1. That there is not in the Church [Page 22] one, and that, an infallable rule for understanding the holy Scriptures, and conserving of Ʋnitie in matters of saith.

THis assertion of our's (as hee calleth it) is contrary (sayth hee) to the expresse words of our own Bible, which he nameth ther­after. To whom I answere 1. In generall, that he beginneth with a grosse cal [...]mny, affirming that to be our assertion which is not, for wee deny not to be in the Church an infallable rule of faith, or for understanding the Scriptures, and conserving unitie in the matters of faith, as our Confession of faith showeth, anno 1581. art. 18. but affirmeth this rule of faith to bee the Scripture it self, which is ther­fore called the Canon or rule of Scripture, & that the right under­standing [Page 23] thereof in all matters of faith is to be had frō the scripture it self, and that analogie of faith clearlie set downe therein or dery­ved therefra. as Pope Clement spea­keth (dist. 37. cap. 14.) saying that we should, Ex ipsis Scripturis sens [...]m capere veritatis, that is, Take the meaning of the Trueth out of the Scriptures themselves, which he cal­leth there, integram & firmam regu­lam veritatis, or, The full and firme rule of Trueth.

Next for answere to him in parti­culare, he adduceth foure places of Scripture most impertinent, which nowise maketh against any asser­tion of ours, but whereby he only beats the wind, These are 1. Rō. 12. 2. where it is said, Having then gifts according to the grace that is given to us, whether Prophesie according to the proportion of faith. the second is, [Page 24] Phil. 3. 16, which sayeth, Never­theless whereunto wee haue alreadie attayned, let us minde the same thing. the third is, Gal. 6. 16. which say­eth, And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them & mer­cie. the fourth is, 1. Cor. 11. 16. which sayth, We haue no such custom nor the Churches of God. The First, proving only (as their owne Estius Professour at Duay showeth) that all the doctrine of Teachers should be squared according to the rule and analogie of faith, which wee also mayntaine and is contayned in Scripture, the second (as the same Estius showeth) exhorteth onelie to Christian Unitie and concord, The third (as the same Estius like­wise out of Chrisostome and Theo­phylact proveth) that the Apostle speaketh not there of the rule of doctrine, but of life, which verse [Page 25] 15. hee calleth the new creature, or holinesse, to which he exhorteth them, and as to that which he sub­joyneth 2. Cor. 10. 15. as Cardinal Cajetan, Catharinus and the ordinary gloss expoundeth, The Apostle (ta­king the Metaphor from workmē to whom severally as by rule o [...] line their task is measured out) doeth understand the limits onely of his Apostolicall mission and jurisdi­ction, which was to the Gentiles, of whom the Corinthians were a part, as PETER was to the Jewes special­lie, and as wee see Gal. 2. 7. And the fourth (as Estius also showeth) speaketh onely that the custome of the Church is not to bee conten­tious.

As for the testimonies of Fathers which hee bringeth heere, and a­longst this whole Pamphlet, First, I may answere to them in generall, [Page 26] not in my words, but in their own Gabriel Biels on the Canon of the Masse lect. 41. saying, Their authori­ty cōpelleth no mā to assent to their say­ings, except (sayth he) they be groun­ded on holy Scripture & divine revel­tion. Therfore before this be manifest, it is lawfull to controll their sayings, (sayeth hee) and to bee of a contrary judgement, wherefore, sayeth S. Je­rom, If I say any thing which I shall not prove by one of the two Testaments, let mee not bee believed. (no word then of traditions) and S. Augu­stin (sayeth hee) in his 8. Epistle to Jerom speaketh thus, saying, This honour is onelie to be given to the holie canonick Scriptures, that whatsoever they say, therefore it must bee believed to bee true, but as for others, I reade them onelie upon this condition, that however famous the [...] be for holines or learning, I think it not true therefore, [Page 27] because they haue thought so, untill I bee otherwise perswaded by canonick Scriptures or probable reasons that they haue not erred from the Trueth. and which is more (sayeth hee) we see that one holie father somtimes contra­dicteth another, as holy Cyprian con­tradicteth Augustin concerning the re­baptising of Hereticks & Scismaticks, as likewise hee contradicteth Ierome concerning Pauls reprehending of Pe­ter, and so of many other like examp­les I might speake (sayth he.) These are all their owne B [...]e [...]s words, and what little reckning Iesuits make of Fathers or their exposition of Scripture when they disagree with them, and jump with those whom they call Calvinists, I will showe by this one instance, Maldonat. on Ioh. 6. 62. bringeth Augustins exposition of that place, (which is also Beda and Ruperts exposition) [Page 28] and with it another exposition whereof hee sayeth, Hee will not deny that hee hath no other man as Authour thereof, but yet (sayth he) I wil rather approve it than Augustins which of all other is the most probable, because that this is more repugnant to the meaning of the Calvinists. But not taking advantage either of Bi­els words, or of these I come in particulare to Vincentius Lyrinensis words which he bringeth, saying, That the line of Propheticall & Apo­stolicall expositiō should be directed ac­cording to the rule of the Ecclesiasti­call & Catholick sense, but he forgets the words of that ancient Authour, both before and after cap. 2. & 35. wher he sayth before these words. That the Scripture is a perfect rule, full, and more than sufficient for deci­sion of al controversies in points of faith, with which therefore all Ecclesiasticall [Page 29] and Catholick sense must agree, and that onelie must be held which hath beene believed ever, every where, and by all. And so this testimony ma­keth nothing against us, and to which rule and words of Vincentius if wee will apply the points of Po­perie, as I haue showne by five par­ticulars in answere to the Preface, wee shall find them quyte contrary and disagreeable, yea, and to bee onelie meere novelties.

And albeit with Vincentiꝰ, Bellar. (lib. 4. de verbo c. 7. §. ad hunc.) as also the Iesuit S [...]lmeron in 1. Io­han. 3. disp. 25. §. 30) affirme That whē he Fathers all of thē, or almost all agree in one judge-ment, or in the expo­sition of any place of the scripture, that then they gi [...]e a sure and inevitable argument of Catholick veritie and of a sure and sound exposition of Scripture, yet according to this rule, let tryall [Page 30] be (beside the former five) but in this one point of poperie, to wit, The Virgin Mari's conception without sinne (decreed in the Councell of Trent, decreto 5. Sess. 5.) whe­ther it bee of Catholick veritie or not, and (I hope) it shall be found but a lurd errour and a blafphe­mous noveltie. And that they go closs and crosse against the unani­mous expositiō of Scripture which all the Fathers give and agree ther­in. For example Rom. 5. 12. It is said of Adam. In whō all have sinned. from which text all the holie fathers with one mouth (sayeth their Bishop Canus loc. theol. lib. 7. cap. 1. af­firmeth the blessed virgin to have been conceived in originall sinne, of whome he citeth 18. & their words in par­ticular, The like doth Cardinall ca­jetan in his treatise concerning this matter which he wrote to Pope Ieo [Page 31] the tenth ( [...]om. 2. opusc. tract. 1. cap. 5.) The like also doeth the ma­ster of sentences witnesse, lib. 3. dist. 3. saying, It may be truely said, & we must believe according to the un­animous testimonies of the holy fathers, that the flesh which Christ tooke was formerly subject to sinne, as the rest of the Virgins flesh, but was sanctified & made pure by the operation of the Holy Ghost, therefore Bernard in his 174. Epistle to the channons of Lions, having disputed that point Lear­nedly, Concludes, that Christ onely being excepted, of all others that have been borne of Adam, it may be said, which humbly and truly (sayeth he) David sayeth of himselfe, I was sha­pen in iniquity and in sinne did my mo­ther conceive me, and therefore in the same place he calleth the feast of her conception without sin, a presump­tious noveltie, the mother of rashnes, the [Page 32] sister of superstition, and daughter of inconstancie. & whosoever denyeth that all others without exception, (except Christ) are conceived in sin, he is found (sayeth Augustin lib. 5. con [...]. Iulian. cap. 9.) to be a detestable heretick, be­cause herby (as Salmeron testifies in Rom. 5. disp. 49.) Aquinas sayeth, that this were to equal the virgin Ma­ry with Christ himselfe.

