by the prayers of the liuing; if this be heresie, then bee you heretickes your selues. Touching the reall presence, Bertram. it is well knowne, that Bertram wrote a­gainst it without any mans contradiction, 400. yeeres be­fore the Counsell of Lateran. Aelfricus. And so did Aelfricus Arch­bishop of Canterburie, almost 200. yeeres after Bertram, in a Sermon which was yeerely read in our Churches at the feast of Easter. As for the time that followed in later yeeres, after [Page 203] the Lat eran Councell; wee say of it, Luk. 22.53. as our Sauiour doth of the like time, [This is your verie houre, and the power of darkenesse.]

Thus haue I shewed you briefly, but sufficiently, when the great compound heresie of Poperie first sprange, how it grew peece by peece till Antichrist was disclosed, 2. Thes. 2.8. I haue told you also, how it hath been consumed by the breath of Gods mouth, and when it shall be cut downe and wither. As for Miracles and Martyrs, Cath. 7.22. & 24, 24. 2. Thes. 2.9. & Apoc. 16.14. the one prooueth you to bee th [...] brood of Antichrist, of whose lying wonders the scripture hath foretold vs; the other, namely, Gods Martyrs, they crie out for vengeance against blood-suckers, for so we are taught in the Reuelation, and such blood-suckers are you, and haue euer beene, as Master Foxe hath most truely set it downe to your euerlasting shame and confusion: such Miracles as yours bee, wee can shew none, neither can wee make Mar­tyrs, as you can; God giue vs all grace to keepe that way and path, that leadeth and directeth to the Kingdome of heauen; and graunt vs rather good Bishops without succession, than succession without good Bishops, that all of vs, both Bishops and people, high and low, rich and poore, one with another may glorifie God the Father of our lord Iesus Christ. So be it.