I. DEMAND. LEt those of the pretended Religion shew vs where it is written that there are but two Sacraments, that is, Bap­tisme and the Lords Supper, and in what place of the Scrip­ture they be called Sacraments.
THE ANSVVERE.

IN the Gospell we find the institution of Bap­tisme, and of the holy Supper. And reading ouer the whole Testament, we doe not finde that Iesus Christ instituted any other Sacra­ment. If there be any other, it belongeth to our Aduer­saries to shew it vnto vs, for we are not to proue that there is no mention of any other; for to proue this vnto them, we must read vnto them all the new Testament. As for the word Sacrament, we are not tied vnto it, neither doe we by that word vnderstand any other thing then the same is which by Iesus Christ called a Commemoration or Remembrance. Luk. 22.19 & by S. Paul, a Seale or Signe, Rom. 4.11. We say not that all the words that may be v­sed, but all that the doctine necessary to saluation is con­tayned in the holy Scripture. And we doe willingly ap­ply and frame our selues to the vsuall words, alwaies prouided that the doctrine doe still remaine pure and vndefiled.

II. DEMAND. That Children may be saued by the faith of the Parents onely, without Baptisme, and therefore that Baptisme is not of absolute necessitie.
[Page 5]ANSVVERE.

HEere begin the slanders, The Author of these que­stions hath not fully conceiued what we hold in the points. God saith to Abraham that he will be his God and the God of his seed, Gen. 17. And S. Paul. 1 Cor. 7. speaking of Children borne of faithfull Fathers and Mothers, saith, that they be holy. By the strength of this Couenant it commeth to passe that the Children of the faithfull so soone as they be borne doe belong to God. As for this absolute necessitie of Baptisme, we ac­knowledge that it is absolutely necessary to celebrate Baptisme in the Church, sith God that so commanded: as also according to the saying of Iesus Christ, Iohn 3. That, whosoeuer is not borne of water and the spirit cannot enter into the Kingdome of God: we beleeue that who­soeuer voluntarily doth depriue himselfe of Bap­tisme and contemneth it, cannot be saued. For it is the contempt, not the want or depriuation of Baptisme that bringeth condemnation. But to say that God cannot, or will not saue a childe without Baptisme, or to beleeue that a childe being carried towards Baptisme and dying by the way, is excluded from eternall saluation. 1. It is a cruell and rash sentence. 2. It is a tying of the grace of God to the water. 3. It is the committing of the sal­uation of a childe into the power of a man, or of a Mid­wife: for if they list to baptise the dying childe it shall passe into Paradise; if not, it shall not come there. 4. It is an accusing of God, that he did prouide but badly for the saluation of Children borne vnder the old Testa­ment, in that they might not be circumcised before the eight day. 4. Euen our aduersaries themselues doe hold that many are saued without Baptisme of water, as sundry Martyrs that were neuer baptised. They are much to blame therefore so to vrge this passage or Text of the third of Iohn, wherein themselues doe say [Page 6] there is no speech but of the Baptisme of water. Concil. Trid. Sess. 7. c. 11. 6. This Baptisme likewise of bloud is contrary to their Canons, which hold that the Sacrament is none, if he that bapti­seth hath not an intent to baptise: for dare they auow that the executioners conferred Baptisme, or that euer they had any entent to baptise? 7. How many people also died there by Martyrdome without effusion of bloud? 8. Also sith Baptisme is irreiterable (that is, not to be twise administred to one and the same person) what reason haue they, that Martyrdome of a person baptised should not be a Sacrament, but the Martyrdome of a person not baptised should be a Sacrament? 9. Doe not our aduersaries make themselues, mention of a Baptisme of the Spirit, which they call Baptismum flaminis, which supplieth the default of the Baptisme of water? and what else doe we say? 10. But if we craue formall examples out of the holy Scriptures, euery man knoweth that to the Israelites Circumcision was the same which at this day Baptisme is to vs, and that the necessitie was alike: and yet infinite people were saued vnder the old Testa­ment without Circumcision, as all the faithfull women, and such as truly repented among the Niniuites. 11. But what a presumption was it in them to build for children dying without Baptisme, a seuerall Chamber vnder the earth, which they tearme the Childrens Limbe; whereof we finde not any mention eyther throughout the Scrip­tures, or in all the antiquity of the Church? 12. This do they place vnder the earth, yet tell they vs not where it shall be when the earth shall not be: nor whether these infants shall vndergoe the iudgement in the latter day, and what sentence the Iudge shall giue: neyther doe they shew vs the reason wherefore the bodies of these children are throwne headlong into a bottom­lesse pit, which is in the Hospitall called Hostel Dieu, at Paris, as vnworthy of Buriall.

III. DEMAND. That we ought not to baptise but when there is a Sermon.
ANSVVERE.

THis doe not we beleeue. A Sermon is seemely, but not of absolute necessity. None of vs doth beleeue that Baptisme administred without a Sermon is no Bap­tisme; or that it ought to be reiterated. True it is that we say, that the Scales without writings are vnprofitable, so the Sacraments without the Word are vnfruitfull. But, by the Word, we vnderstand the promises of the Gos­pell, and the forme of Baptisme, instituted by Iesus Christ, and not a Sermon, as this Inquisitor weeneth.

IIII. DEMAND. That it is not lawfull to make the signe of the crosse.
ANSVVERE.

SO doe not we say: yea, we could willingly be content to be inioyned to make a million of signes of the Crosse, so it might tend no further then to reduce our Aduersaries into the right way. Indeed we doe say, that the making of the signe of the Crosse vpon the Hoste, Innocent. 3. lib. 2. de Mist. Missae cap. 58. Efficit super ea Crueis signacu­lum vt per crucis virtutem omnes conatus Diabo­lica malignitatis effugiat, ne con­tra Sacerdotem vel Sacrificium aliquo modo prae­ualeat. to expell the force of the wicked Spirits [as Pope Inno­cent saith] is as much as to seeke to succour Iesus Christ without necessitie. Also that the making of the signe of the Crosse vpon a mans mouth when he yawneth, is not the way to stop the Diuels passage, who entereth into mans heart, not by the mouth, but by the eyes & eares, that is to say, by the obiects and speeches whereby God is offended. It were therefore more requisite at the hea­ring of a filthy word, or of a Iesuites Sermon, to make the signe of the Crosse vpon the eare. We also say, that when that thing which in the Primitiue Church was a [Page 8] marke of Christian profession, grew to be an action of Superstition, it was expedient to take it away for the abuse sake: the same not being in its owne nature ne­cessarie, neither practised by Iesus Christ, neither by his Apostles or Disciples. Especially, the making of the signe of the Crosse vpon the Singing bread, as they call it, or vpon the consecrated Hoast is in all antiquitie with­out example: for the Liturgies of S. Iames, and of Chry­sostome are manifestly false, and forged of late, as making mention of persons that liued not of a long time after, and to all antiquitie were vtterly vnknowne.