And yet notwithstanding of so cleare a place of scripture, so unani­mously expounded by all the anci­ent fathers, which Billarmin & Sal­meron calleth a sure & inevitable ar­gument of catholick verity, and sound­exposition of scripture.

Yet for al this (sayeth Bellarmin cō ­tradicting himselfe, lib. 4. de amis­sa gratia cap. 15. §. ab hac) seing the Councell of Trent hath decreed the con­trary, as likewise Pope Sextus 4. and Pius 5. they are not to be accounted ca­tholicks [Page 33] that esteemes this an errour, and consequently all the ancient fa­thers, are not to be accounted Ca­tholicks, nor Cardinal Cajetan, bi­shop Canus nor ther master of sen­tences, and canonized Aquinas, and many more besides.

VVee see then howsoever they pretend traditiō, or the unanimous consent of fathers to be the rule of faith, or exposition of the scripture, yet when they please, and findeth the same displeasing to them, they vilyfie and rejects the same, there­fore thus sayeth the Iesuit Valentia, in the last chapter of the 5. booke of his analysis, that any by gone tra­dition without the authority of the present Church is not a sufficient [...]udge [...]f controversies of faith. So also speakes Cardinall Cajetan in the begining of his comentars on Genesis, as also Baronius tom. 1. an­nal. [Page 34] anno 34. num. 213.

And if we will consider what cer­tainty, or rather what fluctuating uncertantie is in the moderne sense, or exposition that the present Ro­man Church now puts upon scrip­ture, whereon to build their faith, Let Cardinall Cusanus words testy­fie (epist. 2. ad Bohemos pag. 833. and 838.) who sayeth, That one time the Church iuterprets the Scripture one way, and at another tyme another way, and that the understanding of the scrip­ture, must follow her practise, & when she changeth her judgement, God also changeth his, then which, I know not what can be grearer blasphemy.

Next, for answere to that testi­monie which he brings out of Ter­tullian, where he sayth, we admit not our Adversaries to dispute out of scrip­ture, till thy can show who their ancessors were, and from whom they received th [...] [Page 35] scriptures. These words of Tertullian makes no wayes against us, where­by he denieth not that the scripture is the rule of faith, or of disputes concerning the same, as he show­eth, against hermogenes, cap. 22. say­ing, let these of Hermogenes shop show that it is written, and if it be not writ­ten let them feare that woe which is al­lotted to such as adde or take away. but he showeth only, that Apostolicall churches (& not Rome only) which were founded by them, and to that time had keeped the truth which they had delivered in the scriptures, committed to them, could only lay best claym to them, which he­reticks who dissented from these scriptures and apostolical churches of these primitive times could not do.

As for Ireneus, whom only he ci­teth, but not his words, he hath no­thing [Page 36] in that place that favoureth tradition, as an unwritten rule of faith, for so he should not agree with himselfe, who sayeth lib. 3. cap. 2. that these things which are to be shown in the scriptures, can not be made mani­fest but by the scriptures themselves, and lib. 3. cap. 1. That the scriptures is that which is the foundation and pil­lar of our faith, and not tradition or any unwritten rule.

Tertullian also that he is of the same mynd, I have shown out of the for [...]cited testimonie, concerning Hermogenes, and who in that same 22. Chapter. sayeth, that he adoreth the fullnes of scripture.

Chrisostome also, hom. 3. in. 2. cor. calles it a most exact rule and ballance, which it could not be, if either it wer A partiall rule onely (as Bellarmin calleth it) or that tradition were the rule of faith.

[Page 37] A [...]gustin also de bono viduitatis, cap 1. calleth it, a fixed and sure rule, in opposition (as it were) to unsure tradition.

Yea Bellarmin himselfe (lib. 1. de verbo, cap. 2.) haveing showne that the rule of our faith should have these two properties first, that it should be most sure (which tradi­tion can not be, luke 1. 4. (2. pet▪ 1. 19.) and 2. most known, he con­cludeth, that the scripture is the most sure and best knowne rule both of faith and manners.

But what shall I speake of a Car­dinall, when a Pope, to wit Clement in his first booke of recognitions, cited, dist. 37. cap. relatum calleth the scripture a firm and sound rule of faith.

Basill also hom. 13. in Genesis sayeth, thes things which may seem to be ambiguous and obscure in [Page 38] some places of the holy scripture, must be explained by these which elswhere are more plaine and manifest.

Augustin likewise, cont. Crescon. Lib. 2. cap. 31. speaking of an e­pistle of Ciprians, I am not bound (sayeth he) to the authority of this epistle, because I account not Ci­prians writting, as canonicall, but I examine them by these that are canonicall, and that which is agre­able in them to the authority of divine scriptures, I receive, and that which is not agreeable, I re­fuse. Heer then we see that Au­gustin would have the scriptures on­ly to be the rule of faith, and of di­vine authoritie.

2 THat in matters of faith we must not relye on the judge-ment of the Church or her Pastours.

[Page] VVHich he sayeth is contrary to Math. 23. 2. Where the jewish people are commanded by Christ, To obserue all whatsoever the Scribes and Pharisees did bidd thē obserue, not only (sayeth hee) in some principall matters, but in all whatso­ever without distinction or limita­tion. For answere to whom, I can not admire enough the mans im­pudencie or ignorance, seing First, our Saviour himself showeth the contrary, where, Math. 16. 6. 12. lie biddeth his disciples and others, Beware of their leaven, which be ex­poundeth to be their false doctrine. 2. The Authour of the ordinarie gloss (with whom agreeth Lyra) on Deut. 17. 10 sayeth, Note, that the Lord requireth, that whatsoever the Priest doth teach thee according to the Law do thou, because otherwise thou art not to obey them. Ferus also a spa­nish [Page 40] Frier and Preacher at Mentz. on this place speaketh thus, Christ would not that they should receive all the doctrines of the Pharisees (sayeth hee) but so farre only as they agreed with Gods Law, else they should haue admitted all the false glosses which our Saviour refuteth, Math. 5. from verse 21. to the end. To this also agre­eth the Iesuite Maldonat upon this place, And that Christ spake not of their owne doctrine, but of Mo­ses doctrine and the Law which they were to deliver. The publication on­lie being theirs, but the doctrine the Lords; as we see Math. 28. 19.

The next place which hee bring­eth is Luke 10. 16. where our Sa­viour sayeth to his Apostles, Hee that heareth you heareth me. To which my former answer may suf­fice. Therefore also sayeth Ferus, It is heerby evident that the Apo­stles, [Page 41] themselves, were to be heard in so farre only as they were Apostles, that is. Did Christs message, and preached and taught what he commanded them, but if they should teach otherwise, or any doctrine contrarie to Christs, then they were not Apostles, but seducers (sayeth he) and therefore not to bee heard.