V. DEMAND. That wee may not hallow or consecrate water, and being hallowed, that we ought not to vse it.
ANSVVERE.

VVEE say not so: onely wee say that wee doe in­deede finde that the Heathen did vse holy or lustrall water; but that wee finde not that euer the Apo­stles vsed any. And because we are not so light of beliefe, we demand of our aduersaries whether the word of God doth teach them that water consecrated by either words or signes, be of any force against the Diuels: for the Gospell sheweth vs the meanes whereby the Apostles cast them out; namely, by Faith, by Prayer, and by Fa­sting, Mat. 17.21. but neuer by holy water.

VI. DEMAND. That the bread of the Supper is onely the figure of the body of Iesus Christ.
ANSVVERE.

THis is likewise a slander. Wee doe indeede beleeue that the bread of the Supper is the figure of the body of Christ: by this figure meaning no other then [Page 9] the same which Iesus Christ called Commemoration. But that it is onely a figure we say not, Rom. 4. considering that Saint Paul calleth the Sacrament of Circumcision, not onely a signe, but also a seale: thereby teaching vs that the Sacraments doe not onely signifie, but also doe seale Gods promises. We doe also beleeue the saying of Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 10. Rom. 4. That the bread which wee breake is the Communion of the body of Christ: For the Sacraments are not onely significatiue of the grace of God, but also exhibitiue, and doe not onely represent them, but also doe present them vnto vs.

VII. DEMAND. That the Church may erre.
ANSVVERE.

THis is likewise slaunderous: for, I beleeue, that by Church hee meaneth the same that is spoken of in the Creede: also, that hee meaneth that wee should say that she may erre in the decision of doubts, or mat­ters of Religion, wherein hee would make vs belieue that we doe not. For we hold that the Church cannot erre in the decision of doubts, because it was neuer as­sembled to decide them, neyther did euer make any de­cision at all. For, this Church, being the Communion of Saints, and the assembly of all the elect that are, were, or shall be vpon the earth, as the Apostle to the Hebrewes, cap. 12. vers. 23. doth define it, that it is the assembly and Church of the first borne that are written in heauen, it appeareth that this body of the Elect was ne­uer assembled for the deciding of any matter. It there­fore neuer erred in such decisions.

VIII. DEMAND. That we are not to receiue Traditions.
[Page 10]ANSVVERE.

THis is euen such another, and disguiseth our beliefe. We doe not reiect all manner of Traditions, but onely such as are repugnant to the holy Scriptures, or that men do forgoe at their pleasures without necessity, by them to impose such a yoake vpon consciences, as God neuer imposed.

IX. DEMAND. That the Saints in glory cannot heare our Prayers.
ASVVERRE.

BY Prayers we meane not the sound of words, but the conception of his heart that prayeth. 1 This the Saints doe not know: for the holy Scripture saith, that God onely knoweth the hearts of men, 1 Reg. 8. v. 99 and 2. Chron. 6. v. 30. And this is one propertie of God, whereby the holy Scripture honoureth God, viz. by knowing the hearts, Acts. 1. v. 24.2. Moreouer there needeth a diuine power to know the thoughts of an hundred thousand persons different in places, that poure out their prayers at one time. 3. That if in seeing God, they did see all things, (as they would perswade vs) they should also see things to come, and consequently should know the day of iudgement, which neuerthelesse Iesus Christ saith, the very Angels are ignorant it of, and that none knoweth it, Mar. 13. v. 32.4. If any man tell vs that God can giue them this vertue or power, we answer that here the question is not what God can doe, but what God will doe. And require our Aduersaries to make proofe of his will herein. 5. We also know that God will not haue the Saints to be Gods, or equall with God, as they should be if they had an infinite knowledge: and if in seeing God they should know all that God [Page 11] knoweth. 6. Furthermore the thing which doth most especially distinguish the Creator from the most excel­lent Creatures, is this, that God both knoweth and wor­keth infinite things in one and the same moment, but the continuance and actions of Creatures are successiue, and the one is done after the other. Therfore the Saints neyther know, nor can conceiue infinite things in one instant. 7. This demand doth also make a false report of our Beliefe. For, we doe not say that the Saints ey­ther can or cannot heare our prayers, but onely that they doe not heare them.

X. DEMAND. That Priests and Monkes may breake the vowes of Obe­dience, Pouertie and Chastitie that they haue made to God.
ANSVVERE.

THE Inquisitor would perswade vs that wee be­leeue this, albeit wee beleeue the contrarie: for wee doe hold that Priests ought to obserue the vowe that they haue made to obey God; and wee complaine, that they hauing vowed obedience to God, doe obey the Pope more then God. Wee also hold that Priests ought to keepe Chastitie: but if a Priest, burning with incontinencie, haue made a vow that hee will neuer marry, such a vow as being repugnant to the vow of Chastitie, and to the vow of obeying God, ought not to be kept. The commandement of God is laid downe in 1 Cor. 7. vers. 9. If they cannot containe, let them mar­rie, for it is better to marry, then to burne. Whosoeuer maketh a vow to obey God, he maketh a vow to keepe this commaundement, yea, had hee made no vow, yet is hee bound to keepe it. As for the vow of pouertie, we vnderstand not how this word is meant: for the words haue at this day altered their signification: con­sidering [Page 12] that we finde none so well fed, or liuing so much at ease, or gathering more pence vnder the pretence of Pardons, then those that make profession of pouertie. The pouertie of the Iesuits is more abundant then the riches of others: Pouertie, which in time passed was an affliction, is now a profession. In like manner Igno­rance, which in others was a Vice, is in the ignorant Friers a vertue: vvherefore these our Masters must haue a new Calepine.

XI. DEMAND. That the state of Marriage is more pleasing to God, then single life.
ANSVVERE.

THis is one of the greatest slanders: For contrari­wise, wee doe acknowledge, that a chaste and con­tinent single life hath aduantages aboue marriage. One­ly wee say, that the chaste marriage is more acceptable to God, then incontinent and whorish single life: wee referre men to Rome, and to the Cloysters both of men and women, Rom. 3. Bellarmin, lib 2 De Amiss. Gra­tia, cap. 18. §. dicet. Non peccat Magistra­tus si meretrici­bus certam locum vrbis incolendum attribuat, quam­nis certo sciat eo loco ipsas non be­ne vsuras. Potest enim permittere minus malum vt maiora impedi­antur. there to behold the fruits of Romish single life: for we, who obserue the rule of Gods word; name­ly, That we must not doe euill, that good may come of it. cannot in any wise approue the cause of Cardinall Bel­larmine, who being not able to deny, that at Rome the most holy Father suffereth publike Stewes, for excuse, saith, That it is lawfull for the Magistrate to permit a lesse euill, to hinder a greater: and doth shew, that God may iustly suffer sinne in the world by the exam­ple of the Magistrates, who doe graunt harlots a cer­taine part or quarter of the Citie to dwell in. Was it possible to finde a more honest comparison, for to re­present vnto vs the Iustice of God, then the example of Magistrates, establishing the Stewes?