His third place is Math. 16. 19. where our Saviour sayeth to Peter, What soever thou shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, &c. giving us to understand (sayeth he) that not onlie the bands of sinnes, but all other knots & difficulties in matters of faith are to be loosed by S. Peter and his successours. To whom I answere 1. Their own Cardinall Cusanus spea­keth thus de concord. Cathol. lib. 2. cap. 13. There was nothing said to Peter, which was not said to all the rest Likewise, for as it was said to [Page 42] Peter, whatsoever thou shall bind on earth, &c. was it not said also to all the rest, whatsoever yee bind on earth, & [...]. (sayeth he) whence it will follow that all knots and difficulties in matters of faith are to be loosed by the successours of all the rest of the Apostles wheresoever, aswell as by S. Peter's pretended successours. Next if by loosing the solving of all doubts and difficulties in mat­ters of faith bee meaned, then by binding (which is cōtrar to loosing) the making of knots & difficulties in matters of faith must be mea­ned, whernone were before, which is absurd to affirme. And which when Peter's successours doth on earth, God must also do the same in heaven. As Cardinall Cusanus sayth Epist. 2. ad Bohemos, p, 838. That when the Church changeth her judgement, God also changeth his. Which is open blasphemy.

3 THat the Scriptures ar easie to be understood, and there­fore, none ought to be restrained from reading them.

VVHich sayeth hee is contra­ry to the expresse words of 2. Pet. 3. 16. Where Peter spea­king of Pauls Epistles, sayeth In which are some thinges hard to bee understood. To which I answere. 1. That by saying some thinges ar hard to bee understood, it followeth, that the rest (which is the greater part) are not hard but easie to bee understood, For the exception of some onlie, cleareth the rest from obscuritie, therfore from the grea­ter part of the Scripture easie to be understood which concerne faith & manners necessary to salvation, wee rather conclude the plainnesse of Scripture [...] & that people should reade the same, then because some [Page 44] thinges are hard to be understood, to put obscuritie upon the whole Scripture, and therefore to debarre people frō reading thereof. Cheif­lie seing not onely Augustin lib. 2. de doctr. Christ. cap. 9. But Bel­larmin also consenting to Augustins words, lib. 4. de verbo cap. 11. §. ultimo testifieth, That all doctrines which are simplie necessary for all men to salvation are plainlie set downe in scripture, wher upon (speaking to the people in his 55. sermon. de tempore, hee sayeth, Neither let it suffice you that yee heare the holie Scriptures read in the Church, but al­so in your own houses either reade thē your selves, or desire others to reade them. And so likewise sayth Chri­sostome con. 32. de Lazaro & hom. 2. in Math.

The next place which he bringes is Act. 8. 30. where Philip sayeth [Page 45] to the Eunuch. Ʋnderstandeth thou what thou readeth? who said how can I without a guide? Whereunto I an­swere, 1. This place was a prophe­cie, and such are hard to be under­stood, till they be fulfilled, and the Eunuch was a Proselyte and a No­vice onelie in religion, therefore from one place which was prophe­ticall and dark to a Novice in reli­gion, to conclude that the Scrip­tures in whole are dark & obscure, and therefore not to bee read by people, is an absurd consequence. Yea this place rather maketh a­gainst papists, seing the Eunuchs practise heere was reading of the Scripture, which Philip did not re­prehend in him (as popish Priests would haue done) but only explai­neth unto him the Prophesie, of whom it was meaned, and that it was▪ fulfilled by Christs suffering, [Page 46] and so maketh him thereby to bee a Christian convert, the occasion of which benefit, the reading of the Scripture did afford unto him. Wherupon sayeth their owne Car­thusian, Great was the care of that Heathen man (sayeth hee) and his diligence condemneth our negligence in learning holie Scriptures. There­fore also Chrisostome giveth this directiō to people in reading holy scriptures, saying, (in his 10. homi­lie on Iohn.) That which is easie to be understood get by heart, and these things that are obscure, reade thē over often, and if by doing so, you cannot findout the meaning, go to thy teacher.

The third place which he brings is, Luke, 24. 25. where Christ expoun­deth to his Disciples al things concern­ing himselfe. To which I answere, that this maketh nothing against peoples reading of scripture, com­manded [Page 47] by Christ himselse, Iohn 5. 39. injoyned by the Apostle, Eph. 6. 17. Coloss. 3. 16. and for which Timothy was commended, 2. Tim. 3 15. That from a childe he had knowne the scriptures, but only showeth that hard places specially, such as pro­phecies, are to be expouned to peo­ple, as Christ did heere to his disci­ples, & as the former place Act. 8. 30. and that speach of Chrisostome showeth.

The fourth place which he addu­ceth is, Revel. 5. 1. concerning the sealed booke which none was able to open, and which this pamphle­ter would have to be the booke of scripture. whereunto I will onely answere in the Iesuit Ribera's words on that place, saying, The prophe­cie of these things which shall fall out in the last times is here only meaned, as Andrew Archbishope of Caesarea ex­poundeth [Page 48] it (sayeth hee) & proveth that hereby the book of the scrip­ture cannot be meaned, because evē then Iohn saw this book sealed whē this revelation was made unto him, before which time most of the A­postles were dead, So that if by this sealed booke the scripture were under­stood. then it would follow (sayeth he) that the rery Apostles upon whom the holie ghost descended, in their time un­derstood not the scripture, but it was sealed even to Peter and Paull, and to the rest who died before this revelati­on was made unto Iohn. which were absurd to say.

But I cannot but marvell that he should bring so manyplaces of scripture to prove that people should not be permitted to reade the scripture because of the obscurity thereof, seing that their late and famous Bi­shope Espenseus, on Titus, 2. testifi­eth, [Page 49] that the with-holding of the scripture from the people was nei­ther in the Apostles times, or agre­able to their doctrine, nor yet was it in the tyme of the primitive Church. his words are these.

It is manifest (sayeth he) by the doctrine of the Apostle, Col. 3. 16. and by the practise of the primitive church that of old, the reading of the scripture was permitted to people.

As for the testimonies of fathers which he bringeth, none of them doeth prove his point, for 1. in Ire­nus there is no speach at all to his point or purpose, nor tels he in what booke of Origen. any such thing is to be found, and as to Ambrose testi­mony which calleth the scripture a sea, and depth of propheticall ridles, I answer, that no man denyeth but that (as Gregorie, also speaketh in his epistle to Leander) it is as a sea, [Page 50] and deepe wherein an Elephant may swime, as also so shallow wherein a Lamb (sayeth he) may wade. contain­ing both high mysteries, for exer­cising the most learned, as also most easie instructions, (as David speak­eth psal. 119. 130) To give under­standing to the simple. Next, to Au­gustins testimony, where he sayeth, that the things in scripture which he knew not, were much more then these which he knew, I answer, that this showeth onely his humility, as the Apostle also professeth, that in this life he knew but in part, but this nei­ther maketh for proving the ob­scurity of scripture, the contrary whereof he affirmeth in the place forecited, de doct. Christ, lib. 2. cap. 9. not yet maketh it against the peo­ples reading of scripture, whereun­to so earnestly he exhorts them, Serm. 55. de tempore, and as for [Page 51] Gregorie we differ no wayes from him in the place forecited.

As for S. Dennis testimony (as he calleth him) where he sayeth, that the matter of the scriptures was farre more profound, then his wit could reach unto, I answere, that by nature it is true of all, except (as David prayes psal. 119. 18.) The Lord open mens eies that they may understand the wonders of his Law, But this proveth not that therefore the scriptures are not to be read. or are every where obscure.

4. THat apostolicall traditions, and ancient customes of the Church (not found written in the word) are not to be received, nor do ob­leidge us.

VVHich he sayeth is expresly contrary to 2. Thess. 21. 5. where the Apostle biddeth them, [Page 52] Hold fast the traditions which they had beene taught, whether by word or Epistle. and which traditions by word, he sayeth are of equall authoritie with what was written, if not more, be­cause first named.

I answere, Nicephorus and Theo­doret on that place, showeth that the Apostle speaketh not of divers doctrines of faith, some written by him, & others not written, but left to verball tradition, but he speak­eth of the same doctrines diverslie onely delivered, to wit, first by word when he was present with them, & the same thereafter by Epistle, be­ing absent from them, even as he speaketh, Philip. 31. saying, To writ the same things to you, (to wit, which he had preached before) To me indeed is not greevous, but for you it is safe, which Bellarmin also con­firmeth, (lib. 4. de verbo cap. 11.) [Page 53] while he grants, That al things, were writen by the Apostles which they prea­ched to the people, or which was necessar (sayeth he) to salvation. whence it followeth, that what was not writ­ten by the Apostle thereafter to the Thessalonians, was not taught to them before by word, as also what was not written by the Apostles, that the same is not necessar to sal­vation, and consequently that uu­written doctrinall traditions are not necessary to salvation, for of such onely is the question, and not of any other sort of traditions, rituall, his­toricall, or explicatory, which do­eth not derogate from the perfe­ction of scripture.

The second place which he bringeth, is 2. Thess. 3. 6. Where the A­postle commands, Thē to withdraw themselves from every brother that walks disorderly, and not after the tra­tradition [Page 54] which they received of him, to which I answer, that Cardinall Ca­jetan on the 14. verse showeth that what he calleth tradition in the 6. verse, he calleth the same, his word by Epistle in the 14. verse, and ther­fore written.

Aquinas likewise on this 6. verse showeth that the same is meaned by tradition, which is meaned, 2 Thess. 2. 15. which we have already clea­red, to wit, that doctrine which was delyvered both by word and writ, by word first, and by writ af­ter, but the most simple exposition is this (sayeth their Estius) that the Apostle speaketh in generall of the in­stitution of a Christian life, The de­rection whereof no man can say but is set downe in scripture.

The third place which he bring­eth is, 1. Cor. 11. 2. where the A­postle praiseth them that they kee­ped [Page 55] the traditions which hee had deli­vered them, whereunto I answere, that in that text, ther is not a word of tradition, but as their owne vul­gare and Rhemes Translation hath, is, that they keeped his Precepts, where the deceatfulnes of this Pā ­pleter is to be noted, that to seduce the simple when hee pleaseth, hee departeth from the vulgare Tran­slation, which at other times hee so magnifieth as onlie authentick, and doeth idolize.

As for the testimonie which hee bringeth out of Basil, where hee sayeth, Some things we have frō scrip­ture other things from the Apostles, both which haue alike force unto god­linessis. I answer. First, that the most learned except against this Booke as corrupted, as B. Andrewes show­eth (opose▪ con [...]. Peron p. 9.) 2. he speaketh of these that were re­ceived [Page 56] frō the Apostles and not of such as the Romanists thēselves ac­knowledge not to haue ben taught by the Apostles, neither by word nor write, as the invocatiō of saynts is cōfessed to be by their owne Ecksꝰ, Enchird. c. 15. & many more such 3▪ he speaketh not of doctrines of faith necessary to salvatiō, all which Bellaer. himself granteth to be writ­ten (l. de verbo c. 11) but of things relating to order & decencie in ce­lebration of holy mysteries, accor­ding to that general rule 1. Cor. 14. 40. & the Apostles speech, cap. 11. 34. wher he sayth, The rest I will set in order whē I come, wherby he under­standeth (sayth Estiꝰ) such things as be­long to a worthie, honest, and orderlie celebratiō of holy mysteries, & so spea­keth also Lombard, Aquinas, Cajetan, and the Iesuite A lapide.

5. THat a man by his owne pri­vate▪ spirit may rightly un­derstand, and interpret Scripture.

VVHich he sayeth is contrary to 1. Cor. 11. 8. Wher the Apostle speaking of the diversitie of gifts, sayeth, That to another is gi­ven the gift of prophecie or interpre­tation of scripture, as also which is contrary to 2. Pet. 1. 20. wher its said, That no prophecie of Scripture is of private interpretation, as also is contrary to 1. Iohn 4. 1. where the Apostle biddeth Try the spirits whe­ther they bee of God.

For answere to whom, 1. We dis­claime any such Assertion as the harmonie of confessions witnes­seth, and ours in particulare 1581. art. 20. And so the places which hee adduceth maketh no wise a­gainst us. For we put a distinction between a private man & a private [Page 67] spirit, and of a private man we say, that somtimes such a mā may haue more knowledge of the true mea­ning of scripture, that publick per­sons, as ignorant Bishops, such as their owne Stella (on Luke 6. p. 184) telleth wer at the late Coun­cell of Trent, yea, then Popes themselves who pretend infallibili­tie, of whom their owne Alfonsus à Castro speaketh thus (lib. 1. adv. heres. cap. 4.) Seing it is certain that many of them were so unlearned (say­eth hee) that they were altogether ignorant of the grāmer, how could thy then interpret Scripture? (sayth he) But wee say, that such knowledge private men haue not from their owne private spirit, but from the spirit of God speaking in his word, comparing Scripture with Scrip­ture, & obscurer places with play­ner, and with David psal. 119. [...]8. [Page 68] using prayer for illumination, and such other meanes as conduce to that end, and that this is not onely our doctrine, but the doctrine also of most famous Romanists, wee may see in Panormitan, (cap. Sig­nificasti, de electione) and in Ger­son, (parte 1. de examinatione do­ctrinarum.) who say, That one pri­vate mans opinion is to be preferred, even to the Popes & a whole Councell, if that private man be moved by better authoritie of the old & new Testament, the practise wherof Gratian show­eth (36. q. 2. c. ultimo) That Ierome by authority of the scripture with­stood a whole Councell, and had his judgement preferred before them, as Paphuntius also had done before in the Councell of Nice in the matter of Priests marriage.

6. THat Peter's Faith fail­led.

[Page 69] VVHich is contrary (sayeth hee) to Luke 22. 32. where Christ sayeth to PETER, I prayed for thee, that thy faith faill not. To whom I answere first, That wee hold no such Assertion contrary to this Text, which speaketh of Pe­ters owne particulare saving grace of faith, which never failed, and not of his infallibilitie of professiō, wherein he failed when after this he denyed his Master. 2. If hee would haue Peters infallibilitie to be grounded on these words, There is no doubt (sayeth their owne Car­thusian) But he prayed there for all o­ther his Apostles, having also said, Sa­tan hath desired to vinnow you. 3. The exposition of the parisian Doctors, as Gerson, Almain, Alfonsus also à Castro, and Pope Adrian the 6. is. That in the person of Peter (as a fi­gure) the Lord prayed for his univer­sall [Page 70] Church, as Bellarmin acknow­ledgeth (lib. 4. de pont. cap. 3.) and therefore it inferreth no more infallibilitie of Peter in particular, than it doth of the whole Church in generall, and the members ther­of. And giving that it inferreth on­lie Peters infallibilitie, who was an Apostle and Pen-man of scripture, yet it inferres nothing of the popes infallibilitie as his pretended Suc­cessour, this being personal to him, but not transmitted to others.

His next Testimony that he brin­geth is Math. 16. 18. where our Saviour sayeth, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I wil build my Church. To which I shall answere in their owne Cardinall Cusanus words (lib. 2. de cōcord. Cath. cap. 13. whō Fe­rus also on this place followeth, and both of thē the streame of ancient Fathers) who speaketh thus, Tho [Page 71] it was said to Peter, upon this rock I will build my Church yet by the rock (sayeth he) wee understand Christ himself whom he confesseth, & if Pe­ter were to be understood by this rock as a groundstone of the Church, are not the other Apostles (according to S. Ierome) groundstones (sayeth hee?)

His third place of scripture which he bringeth is, Math. 23. 2. to which I haue already answered in the second Assertion, but cannot passe by this, that he matcheth the Pope sitting in Peters Chayre, with the Scribes and Pharisees Christs greatest enemies, sitting in Moses Chayre, and indeed heerein they fitly agree.