XII. DEMAND. That the Bookes of the Macchabees, of Ecclesiasticus, of Wisedome, of Toby, and of Baruch are Apocriphall.
ANSVVERE.

AFter tenne slanderous demaunds, hee hath be­thought himselfe to propound one that is not so: For indeede such is our beleefe, grounded first vpon this principle of S. Paul, Rom. 3. That God is true: where­of it doth follow, that the Scripture diuinely inspired ought to be free from vntruth: but in these Bookes we finde many vntruths, vvhich our Aduersaries could ne­uer yet excuse, and whereof there be sundry Bookes written expressely: 2. Againe, these Bookes are not contayned in the originall of the old Testament, which is the Hebrew Bible. 3. Also, Iesus Christ and the Apostles, vvho vpon all occasions doe alleadge the passages of the olde Testament, did neuer name any of these Bookes, or out of them cite any one passage. 4. Particularly the Author of the Macchabees in his second Chapter, vers. 19. doth tell vs, that his intent was to abridge into one volume the fiue Bookes of Iason: how then can the abridgement of a prophane Booke be a Canonicall Booke? 5. And this, that him­selfe toward the end doth doubt whether hee hath spo­ken vvell, and as it appertaineth to the Historie: also soone after hee excuseth the basenesse of his stile: all vvhich, is farre from the dignitie of the spirit of God, vvho giueth eloquence enough to those vvhom hee in­spireth, and reaping no profit by being beleeued of men, neuer excuseth himselfe vnto men.

XIII. DEMAND. That Iesus Christ descended not into hell, to deliuer the [Page 14] soules of the Fathers that attended his comming: or at the least, that before the ascention of Iesus Christ, the soules of the Saints were receiued into heauen, not into any Limbus, or any other third place.
ANSVVERE.

VVE finde this euidently in the Scriptures: for wee finde that the Thiefe dyed fortie three dayes before the ascension of Iesus Christ; also, that vpon the day of his death, Iesus Christ saide vnto him, This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise: Bellarmine in his fourth Booke of Christ, Cap. 11. Also the Cate­chisme of the last Councell of Trent, in the Article of the descention into Hell. Pag. 63. For we are not so subtill, as by this word Paradise to vnderstand hell, or Limbus, as our aduersaries doe: principally consi­dering, that S. Paul, 2 Cor. 12. hauing said in the second verse, that he was rauished into the third Heauen, doth soone after call this third heauen Paradise. 2. Heere­vnto how Moses and Elias talked with Iesus Christ vpon the Mountaine, Mat. 17.3. They were not therefore in some den vnder the ground. 3. Also, if the death of Iesus Christ were of power sufficient to deliuer the Fathers of the old Testament out of hell, why not out of Limbus, which is saide to be a more easie prison? 4. If Iesus Christ his rising, drew these soules out of Limbus, yet brought them not into heauen before his ascension, what became of them all the fortie daies be­tweene? 5. Finally, this so bold a fiction and hidden denne of soules, which is now saide to be vnprofitable, cannot we admit, because wee finde no proofe thereof in the vvord of God.

XIIII. DEMAND. That we must not confesse our sinnes to any other, but to God onely,
ANSVVERE.

HEre begin the slanders againe. We say not so. But that wee must confesse our faults one to another, [Page 15] that is, reciprocally, as saith S. Iames. Iames 5.16. Whereof it fol­loweth, (forsooth) that if a woman prostituting her selfe to her Curate, confesseth her sinne vnto him, her Curate ought reciprocally to confesse his sin to her, and so to obey the commandement of S. Iames; who in this place speaketh not of the peoples confessing in the eare of the Priest, but of that confession that euery man ought to make to his neighbour, after he hath offen­ded him. And this is euident by that which he hath added. Confesse (saith he) your offences one to another, and pray ye one for another. For as we are not to pray for the Priests onely, but for euery one that standeth in neede, so must we not confesse our selues to the Priests onely: but to euery one of the people whom we haue offended. Thus is the commandement of S. Iames equall as well for Prayer as for Confession.

XV. DEMAND. That faith onely iustifieth.
ANSVVERE.

THis demand is fraudulent and doubtfull, or ambi­guous. First, he ought to haue expounded, whe­ther he meaneth of iustification before God, or before men: for we doe not denie, but that in the sight of men we are iustified by workes: but before God, ha­uing but two meanes to be iustified, eyther by our owne righteousnesse [which is Iustification by the workes of the Law] or by the righteousnes of another (namely by the righteousnesse of Iesus Christ, which is by faith) we finde in the Apostle S. Paul. Ephes. 2. vers. 8. and 9. That we are saued by grace, through faith, not by workes: And Galat. 2. vers. 9. That we are iustified by faith in Ie­sus Christ, and not by the workes of the Law. Now that by the works of the 1 Law, he also vnderstandeth the works [Page 16] of the morrall Law, the whole course of the Epistle doth shew? for in the next Chapter he saith, Cursed is he that continueth not in the words of this Law: which is a passage alledged out of the end of the 27. Chapter of Deutero­mie, wherein we haue no mention but of the transgres­sions against the Morrall Law. And in the fift Chapter he saith, that the whole Law is fulfilled in this onely word. Thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thy selfe. Some Iesuites doe say, that faith iustifieth, because it is the beginning of our regeneration: as if I should say, that a mans knowledge consisteth in knowing an A. and a B. be­cause he beginneth by them. But S. Paul. Phil. 3.9. and in many other places, opposing the righteousnesse by the Law to the righteousnesse by faith, cutteth off this shift: for as the righteousnesse by the Law is the same which consisteth wholly in the obedience to the Law, euen so the righteousnesse by faith is the same which consisteth wholly in faith: otherwise there were no opposition. And in the fourth to the Romanes, he maintaineth, that Abraham and Dauid were not iu­stified by workes: yet he speaketh of them, not as when they began, or before they began to be regene­rate: but when they were well forward in godlinesse: namely, when Abraham offered his Sonne: and when Dauid writ the 32. Psalme: In which Psalme Dauid (saith S. Paul) declareth, that mans beatitude consisteth in this, that God imputeth vnto him righteousnesse without workes. Faith therefore cannot be without workes, yet doth it iustifie alone, and without workes: as our eyes are not without our eares, yet doe they onely see, and that without any helpe of the eares.