The last place which he bringeth is, Iohn 11. 49. where speaking of Caiphas words, it is said, That hee spake not this of himself, but being High-Priest that yeare, he prophe­cied [Page 72] that Jesus should die for the Na­tion, which (hee sayeth) the High Priest spake-truly-speaking out of Mo­ses Chayre, which Christ commanded to be heard and obeyed, touching mat­ters of faith. To whom I answere first, That his alleadged speaking trulie in this point, cannot be attri­bute to the Chaire of Moses, nor to him as High-Priest who sate ther­in, for then he had not erred so groslie there-after in it, when he pronunced Christ to be a blasphe­mer. But 2. Cardinal Tolet answeres for us clearly, saying, Remarke that Caiphas sentence in that sense, which he conceived it, was both wicked and false. False, because it was neither lawfull nor expedient to kill an inno­cent mā for the tēporall safety of a Re­publick, And Wiked, because it was against justice to kil an innocēt, thersore Caiphas (sayth he) sinned most grie­vouslie [Page 73] therein, and all who consented with him. Let any then consider how this maketh for the Popes in­fallibilitie.

7 THat the Church can erre, and hath erred.

VVHich he sayeth is expreslie contrary to Isai. 59. 21. To which before I answer, I will state the question, and showe what is trulie to be held of the Churches infallibilitie, to wit, as their owne Cardinall Turrecremata in his sum­ma de Ecclesia lib. 2. cap. 91. de­clareth, saying, That the Church can­not erre, is so to be taken, that GOD doth so assist her even to the the end of the World, that there are ever some, albeit not all, who haue true faith which worketh by charitie, and who holdeth the true profession thereof. As were the 7000. in Israel who had not [Page 74] bowed their knee to Baal, and the few orthodox, when (as Lyr­nensis speakeh) The whole world groa­ned and wondred that it was become Arrian. But when the papists speak of the Churches infallibilitie, they understand not the universal church, but the Roman and westerne part thereof. Next they distinguish the Roman Church into the Collective Church, which is the whole num­ber of Teachers and professours. And into the Representative, which is, Bishops and others assembled in a generall Councell. And thirdlie, into the Virtuall Church, which they call the Pope, and to whom onlie in end they ascribe infallibili­tie, as Bellarmin teacheth lib. 4. de pont. cap. 2. and 3. And with him Suarez, Valentia and others.

Now to come to the places of scripture which he adduces. First, I [Page 75] answere to them generallie, that none of them proveth the Popes infallibilitie, to whom only they ascribe the same, 2. I answere to Isai. 59. 21 that sayeth, As for me, this is my Covenant with them (sayth the Lord) my spirit that is upon thee and my words which I haue put in thy mouth shal not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy see [...]s-seed from hence forth and for ever▪ according to Hugo Cardinalis; That these words are spoken to Christ by the Father, (as Turrecremata also spea­keth) promising that God should so assist his Church, and the Elect therin which are this seed spoken of, even to the end of the World, that there should ever be some that should hold the true profession of faith. Which answere serveth also for Ioh 14. 16. 17. where Christ pro­miseth [Page 76] to his Apostles the Comforter, who is the Spirit of truth. whom the World cannot receive. because they are not Elect, and who should dwell in them and be in them. as he is one­lie in the Elect likewise.

The third place is Math. 18. 17. And if he neglect to heare the Church, let him be to thee as a Heathen & pub­lican. To which I answere, that this place speaketh onelie of a par­ticulare Church. Which Papists granteth may erre, as also relateth onelie to discipline and Church censures, & not to doctrine or de­termination in matters of faith, but of fact and scandale.

The fourth place is, Ephes. 5. 27. where it is said, That he might pre­sent to himself a glorious Church with­out spot or wrinckle. Whereunto I answere. That their late Estius out of Augustin showeth that the A­postle [Page 77] speaketh, not of th [...] Church Militant, but Triumphant, and as shee shall be after the blessed Re­surrection, and this is also the ex­position of Ierome lib. 3. dial. cont. Pelag. as also of Primasius & Tho­mas. (sayeth hee.)

As for the Fathers whom he only citeth, but not their words, never one of them in these places doeth prove his point.

But before I leave this point of the Popes infall [...]bilitie, into which the Churches at last doth resolve, I will insist heerein a little more, seing it concerneth the whole Fa­brick of poperie, and is the basis whereon it standeth, being that rock whereon the Church is built, as Bellarmin teacheth (lib. 4. de pont. cap. 2. & 3.) And will batter the same with four arguments fur­nished by thēselves unto us. Wher­of [Page 78] the First is, That this very que­stion it self amongst Romanists. Whether the Pope may be deposed for heresie, presupposeth that he may be an Heretick, and that he may be deposed for heresie, Bellarmin granteth (lib. 2. de pont. cap. 30. §. 5.) saying, Wee cannot deny, but that Pope Adrian with his Councell at Rome yea, with the whole eight gene­rall Councell, thought that the Pope for Heresie might bee judged, adde this also that the estate of the Church, (sayeth he) should be miserable, if it should be forced to acknowledge him for their Pastour, who were a ravening Wolfe 2. Howsoever it is now the most cōmon opinion that the pope cannot erre, yet, it is confessed that many Roman Catholick Do­ctours of great note, do maintayne the contrary, to wit, that hee may erre not only personallie, but also [Page 79] as Pope and judiciallie, which (as Bellarmin confesseth lib. 4. de pont. cap. 2.) was not onely the opinion of Nilus, Gerson, Almain, and the Doctours of Paris, but also of Pope Adrian the 6. & Alfonsus à Castro. To whom hee might haue added the Councels of Constance and Basil, also Ockam, Michael Cesenas, Car­dinall Cameracensis, and Cusanus, Waldensis, Picus Mirandula, Lyra, Canus, Erasmus & their late Stella, with all others who mantaine that the Councell is above the Pope. These two assertions then being directlie contradictorie, that the Pope cannot erre, & that the Pope (even as Pope) may erre, and this last being maintayned by famous Doctours and Councels of the Ro­ma [...] Church, (as said is) wee may not onlie see what ther bragged of unitie is, but also that papists haue [Page 80] no sure ground of their faith at all, who build upon the Popes infalli­bilitie, so much controverted a­mongst themselves, and as yet in question.

3. It is manifest that the Popes haue foullie erred de facto, & been Hereticks, therefore it followeth, that they may erre, and so are not infallible. And that they haue er­red and beene Hereticks, is witnes­sed by most famous Romanists, for it is manifest (sayth Alfonsus à Ca­stro (lib. 1. cont. heres. cap. 4.) That Pope Liberius was an Arrian, & Anastasius the second a Nestorian, so likewise doth Canus testifie (Loc. Theol. lib. 6. cap. 8.) that Hono­rius was a Monothelite, and by the sixth and seventh generall Councels cō ­demned as an Hereticks, and their late Didacus Stella on Luke 22. 30. showeth that manie Popes have [Page 81] beene grosse Hereticks and Idola­ters, as Marcellinus (sayeth he) who sacrificed to Idols. Liberius who was an Arrian (as Platina and Bel­larmin also witnesseth, lib. 4. de pont. cap. 9) and Anastasius the 2. who for the crime of Heresie (sayeth hee) was rejected of the Church, and manie others who persisted not in the Catholike faith, but were against the same. Wherefore (sayeth their owne Lyra) on Math. 16.) It is evident that the Churches stabilitie consisteth not on men, either in regard of their ecclestiasticall dignitie, or secular, se­ing many Princes and Popes too, haue beene found to haue made Apostafie from the faith.