XVI. DEMAND. That when the fault of sinne is taken away, the punish­ment also is taken away.
[Page 17]ANSVVERE.

THis is likewise slanderous: for we doe not say, that when God hath pardoned the fault, all punishment is necessarily taken away, but onely that punishment which is satisfactorie to Gods iustice. For there be pu­nishments which serue to amend man, yet not to pay God: to correct our vniustice, yet not to satisfie Gods iu­stice: and these are Exercises and Trials, not Payments, which cannot be made after the fault is forgiuen: and this do we proue: 1. Because God is no mocker, neither doth he contradict himselfe. But it is a mockery to for­giue a man his sin, and not the punishment of his sinne: to tell him, I forgiue thee thy debt, not the payment of thy debt: our sins are debts, as it is said in the Lords Prayer, the payment whereof is punishment. 2. Againe, because Iesus Christ paid not otherwise for our fault, but by bearing the paine, he therefore payed for the paine, and there was but one payment for both: It is therefore the forging of a new Gospell, to imagine that he paid more for the one then for the other: for if he hath fully paid for the fault, then also for the paine. And if he hath fully paid for our paine, the same was for our acquittall, and to discharge vs. 3. Likewise because God is iust, it were iniustice to punish a man with satisfactory paine, that hath no fault, & so consequently is not faulty. The fault therefore being taken away, the paine is also taken away.

XVII. DEMAND. That God created not all men to a like estate, but that he created some to be saued, & some to be perpetually damned.
ANSVVERE.

THese words thus rawly propounded, may be mista­ken, and otherwise vnderstood then we do beleeue. [Page 18] In this sense they be true, That God hath predestinate some to saluation in his sonne: and others he hath preordai­ned to damnation for their sinnes, which he fore-saw: for God damneth none but for their sinnes, neither doth he delight in the destruction of his creature: as also he hath not chosen some rather then other some in regard they are better; but to the end to make them better: nei­ther doth he fore-see any other goodnesse in that crea­ture, then the same which he will infuse into him. For he is the spring of all the goodnesse that is in the crea­ture. The Apostle S. Paul. is expresly of our minds in the ninth of his Epistle to the Romanes, and in the first to the Ephesians, vers, 4. as also the Iesuites do confesse the same hauing of late herein ranked themselues with vs, Non elegit Deus homines quia vi­dit se eligendum ab eis, ipso (que) bo­ni operis fructum allaturos, & in bono perseuera­turos, sed elegit vt faciat bene o­perantes & in bono perseue­rantes. as being forced by the truth. For whereas the com­mon opinion of others is, That God elected to saluation these whom he fore-saw should be good men, and that should doe good workes, so to merit saluation, Bellarmine on the other side disputeth tooth & naile against it in the tenth Chapter of the second Booke of Grace and Free-will, saying, God chose not men because they should bring forth the fruits of good workes, and perseuere in good workes: but he chose them to make them doers of good works, and perse­uerers in goodnesse: & toward the end of the 12. Chap. he saith thus. If God predestinated men, because he foresaw that they should make good vse of free-will, why did he not pre­destinate the Tyrians and Sidonians, of whom Iesus Christ spake, Matth. 11. and of whom the truth doth testifie, that they could well haue vsed their free-will, and yet saith he, Out of all question they were neuer predestinate, but with the other vessels of dishonour, left in the corrupted lumpe. Wherein he followeth Thomas and S. Augustine, who were so instructed by the word of God.

XVIII. DEMAND. That euery one in his owne particular hath not his An­gell-Guardian.
ANSVVERE.

YEt one slander more. For we affirme not any thing heerein. True it is, that as concerning the faithfull, wee say with Dauid, Psal. 34. The Angell of the Lord taryeth round about them that feare him: And with the Apostle, Heb. 1. The Angels are ministring Spirits, sent for their sakes that shall be heyres of saluation. And Iesus Christ, Matth. 18. saith, that the Angels of little children doe behold the face of the heauenly Father. But that eue­ry one (that is to say, both the good and the bad) as the Questionarie saith, hath an Angell-Guardian, wee finde not in the Scripture. Considering withall, that wee see some Iesuites aske counsell of the Diuels concerning things to come, and concerning Questions of Diuinitie, which surely they would neuer doe, if they had any one good Angell Guardian, for they would rather aske counsell of him.

XIX. DEMAND. That it is not lawfull to salute or to inuocate or craue ayde of this Angel, or any other eyther in generall or in particular.
ANSVVERE.

TO salute an Angell or a Saint is a mocking of them: to inuocate a Saint or an Angell is an of­fence to God. The reasons are euident. To salute one, is to say, God keepe you, or Good-Morrow: also, to salute, is to desire ones health, which is a kinde of prayer that wee make for him. But our Aduersaries doe acknowledge it to be a wrong to a Saint to pray [Page 20] for him. And it is a grosse abuse, euen at this day, to say to the Virgin Mary, Aue Maria, that is to say, God keepe thee Mary: this is no inuocating or calling vp­on, but a praying for her. As for inuocating an Angell or Saint, it is repugnant to the rules and examples of Gods word. 1. Saint Paul saith, that wee cannot inuo­cate any, but him in whom we beleeue: How shall they (saith hee) inuocate him on whom they haue not beleeued? Rom. 10. But we are taught both by the Scripture, and by our Beliefe, to say, I beleeue in God the Father, and in Iesus Christ, and in the holy Ghost: but in no wise, I be­leeue in any Creature. 2. It is also requisite, that hee, whom a man doth inuocate, should know his heart that doth inuocate him, and be assured whether hee be an Hypocrite. 2 Chron. 6.30. But Gods word doth testifie, that God one­ly knoweth the hearts of men. 3. Neither can we haue any better Aduocate then Iesus Christ, who (saith Saint Paul, 1 Tim. 2.) is our onely Mediator. 4. Sith also it is God himselfe that inspireth our hearts to pray, and stirreth vp in vs those groning sighes that S. Paul, Rom. 8.25. speaketh of, what neede we any intercessors to commend vnto God that prayer which God himselfe hath inspired into vs? or to cause the voyce of the Spi­rit of God to be acceptable vnto God? 5. Neyther do we finde any example or commandement to inuocate Creatures, throughout all the holy Scripture: but one expresse example wee haue of an Angell reiecting the adoration of S. Iohn, who did not adore this Angell, as thinking him to be God: for in the Reuelat. cap. 21. v. 9. he saith directly, that it was one of the seauen An­gels that had the seauen Vials, who soone after forbad S. Iohn, when he would haue worshipped him, cap. 21. v. 9. 6. To be briefe, our Aduersaries are in this cause so perplexed that they begin openly to teach that inuo­cation of Saints is not necessarie, and that wee may be [Page 21] saued without it, notwithstanding, Pope Innocent the third affirmeth the contrarie in his third Booke of the Mysteries of the Masse, cap. 9. Quorum meritis precibus (que) roga­mus. Necessarium nobis est in via Sanctorum suffragium, &c. And that the Masse is not content with their intercessions onely, but also cra­ueth of God saluation through their merits, euen so farre forth that Bellarmine saith, Lib. 1. Indulgen. cap. 4. in the end of the Chapter. that they be in some sort our Redeemers. And indeede it is holden, that they pay for vs, sith the Pope doth conuert their superero­gatory satisfactions into payments for other men. All this is taken out of the vnwritten word.