4. Out of their owne grounds I argue against the Popes infallibili­tie thus. 1. If he haue any such in­fallibiliitie, he hath it as he is Bi­shope of Rome, and consequentlie [Page 82] Peters alleadged successour. 2. He cannot be Bishope of Rome, but he must be in holie orders. 3. He can not receive orders (which papists call a sacrament) but from him, who hath power to ordain or giue orders, upon which grounds that are granted, I reason thus, in re­spect That the validitie of a sacra­ment dependeth upon the intention of the giver, as Bellar. teacheth (lib. 3. de justifi. cap. 8.) Which none can know but the giver. Therefore none can know that this Pope or any o­ther, is or hath beene infallible, be­cause he cannot be so, except he be in holy orders from one that had power to give them, and that hee that had that power, had also an intention to give thē, (whose inten­tion (sayth Bellar.) none can knowe, and consequentlie à primo ad ulti­mum, none can know whether [Page 83] such a Pope be trulie Pope or no, & by a second consequence, whether he be infallible or no, according to the pretended priviledge as he is Peters successour. And so upō what an unsure & sandie foundation pa­pists build their faith, and conse­quentlie their salvation, let anie man judge. But I cannot admire e­nough Bellarmins impudency that sayeth (lib. 4. de pont. cap. 2.) That all Catholicks agree in this, that if the Pope alone, or with a particular Councell decerne in any thing that is doubtfull, whether he erre, or not, yet hee is obedientlie to be heard by all the faithfull (sayeth hee.)

8. THat the Church hath been hidden and invisible.

FOr stating this question aright, we say not that the Church pro­fessing the Christian name in com­mon [Page 84] hath ben at anytime invisible, but in it wee say that the true and sincere professours may be some times brought to that estate. as the 7000. were in Israell who bowed not to Baal, and as the sound and persecuted Orthodox Christians were, by that prevalent faction of Arrians, who then usurped the title of the onely true Church, altho they were onely but a prevailling faction therein.

But this Pamphleter conten­deth for a constant and con­spicuous visibilitie to all, of the Church of true and [...]ound profes­sours, like a Citie on a hill, &c. by these Texts following.

1. Math. 5. 14. Where our Sa­viour compareth his disciples to a Citie on a hill, &c. To whom I an­swere shortly, that this is meaned of the Apostles, (who as their own [Page 85] Jansenius as also Maldonat expoun­deth) were a light to the World, by their preaching and holie life, Therefore sayeth Maldonat, That by these three similituds of salt, a light, and a citie, our Saviour would declare one and the same thing, to wit, how farre beyond other common Christians his Apostles and their successours should eminentlie shyne in life and do­ctrine, and so doeth Chrisostome, Theophylact Lyra, Ferus, and Car­thusian expound this Text, and not of any constant & conspicuous vi­sibilitie of the Church to all.

The second place which he brin­geth is Math. 18. 17. (tell the Church) to which I answere, that Origen, Chrisostom and Hilarie on this place showeth, that a particu­lare Church, and the Rulers therof are meaned (as hath beene said) which is indeed visible to it owne [Page 86] members, speciallie in tyme of peace, whereas in time of persecu­tion, the Rhemists themselves on 2. Thess. 2. telleth us, That this is like to be the case of the Romā Church it self under Antichrist, that the faith­full shall lurke and haue their commu­nion amongst themselves onlie in pri­vate, & so to have no conspicuous visibilitie to all, & whence it fol­loweth that what may bee the case of the Church at one time, the same may be, or hath been the case of the Church at another.

The third place is 2. Cor. 4. 3. which sayeth. If our Gospell be hid, it is to them that are lost. To which I answere, that there is no word heere of a Church or of persons, but of the gospell it self, which be­ing preached to any, if it be not be­lieved, is said to be hid from mis­believers, as is said in the words fol­lowing, [Page 87] Whose minds the god of this world hath blinded, that they should not belie [...]e, as the Lord threatneth Isai 6. 9. which is the exposition both of Aquinas, Cardinall Cajetan, and their Bishope Catharinus, with their late Estius.

The last place which he bringes, is Isai. 2. 2. where it is said, That in the last days the mountain of the Lords house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it.

To which I answere, that this is a Prophecie onlie of the calling of the gentiles to the faith of the gos­pell by the Ministrie of the Apo­stles, and showeth how firmlie the Christian Church should be built, and bee of greater eminencie and amplitude beyond the jewish church, in respect also of universalitie, clearer light, and dispensation of [Page 88] grace▪ which is the exposition of their owne Lyra, Procopius, Pintus, and Perusin on this place. And not that they prove ther by a constant and conspicuous visibilitie of the Church to all.

As for the testimonies of Fathers which he adduceth, they nowise prove the point, the first whereof is Origens, saying, That the Church is full of light, which showeth only that (as shee is described, Revel. 12. 1.) shee is glorious by the light of the trueth, which shee holdeth forth in profession, and therefore he subjoyneth this reason, seing shee is the pillar and ground of truth (say­eth hee.)

2 Hee bringeth a testimonie of Chrisostome, where it is said, That it is easier for the sunne to be extingui­shed, then for the Church to be dark­ned, which testimonie receiveth [Page 89] the same answer with the former. For no more can the Church lose the light of the trueth, than the sunne can lose his light, though somtimes he may be eclipsed, or by a thick mist or cloudie day he may be unseene to some.

3. Hee bringeth a testimonie out of Augustin, who sayeth That hee is blind that seeth not so great a moun­tain. To which I answere, that hee speaketh not there of a constant and conspicuous visibilitie of the true Church to all, and at all times, but onelie of the visible condition of the Church which was at that time, disputing against the Dona­tists who affirmed that the Church was no where but amongst them in Africa: whereas on the contra­rie, hee sayeth that in Europe and elswhere they may see famous and flowrishing Christian Churches, [Page 90] like to a mountaine that may bee seene, except they were blind, and yet wee knowe that a mountaine that may be seen to all that are not blind in a cleare day, may in a dark night time, or darke mistie day be unseene, till the sunne rise or a clea­ring of the mist be. Therefore say­eth the same Augustin (de unitate Ecclesiae. cap. 20. & in psal. 10. and epist. 80 ad Hesychium) Some times the Church is not apparent when wicked persecutors rage against her, & againe in his sixth book of bap­tisme against the Donatists, cap. 4. Somtimes like the Moone (sayeth he) shee may bee so hid and obscured, that (as in Elias time) the members therof shall not know one of another.

9 THat the Church was not e­ver to remaine Catholick or universall. And that the Church of Rome is not such a Church

[Page 91] THe first part of which Asser­tion wee disclaime as a most unjust aspersion, as the harmony of confessions showeth, and ours in particulare, 1581. art. 17. And as to the last, That the Church of Rome is not universall we justlie affirme, seing it is a plaine repugnancie in the adject (as we say) to be particu­lare or Roman, & to be Catholick or universall. as their owne Cassan­der contradistinguisheth betweene these two in his consultation. art. 22.

As for the places which he addu­ceth out of the psal. 2. 8. and Colos. 1. 3. 4. they no wise make for him, or against us, but onlie speaketh of the Churchs inlargemēt under the Gospell, the first by the conversion of the Gentiles to the faith, and the second, of the Colossians in parti­cular.

[Page 92] Next hee bringeth, Rom. 1. 8▪ where the Apostle thanketh the Lord for them, That their faith was spoken of through the whole World. For answere whereunto, 1. This no more proveth the Church of Rome to bee universall, than the like words of Paull 1. Thess▪ 1. 8▪ proveth the Church of Thessalonica to be the universall Church For as Rom. 1. 8. it is said That their faith was spoken of through the whol world: so is it said 1. Thess. 1. 8. That from them sounded out the word of the Lord, as also in everie place their faith to God ward was spread abroad. And that this is the onlie thing which these words import, their late Estiꝰ on Rom. 1. showeth.