XX. DEMAND. That God permitteth not sinne, but willeth it, as Caluin saith in his Institutions, lib. 1. cap. 17. §. 8. & cap. 18. §. 1. &. 2.
ANSVVERE.

VVEE heare that our Aduersaries haue printed Caluins Institutions, wherein they haue altered whatsoeuer they list: if it be so, it must needes be that the author of these questions hath thereout taken all that he imputeth vnto Caluin. For so farre is Caluin in the eight Section of the seauenteenth Chapter of his first Booke, from saying that God willeth sinne, that euen throughout all that Section there is not one word of sinne; neyther doth hee there speake of the euill of the fault, but of the euill of the punishment, and afflictions. As concerning the first and second Sect. of the 18. Chap­ter, the Author taketh this word ( to will) in a contrarie sence. For it doth not import that God is the author of sinne, but it onely excludeth the naked and idle per­mission: Because the wicked, doing euill, (as Iudas and the Iewes, when they betrayed and crucified Iesus Christ) doe it voluntarily and of their owne motion: [Page 22] and yet neuerthelesse for all this doe no more but what the counsell of God had before determined should be done, as saith S. Peter, Acts 4.8. Thus you see in one Demand two slanders, here followes the third: that is, that this Demand presupposeth that wee are grounded vpon Caluin, or bound to defend him, whom neuer­thelesse wee knew to be a man and subiect to errour, who also doth still referre vs to the Scriptures, to the end wee should not build vpon him. The slaunders of our Aduersaries doe more binde vs to reade him then his owne authoritie. But our Aduersaries doe not rancke the Popes in this degree: for, they hold that the Popes cannot erre in Faith, and therefore they are bound to defend all their sayings: as the saying of Pope Clement, 1. who in Causa 12. Can. Dilectissimis, approueth the opinion of Plato, who saith that Goods and Wiues ought to be common: and calleth him the wi­sest of all the Greekes. Also, the opinion of Iohn the 24. who taught, that the soules of men doe dye with the soules of beasts: and for the same was condemned in the Councell of Constance, Sess. 11. Also the Canon Christiano, in the 34. Distinction, which saith, that A Christian ought to haue but one Wife, and for want of a Wife a Concubine. Also the Canon Hac ratione, &c. Apostoli praeceperant se­cundas adire nuptias propter incontinentiam hominum. Nam secundam qui­dem accipere, se­cundum praecep­tum Apostoli li­citum est, secun­dum autem ra­tionem veritatis verè fornicatio est, &c. Hacratione, caus. 31. qu. 1. which saith that the Apostle S. Paul spake against both truth and reason. In this Demand there is yet a fourth tricke of bad meaning. Hee requireth a proofe of that which Caluin saith in such and such places, and yet in the same places he might haue found the proofes added by Caluin himselfe: would hee wish vs to copie him out the Chapters? or can he better reade our wri­ting then the Impression of the Institution? Let him then seeke the places if he list: and if they content him not, let him refute them.

XXI. DEMAND. That we must vse no Lights in the Church, neither any Ecclesiasticall Ornaments, distinguished from the seculers.
ANSVVERE.

VVHo euer said so? Doe not wee our selues light vp Candles in our Churches, when we cannot well see? Haue not the Pastors habits conuenient for the Action or seruice, in the Churches, where they may goe on foot to For the places oft-times ap­pointed to the Protestants for exercise of their religion are some miles di­stant from their habita­tion. Cir. Offic. 3. Omnibus viris statuae & ad eas Thus & Cerei. Ouid. Ep. Me­deae. Ardet vt ad magnos pinaea taeda deos. Cereos non clara luce accendimus, vt tu frustra ca­lumniaris sed vt tenebras noctis hoc solatio tem­peremus. serue God without riding on horseback? But to aske whether we may light vp Candles at high-noone, is a question out of the compasse of Diuinitie, and may be decided by common sense. For, it is as much as to aske whether we must walke through the towne with Lanthorne at high-noone, or whether we shall need a combe to a bald head. We know that the Gentiles v­sed Tapers in broad day-light, and lighted them about the Images of their Gods and great Personages: but we are not their Disciples, And vpon this quarrell doth S. Hierome confute the slander of Nigilantius who com­plained that we light vp Candles in the broad day-light. We light not vp (saith S. Hierome) any Tapers in broad day-light, as thou vainely dost slander vs: but onely by this remedie to qualifie the darkenesse of the night.

XXII. DEMAND. That a Bishop is inferiour to a Priest, and that a Deacon is aboue a Priest; that is to say, that the Superintendent is no more then an Elder in the Church, and that the Mini­ster is aboue the Elder.
ANSVVERE.

A Slander. We say not that the Bishop is inferiour to the Priest: but onely that in the new Testament [Page 24] the same persons are called Priests and Bishops. 1. Saint Paul to the Phil. 1. v. 1. salutes the Bishops and Deacons of Philippi, omitting the Priests, and naming many Bi­shops in a heathen towne, where the Church was small, it is euident that he tearmeth the Priests, Bishops. 2. In the 20. of the Acts. vers. 17. the same Apostle assem­bleth the Priests and Elders of the Church of Ephesus: but in the 28. verse he tearmeth the selfe-same persons Bishops. 3. Likewise, in the Epistle to Titus, cap. 2. ver. 5. he saith, I haue left thee in Creete, that thou mightest establish [...], Priests or elders from towne to town; namely, if there be any that is vnreproueable, the Husband of one Wife onely, hauing faithfull Children, not accused of dissolutenesse: For, a Bishop must be vnreproueable, &c. Who perceiueth not, that here he nameth him a Bi­shop whom a little before he called a Priest?

Now the reason why Presbyters or Priests are called Bishops or ouer-seers, is, because the power of Priestly Order. 1. Of dispensing the Word and the Sacraments (wherein that ouer-sight of theirs essentially consists) is equally in Presbyters or Priests, and in those whom now by an excellency wee call Bishops or Ouer-seers: I meane Ouer-seers not onely for their power of dis­pensing the Word and Sacraments, but also for their power of Iurisdiction and gouernment in their owne Churches.