As for testimonies of Fathers, and 1. to that of Cyprian, who writting to Cornelius sayeth Whilst with you there is one mind, and one [...]oyce, the [Page 93] whole Church is confessed to be Romā, I answere 1. That Cyprians words are perverted, which are these, dum ap [...] vos, unus animus & una vox est, Ecclesia omnis Romana confessa est, that is, Whilst with you there is one minde, and one voyce, the whole Romā Church hath confessed, Cyprian thus commending the Church of Rome, for an unanimous confession of faith before heathen persecutors: as others had done, which indeed proveth the soundnes of the Roman Church in Cyprians time, as a mē ­ber of the catholik church, but not that shee only then was the Catho­lick Church. 2. Giving that these were the words of Cyprian as they are alleadged, they would import onlie, that whil the Romā Church keeped the unitie of the true faith, that all other orthodox and sister Churches of these times would ac­knowledge [Page 94] themselves to bee of her communion, and this we may see confessed by Stapleton (relect. con. 1. q. 5.) who giveth this to be the reason why by the ancients, the Roman and Catholick Church wer held for one thing, because her com­munion (sayeth he) with the whole Catholick Church was then most evi­dent and certaine, whence it follow­eth, that shee her self then was not the whole Catholick Church. 3. where it is said to Pope Cornelius, Whilst with you there is one minde, & one voice, that is, as long as you kepe the trueth and profession thereof, this speech being conditionall and limited, it importeth that shee might lose the same, (as shee hath done) Therefore not only was shee forewarned, Rom. 11. 20. Not to be high minded but feare, but also Cy­prian ad Pompeium, accuseth Pope [Page 95] Steven who succeeded Cornelius, that he maintayned the cause of Hereticks against the Church of God, the Pope then and Roman Church under him, in Cyprians e­stimation maintayning Hereticks against the Church, could not thē be accounted by him to be the Ca­tholick Church, nor yet to be in­fallible.

The second testimonie of Augu­stins, where he sayeth, That they who dissent from the bodie of Christ, which is the Church, they are not in the Catholick Church, proveth no­wise that the Romā Church is this onlie Catholick Church. But ra­ther (as the words of that testimo­nie beareth) The whole body of Chri­stendom.

And as for Jeroms words, That it is all one to say, the Roman faith and the Catholick faith, I haue alreadie an­swered, [Page 96] that this was because of her communion with the Catho­lick Church, when Rome was or­thodox, and (as Isai. 1. 21) The faithfull City was not become an Har▪ lot.

10. THat the Churches unitie is not necessarie in al points of faith.

I answere, that this is an impudent Calumnie, as the Harmonie of Confession of reformed Churches showeth, and ours in particular, of 1581. art. 16. For wee maintaine that a two-fold unitie is necessarie to be in Christs church, to wit, An unitie in Trueth and an unitie in affe­ction, both which wee should pray for and promove, that (as the psal­mist speaketh 122. 7.) peace may bee within her walls and prosperitie within her palaces.

And because they brag so much [Page 97] of unitie in doctrine and all points of faith, for stopping the mouths of all Romanists ever heereafter, ut ex ungue Leonem, I will onelie a­mongst many, instance but in one or two maine points of poperie, that their unitie is like the division of tongues which was amongst the builders of Babell,

The first is, papall Indulgences and Pardons, which are so lucrative, & dependeth on their Purgatorie, wherin thus they varie. 1. Some of the old schoolmen (as Bellar. witnes­seth lib. 1. de Indulg. cap. 2.) they doubt of this spirituall treasure, and Francis Mayro on 4. sent. D. 19. maketh question in particular (sayth hee) of the treasure of Christs over­flowing satisfactions laid up in the Church. Againe, Durand. likewise (on 4. sent. D. 2.) doubteth if the satisfaction of saints belong to the trea­sure, [Page 98] but S. Thomas and Bonaventure (sayeth hee) thinketh that both belon­geth thereunto. Againe this is denyed by sundrie ancient Divines (sayeth Bellarmin lib. 1. de Indulg cap. 7.) That pardons delivereth men from pu­nishment, not onelie before the Church, but also before God, and verie graue Authours (sayeth hee) as Alfonsus, Durand. Paludanus, Pope Adrian, the 6. Petrus à Soto and Cardinall Cajetan hold, That pardons were ne­ver given but for enjoyned penance, but Aquinas, Ioannes Major, Sylve­ster, Dominicus a Soto, Michael medina, Ledesinius, Antonius Cordu­bensis, Navarrus, Panormitan, and Ioannes Andreas (sayeth hee) these maintaine the contrarie.

2. For the Persons that haue power to give pardons, it is questioned (say­eth Bellarmin lib. 1. de Indulg. cap. 11.) by what law Bishops may give [Page 99] pardons, for some hold that they may do it by Gods law (sayeth hee) but o­thers deny it, yea Angelus in summ [...], and Bartholemus Fumus do hold that all Priests who may heare confession, may also grant pardons (sayeth hee) and they bring for their warrant Pope Innocentius and Panormitan. but the cōmon opinion (sayth Bellarmin) is contrarie to these.

3. For the persons whom they availe, thus they varie, for amongst the Ca­tholick Doctours (sayeth Bellarmin lib. 1. de Indulg. cap. 14.) Ostiensis in summa and Biel on the canon of the Masse, lect. 57. haue taught that pardons nowise profite the dead (and so this ma [...]teth soule Masses) but other Catholicks (sayeh hee) do hold the contrarie. Again if they help the dead. Bellarmin (lib. 1. de Indulg. cap. 14.) showeth that it is controver­ted, whether by way of suffrage or o­therwise, [Page 100] and that they are divyded in three opinions. Last of all (sayeth Bellarmin in the same place) the hardest question of all is, Whether pardons do help the dead upon any ju­stice or condignitie, or onely of the meer and free favour of God and congruitie, some hold the first (sayeth he) as Do­minicꝰ Soto (on 4. sent. d. 21.) & Na­varrus, & others hold it to be meerlie of the mercy & bounty of God. And so holdeth Cajetan, Petrus a Soto. Cordu­bensis and others. Now in such a di­vision of tongues and Pen's in this point, what is popish unitie, let any man judge?

The second grand point which I will instance, is Transsubstantiatiō, wher­on is grounded the Idoll of their Masse, and that idolatrous adora­tion of their Hostie, wherein (sayth the Iesuite A [...]lapide on Isai. 7. 14.) by the words of consecration as the [Page 101] bread is trulie and reallie transsubstan­tiat, so Christ is brought forth, and as it were begotten upon the Altar, so powerfully & efficaciouslie, as if Christ were not yet incarnat, yet by these words (this is my Bodie) He should be incarnat and assume an humane bodie, therfore (sayth he) the Priest is as the Virgin that bare him, the Al­tar is the manger, the little Emmanu­ell which hee beareth, is Christ brought furth under the little Hostie, Than which, what can be grosser blas­phemie let any man judge?