For, the Apostles ordayning many coassistant Pres­byters or Priests, for the edification of the newly con­uerted Cities, V. Hier. ad E­uag. Cyprian. lib. 1. Epist. 3. Hier. aduersus Lucifer. with their neighbouring places (which they called Churches) for the auoyding of Schisme and confusion, and preseruation of vnitie, peace and or­der established a Fatherly preheminence or prioritie (not a Princely as Bellarmine contends) of one Presby­ter aboue the rest, not in the power of order, wherein I said they were all equall: but in the execution or exer­cise [Page 25] of diuers particulars that belong to that power; as Dedicating of Churches, Confirming of the Baptised, but especially ordination of Ministers, which things onely in case of necessitie (that is, in defect of Ortho­doxe Bishops) were and might be performed by Pres­byters, as appeares they were by Saint Ambrose, on the fourth to the Ephesians. Whereas otherwise in the pre­sence of Orthodoxe Bishops, the Presbyters were not to meddle with these things which were reserued onely to the Bishops. Without whose leaue (say Ignatius and Tertullian) they may neyther preach, baptise, Ignat. ad Mag­nesia. Epist. 3. Tert. de Bap­tismo. minister Sacraments, or doe any ministeriall acts. And as one Presbyter euer from the time of the Apostles, had this eminent and Bishoply power aboue the rest, in the exe­cution or exercise of ministeriall acts, least, Aduersus Lu­ciferianos. (as Ierome speakes) there should be as many Schismes as there are Priests: so for the auoyding of like Schisme and Con­fusion, Bishops haue euer had a preeminent power of Iurisdiction and gouernment in their owne Churches, by Ecclesiasticall censures.

As for the word Deacon, the Scriptures apply it to euery Ecclesiasticall Function, yea, euen to Iesus Christ, vvho was often called [...], that is, Deacon, or Mi­nister. The Apostle to the Hebrewes, cap. 8. v. 2. tear­meth him, The Minister of the Santuary. And Rom. 15. v. 8. The Minister of Circumcision. And in the same Chap­ter, S. ^t Paul calleth himselfe The Minister of Iesus Christ, Likewise to the Collossians foure times. Thus doth he exhort Timothy to be a good Minister of Iesus Christ, 1 Tim. 4.6. yet in the Subscription of the second Epi­stle he is called a Bishop. Thus you see that in the phrase of Scriptures, the same persons are called sometimes Priests or Presbyters, sometimes Bishops or Ouerseers, sometimes Deacons or Ministers.

Though wee will not denie, that the vvord Deacon [Page 26] in a more restrained acception, was vsually applied to him that administred the goods or mony of the poore, and the Church-Treasure, euen in the Apostles time, to ease them of that care. But when the Treasurie of the Church increasing, was committed to certaine Ste­wards, and the poore otherwise prouided for, they were more specially vsed for the assisting of the Bishop and Presbyters in things pertayning to Gods Seruice and worship. Tert. lib. de Baptismo. Cyp. l. 3. ep. 17. Greg. Epist. lib. 4. cap. 88. Cyp. serm. 6. de Lapsis. Wherupon Tertullian witnesseth, that in some cases they might baptise: Saint Cyprian, that they might reconcile penitents: Saint Gregory, that they might preach: and againe Saint Cyprian, that they assisted the Bishop and Presbyters in ministring the Sacrament of the Lords body and bloud, and ministred the Cup. Out of the societie and companie of Deacons in each Church, there was one anciently chosen, saith Saint Hie­rome, Ad Rusticum Nouachum. who was not onely to performe the things pertayning to the Deacons Office, but also to pre­scribe vnto others what they should doe: and such were called Arch-deacons. Concil. Carth. 4. Can. 37.39. These in processe of time (not­withstanding all Canons to the contrary, and the vio­lent opposition of Saint Hierome and other worthies of those times) were lifted vp, Ad Euagrium. not onely aboue Presbyters, but Arch-presbiters also, for these reasons.

Ad Euagrium.1 Because the number of Presbyters (as Hierome notes) made them lesse esteemed, and the fewnesse of Deacons made them the more honoured.

2 Because they were busied in the Church-Treasure, and in money matters, which are vsually more regar­ded imployments.

3 Because being Ministers vnto the Bishop, they were vsed by him for the viewing of such parts of his Diocesse, as he could not conueniently come vnto him­selfe; the dispatch of things for him; and in the end, for reformation of the lesser and smaller faults, which vpon [Page 27] such view they should finde. Whereupon at last, they obtayned a kinde of Iurisdiction, and power of corre­ction by prescription and custome. But this maketh no­thing against the Arch-deacons in the Church of Eng­land, who vnder that name exercise Iurisdiction. For, by the Canons of our Church they are Presbiters, cho­sen to assist the Bishop in his gouernment, and not meere Deacons, as sometimes they were.

XXIII. DEMAND. That the Scripture is easie to be vnderstood, and that the vnderstanding thereof is granted to all. They be the words of Caluin in the 3. of his Institutions, Cap. 21. §. 5.
ANSVVERE.

IN this passage of Caluin, wee finde not one word of this matter: neyther doth any man deny, but that in the holy Scripture there be darke places. Onely wee say, that all that is in the Scripture is not obscure, and that, that which is apparant, is sufficient to saluation. The tenne Commandements, and the Articles of faith, contained in the Creed, are there plainely layd downe and expounded. The Fathers in the olde Testament knew not so much, and yet were saued: besides, that there are infinite more matters cleare in the Scrip­tures: If therefore Caluin in any place haue so sayd, he meaneth that in the holy Scripture euery man may vn­derstand enough for his saluation. But hee neuer ter­med the Scripture Theramenes buskin, A Sword for all hands: a Forrest of Forragers: hee neuer said that it maketh a man an Atheist, and that hee that beleeueth because he hath read the Scripture, is no Christian, as saith Charron in his 3. truth, cap. 4. Thou belee­uest that thou readest, then art thou not a Christian, read the 3. and 4. Chapter. Charron. Neither did he call it, as Bellarmin. lib. de verba Dei non scripto. cap. 12. §. Dico secundo Scripturam, & si non est facta precipue vt sit Regula fidei esse tamen Regulam fidei, non tota­lem sed partia­lem. Bellarmine doth, a piece of a Rule; neyther doth hee say: That the holy Scripture (saying of it selfe that it is Diuine) cannot [Page 28] herein be certainely beleeued, if we haue no other testi­monie: for (saith he) Mahumets Alcaron saith as much of Mahomet, in whom we doe not beleeue, lib. 4. De ver­bo Dei non scripto, cap. 4. §. Quarto necesse.

XXIIII. DEMAND. That all sinnes are mortall.
ANSVVERE.

VVEE doe not simply say so: But our Aduersa­ries making two sorts of sinne, some mortall, and some veniall, that is to say, pardonable: 1. Wee say, that to the faithfull repenting him of his sinnes, all sinnes are veniall and pardonable: also that the same sinnes which our aduersaries doe hold to be mortall, as Murther and Whoredome, doe grow pardonable in the faithfull that doe amend, as appeareth by the ex­ample of Dauid. But as for the wicked and impenitent, in them all sinnes are mortall: that is to say, in that they abide in them to death, and that God punisheth them all by death euerlasting. 2. We also say, that it is rashnesse in our Aduersaries to define that there be but seauen mortall sinnes, and that all other sinnes are not so: for it belongeth to the Iudge, not to the Offender, to iudge what punishment euery sinne doth deserue: but we are all guiltie, and haue neede of remission in the sight of God. 3. But among their mortall sinnes, why haue they not put Herefie, Atheisme, Superstition, Slan­dering, &c. Be these small sinnes, and pardonable in the iudgement of his Holinesse? 4. To call a mans brother Foole, or to speake euill of him, are they mor­tall sinnes in the iudgement of the Church of Rome? No, say they: yet doth Iesus Christ in the fift of Mat­thew, say, That whosoeuer doth call his brother Foole, is in danger of hell fire: And S. Paul, 1 Cor. 6. vers. 10. saith, [Page 29] That slanderers shall not enter into the Kingdome of heauen.

XXV. DEMAND. That with the grace of God we can merit nothing.
ANSVVERE.

THis Demand answereth it selfe: For whatsoeuer is of Grace, is not of merit, saith S. Paul, Rom. 11. vers. 6. If it be of grace, it is no more of workes, or else were grace no more grace. To merit by grace, agreeth as well as to be frozen with heat: or to be wet with drougth. 1. For how may we merit by grace, considering that it is grace that keepeth our good workes from being me­ritorious? that is to say, that they proceede from the grace of God. 2. Againe: Saluation is a gift, Rom. 6. vers. 23. Ephes. 2. vers. 8. and 9. Then is it not obtained by merits. 3. And Saluation is an Inheritance belong­ing to the faithfull, for as much as they be the children of God, as saith Saint Paul, Rom. 8. The spirit of God beareth witnesse with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if we be children, saith he, then are we heyres: Here vpon let vs heare Bellar­mines Confessi­on, lib. 2 de Gratia, cap. 14. Deus constituit in predestinatione regnum dare cer­tis hominibus quos abs (que) vlla operum praeuisio­ne dilexit: ta­men simul consti­tuit vt quo ad executionem via perueniendi ad Regnum essent bona opera. But no man by merits purchaseth that inheritance which belongeth vnto him as a Sonne. Moreouer, Iesus Christ saith, Luke 17.10. When we haue done all that wee are commanded, yet are we vnprofitable seruants: but what can be the merit of an vnprofitable seruant? Admit also that our good workes were as perfect, as they be mixed with infirmitie, and that wee were more righteous then the Angels: vvhat goodnesse vvere there in all this, vvhich also were not the gift of God? and what merit can there be in offering to God that which is alreadie his, and from him? Wee confesse that GOD rewar­deth good workes: but there be rewards that are not deserued. The Father will giue his Sonne a new coat, because he made an A. or a B. yet not in regard [Page 30] of his Sonnes merit, but of his owne promise, or for that he is his Sonne. But by the way we are to note, that this inquirer doth disguise our opinion, and altereth the Controuersie: for our difference is not, whether it be possible to merit with the grace of God; but whether the holy Scripture doth teach vs that we must merit, or purchase saluation by our merits.

XXVI. DEMAND. That it is vnpossible to keepe Gods Commandements, euen with his grace.
ANSVVERE.

THis must be asked of them that beleeue it. Wee doubt not but God can giue some man grace to keepe his Commandements.

XXVII. DEMAND. That God will giue no recompence to good workes, which is all one, as to say, that there be no meritorious workes.
ANSVVERE.

A Slander. Wee hould that God doth recompence good workes: but that heereof it doth not ensue that good workes are meritorious, and betweene these two there is a great deale of difference. This haue wee shewed in the answere to the 25. demand.

XXVIII. DEMAND. That there is no distinction of beatitude betweene the blessed, and that they are all equall in glory.
ANSVVERE.

THe Inquisitor is much deceiued, if hee thinke vs to be of that beliefe. In these curious things we suffer [Page 31] euery man to thinke what he list. It is the propertie of the Popes and Church of Rome, not onely to place in the ranke of Saints whom they please, after the Imita­tion of the Pagan Apotheosis, or Deifying of the Roman Senate, but also to ascribe to euery one his office: to one the charge of horses: to another the charge ouer women with childe, to another ouer France, to another ouer Spayne, &c. and ouer them all to appoint the Queene of heauen, with extreame iniurie to the holy and bles­sed Virgin, who taketh no pleasure in that honour wherein God is dishonoured, whose Coelestiall Royal­tie is incommunicable with the creature. Also that men should attribute titles & dignities celestiall vnto Saints, without any testimonie of Gods word, is a matter no lesse ridiculous and rash, then if the Ants or Pismires should hold a counsell to conserue the offices of the Crowne of France, and the charge of the priuie Coun­cell to such men as they list.

XXIX. DEMAND. That we must not vse the like Imposition of hands, as the Apostles vsed ouer those of Samaria and of Ephesus. Act. 8. vers. 14. and cap. 19. vers. 5. And that the said Confirma­tion was not one of the Articles of the Apostles Catechisme, mentioned in the Epistle to the Hebrewes. cap 6. vers. 2.
ANSVVERE.

HEre is a double slander, and an imposture. For 1. where you say, we denie you may vse the like Imposition of hands, as did the Apostles; we denie not but you may if you can bestow the like miraculous gifts as did the Apostles vpon the Samaritanes, by lay­ing on of your hands. Secondly, you imply that wee denie all Imposition of hands: whereas we will grant you the like forme (though not altogether the like ef­fect) [Page 32] of imposition of hands, as was vsed by the Apo­stles. For as after Philip had catechised the Samaritanes, and taught them the chiefe points of Christian Doctrine the Apostles came and prayed for them, and laid their hands on them: So after children or youth in their owne persons, haue made publike and particular profession of the summe of their faith, or Christian Ca­techisme (which others in their name did summarily professe for them, at their Baptisme) we denie not but Prayer may be made for them, that strength & increase of the Grace of the holy Ghost may be giuen them, to liue and die in that Christian faith, and newnesse of life, whereof they haue made profession. And that to those prayers may well be added that ancient and Apostolike ceremonie of Imposition of hands, betokening our re­strained desires to the parties whom we present to God by our prayers.

But herein is a notable Imposture: that you would perswade vs, that the Confirmation or Imposition of hands, Bell. lib de Con­firmatione cap. 8 & 13. See the Rhe­mists on Act. 8 Sect. 6. vsed by your Popish Bishops, is like that of the Apostles. Did they consecrate Oyle mixed with Balme? did they crosse it, breath vpon it, salute it, Aue sanctum Chysma. Haile, holy Chrysme? Did they annoynt the Samaritanes with such Oyle? Make crosses in their fore-heads, giue them kisses, and claps in their eares, binde their fore-heads with Fillets, and enioyne them not to wash their faces or heads for seauen daies, as the Popish Bishops doe, in their Confirmation? which being more like a May-game (as they vse it) then a Sacrament (as they make it, Nichol. Papa. Dist. 4. de Con­secrat. Can. A quodam Indao. though Christ did not institute it) yet doth the Church of Rome hold it, in greater estima­tion then Baptisme. The administration whereof they permit to Priests, to Women, yea, euen to the Iewes and Heathen: alwayes reseruing to the Bishops only the power of Confirmation. Can. de his. Pope Melchiades in the se­cond [Page 33] distinction of consecration, comparing Baptisme with Confirmation, saith that the Sacrament or Confir­mation ought to be held in greater honour. And Bel­larmine in his Booke of Confirmation, and eleauenth Chapter, saith it is great power to strengthen the soule against the Diuell.

It would make a man laugh to heare this Inquisitour enquire whether in the Apostles Catechisme there was euer an Article of Confirmation. For it were his part to proue that there was one, not ours to proue there was none. It is his part that affirmeth, to proue. The ra­ther for that, we dare not assuredly auow, that the A­postles had any ordinarie forme of Catechisme. And the sixt Chapter to the Hebrewes, in the iudgement of our learned Diuines, Caluin, Beza, Piscator. doth proue Confirmation to haue beene vsed by the Apostles, or by their approbation, yet doth it not proue Confirmation was an Article of their Catechisme.

XXX. DEMAND. That the precept of annoynting the sicke with Oyle, laid downe in the 5. of Iames. vers. 14. ought not to be put in practise in the Church, albeit it was vsed by the Apostles. Mark. 6. ver. 13.
ANSVVERE.

THe Inquisitour alledging S. Mark. 6. vers. 13. an­swereth himselfe, for S. Marke saith, They cast out many Diuels, and annoynted many that were sicke with Oyle, and healed them. The Apostles and Disciples were therefore commanded to annoynt the sicke, to heale them: If any one hath this miraculous gift of hea­ling, we doe very well like that he should annoynt the sicke: But at these dayes they annoynt those whose diseases are desperate, and the miracles are all reduced [Page 34] to one onely kinde, which is the coniuring of Diuels: Thus of a Medicine it is made a Sacrament: and a mi­raculous Vnction which healed the bodies, is now growne to be an Vnction vnprofitable both to the bo­die, and to the soule. After the losse of the vertue, they labour to preserue the Ceremony, and yet so altered, and diuersly changed by an artificiall kinde of trouble that it will aske at the least a good halfe houres worke to conferre extreame Vnction.

XXXI. DEMAND. That Prayer for the dead was not in vse, euen in the time of the Machabees.
ANSVVERE.

VVHether it were then vsed or not vsed, it im­porteth not much: For we liue not now by the example of the Machabees, but by the rule of the Gos­pell, we therefore affirme nothing vpon the point. For the Author of the Booke of the Machabees, hauing re­ported many things contrary to the truth of the Storie, might well doe the like in the 12. Chapter of the second booke thereof. The principall matter is, that he there speaketh of Prayer for the dead, which nothing pertay­neth to the controuersie of these dayes: for the Author saith, that Iudas in that prayer remembred the resurre­ction, and that otherwise it had beene a folly to pray for the dead. Where shall we finde that Masse-Priest, who if you demand of him wherfore he recommendeth the deceased in his memento, will answere, that it is to the end he may rise againe in glory, or that he regar­deth the resurrection?

XXXII. DEMAND. That S. Peter was not the first of the Apostles, albeit [Page 35] S. Matth. cap. 10. v. 2. saith, The names of the twelue Apostles are these: The first, Simon, called Peter, &c.
ANSVVERE.

THis likewise is calumnious as well as the former, and almost all the rest. Wee deny not but Saint Peter was the first among the Apostles; for it is of no importance. He might be the first in age, in eloquence, in vertues, or miracles, or in knowledge. All this is pos­sible, without hauing power or iurisdiction ouer the rest of the Apostles, which is that kinde of Primacie for the which they plead so hard in these dayes.

1 For had the Apostles knowne that Iesus Christ had giuen the superioritie and command ouer the rest vnto Saint Peter, they would neuer after haue conten­ded among themselues about Primacie, and that euen the day before the death of IESVS CHRIST, Luke 22.24.

2 And S. Iohn, cap. 1. and S. Paul, Gal. 2. would ne­uer haue named Saint Peter after Saint Andrew and Saint Iames.

3 Neyther would the Apostles haue vnder-taken to haue sent S. Peter to Samaria, Acts 8.15.

4 Neyther would S. Paul haue said of himselfe that in nothing hee was inferiour to the most excellent A­postles, 2 Cor. 11. & 12. vvhere hee saith, IN NO­THING, he taketh away all exception.

5 Besides that, say that S. Peter had superioritie of Iurisdiction ouer the other Apostles, doth it therefore ensue that the same ought to be perpetuall in the Church? allso, that if one man haue commaund ouer a few, that therefore one man must gouerne all the Church throughout the world?

6 Doth it also follow that the Bishop or Rome should be his Successor in this Primacie? But, say these [Page 36] Doctors, Saint Peter dyed at Rome. Admit it were so: but Iesus Christ dyed at Hierusalem, shall the death of Saint Peter at Rome be of greater force to deriue the Primacie to the Bishop of Rome, then the death of Iesus Christ in Hierusalem, to deriue the Primacie to the Bishop of Hierusalem?

7 Againe, admit the Pope were Saint Peters Succes­sor; doth it follow that hee must succeede him in his A­postleship: for others will say that he is not his Succes­sor but in qualitie of Bishop of Rome: and thereof there is farre greater appearance: for, likewise the Bi­shop of Hierusalem was Successor to Saint Iames; and the Bishop of Ephesus succeeded Saint Iohn and Saint Paul, in that these Apostles were Bishops of Hierusa­lem and Ephesus; yet were they not their Successors in the function of Apostles.

8 Finally, were the Pope Saint Peters Successor in qualitie of an Apostle, and of the head of the Church; had he not long since lost this Succession by reuersing the doctrine of Saint Peter, and liuing in the estate of a temporall Monarch, not of a spirituall Pastor? If then he be Successour to Saint Peter, it is in like manner as sicknesse succeedeth health, and as an vsurper succee­deth in place of him whom he hath expelled. To what purpose are the keyes, which serue onely but to shut vp heauen? or Simons Barke, which hath no other vse then to trafficke withall? or his Net, which at this day is imployed onely in fishing for Dukedomes, and to entangle Common-wealths?