1. In this point thē let us see what is their catholick unitie in the ground wheron they build this their trans­substantiation. Which is common­lie alleadged to bee expresse scrip­ture, and in particular these words, Math. 26. 26. (this is my Bodie.) but concerning this, Gabriel Biel on the canon of the Masse, lect. 40. [Page 102] sayeth Whether Christs Bodie in the Sacrament be by conversion, or without any conversion, the substance and acci­dents of bread still remaining, is not found expreslie in the canon of the Bible. nor can it be proven by any scrip­ture (sayeth bishope Fisher) cont. Captiv. Babyl. num. 8. (Cardinall Cajetan likewise affirmeth) as wit­nesseth Suarez tom. 3. disp. 46.) That these words of Christ are not able to prove Transsubstantiation, but that they may be taken in a figurative sense, as these. 1. Cor. 10. 4. (Cajet. 3. q. 78. art. 1.) yea Cardinall Bellarmin speaketh thus. (lib. 3. de Euch. c, 23.) It is not altogether improbable, that there is no expresse place of scrip­ture, which without the Churches de­termination, can evidentlie inforce a mā to admitt of Transsubstantiation for albeit the scripture seem to us that they may compell any that is not refractarie [Page 103] to believe the same, yet it may be justly doubted, whether the Text bee cleare enough to inforce the same (sayeth he) seing the most sharp witted & learned men such as Scotus was, haue thought the contrarie.

2. Wee haue sundrie Roman Ca­tholicks who haue denyed Trans­substantiation upon any ground whatsoever, as, 1. Bertram a priest in his learned treatise of the Bodie and Blood of Christ, written to Charles the bald King of France, a­bout the yeare 880. 2. Rabanus Maurus a [...] Abbot in his treatise of the Eucharist, which is also extant. 3. Aelfricus Archbishope of Canter­burie in his saxon sermon on the sacrament or housell, (as he cal­leth it) anno 996. and yet to ascend higher, Gelasius a Pope in his trea­tise against Eutyches, of the two natures of Christ, where he sayeth, [Page 104] Tho in the Sacrament we receiue a di­vine thing, to wit, the Bodie & blood of Christ, yet the substance and nature of the bread and wine ceasseth not to remaine (sayeth he) and Biel on the canon of the Masse telleth us that in his time concerning the sacra­ment or any conversion therein, amongst Catholicks there were four opinions, wherof the first was, That the substance of bread remained still (sayeth hee)

3. In the manner or sort of con­versiō, which they pretend to be in the sacrament, Papists they varie, and disagree mightilie. For, 1. Bel­larmin telleth us (lib 3. de Euch. cap. 11.) that Durand. holdeth That one essentiall part of the bread, namlie the forme is turned, but that the other part which is the matter or substance is not turned, and so did pope Innocent the 3. teach (sayeth Du­rand. [Page 105] Rational. Divin. lib. 4. f. 63.) but others haue taught the contra­rie (sayth Bellarmin) That the mat­ter of the bread is turned into Christs Bodie, but that the essentiall forme re­maineth, but as for Lombard their great Master of sentēces, his words are these (lib. 4. sent. d. 11) If it it be asked what sort of conversion it is, whether formal or substantiall, or what other sort it is, definire non sufficio (sai­eth hee) that is, I am not able to de­fine it, and so he quyteth the mat­ter. Biel againe on the canon of the Masse, lect. 40. he sayeth that ther are four opinions concerning this conversion. The First, That the sub­stance of the bread remaineth still toge­ther with Christs Bodie, The 2. is, That the substance of the bread remai­neth not still, but after consecration be­cometh the body of Christ. The 3. is, That tho the bread remains not, yet the [Page 106] accidents of bread as weight, colour, & taste remaineth, and that Christs Bo­die begineth to be under these accidents, And the fourth opinion is contra­dicting all the former, That neither doeth the substance of bread remaine, nor yet is it converted into Christs bo­die, for the absurdities that follow ther­on, but is annihilat, or redacted to no­thing, or else resolved into that which they call materia prima. Bellarmin also in the forecited place, sayeth, that Abbot Rupertus maintayned an opinion diverse from all the for­mer, to wit, That the bread is perso­nallie assumed by Christ in the same manner that the humane nature was assumed by him▪ and of this also Car­dinall Aliaco (in 4. sent. q 6) say­eth. That this is possible and more a­greable to reason and easier to bee un­derstood. But thereafter in the same place, (hee positivlie sayeth, That [Page 107] the conversion of the bread (according to his judgement) into the bodie of Christ is successive, as the night is tur­ned into the day, because, as after the night the day commeth, so (sayeth he) after the breads departing, there is Christs Bodie. But Bellarmin (lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 18. §. ex his) will not haue this cōversion, productive, nor successiue, but adductive (as hee calleth it) that is, whereby Christs Bodie preexistent before this conver­sion in heaven, beginneth to be (sayeth hee) under the accidents of bread wher it was not before, which indeed is no conversion at all, but onlie a meere translocation.

Moreover (sayeth Bellarmin lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 5.) There hath been two opinions devysed in the Scholes for unfolding the greatnes of this mysterie, one of Durāds (on 4. sent. d. 10.) who holdeth it probable, that the substāce of [Page 108] the bodie of Christ is in the Eucharist without greatnes or quantitie, another is of some ancient Divines, whom Oc­kam followeth, who say, that there is in the sacrament the very magnitude and quantitie of Christs bodie, which notwithstanding they think cannot bee distinguished from the substance therof, but that all parts do so runne one in another, that ther is no shape in Christs bodie, nor any distinction or order in the parts thereof. But the common opi­nion of the Schooles and of the Church (sayeth hee) is contrarie to this, and that in the Eucharist or little hostie; there is whole Christ with his magni­tude and bigness, & all other accidents, & hath both order & shape agreable to a humane bodie. Which is the eight miracle of the eleavē that Durand▪ maketh the priest daylie to work in the Masse, (lib. 4. ration▪ divin. f. 63.) which miracles notwith­standing [Page 109] are not seene, whereas Cardinall Cameracensis (in 4. sent. q. 5.) sa [...]eth, I ought not to believe that he worketh any miracle (sayeth hee) except I see the same. And in­deed these are such as are forepro­phecied 2. Thess. 2. 9. and are cal­led lieing signes and wonders.

4. They agree no better in this point, to wit, Wherby did Christ pro­duce in his last supper Transsubstan­tiation? Concerning which, their Biel on the canon of the masse lect. 36. sayeth, There are four opinions. The 1. That Christ did make this con­version, not by any words which hee uttered, but by his divine power with­out any words, and that Pope Inno­cent 3. was of this minde. The 2. That Christ blessed and consecrated the bread, but with a secret benediction un­knowne to us▪ whereby he Transsub­stanti [...] the bread into his Bodie, of [Page 110] which the Evangelists maketh mentiē, when they say, that he tooke bread and blessed it, so that heerby Christs Bodie behoved to be preexistent in the sacra­ment by that blessing, before he said, this is my bodie, that so, that speech of his might be true. The 3. is, That our Saviour by these words (this is my bo­die) made that cōversion of bread into his bodie, but ttha be spoke these words twise, though it be written but once, and that first he spoke them softlie and un­heard, whereby he made the conversion and thereafter audiblie, to teach them how thereafter they should make this conversion. And the 4. opinion is, That by these words (this is my Bo­die) which be spake audiblie he made this conversion of bread into his owne Bodie.

5. Herin again they greatly con­trovert, to, wit, whereby the Priest daylie doth make this conversion. [Page 111] 1. Some say (as Durand. in his ra­tionale divinorum lib. 4. f. 63. and Biel on the canon of the masse lect. 47. with others) That the same is by vertue which Christ hath placed and made wherent in the words themselves of (this is my Bodie) 2. Others say, That this conversion dependeth upon the intention of the Priest as Bellar­min sayeth, The whole Church hol­deth, (lib. 3. de justifi. cap. 8.) whose words are these, The Sacra­ment without the intention of the priest cannot be made a Sacrament. 3. Lom­bard their great Master of senten­ces (lib. 4. dist. 13.) sayeth, That it dependeth upon an Angels descen­ding from heaven to consecrate the Ho­stie. Whose words are these, It is called the Masse because of the com­ming of the heavenlie Angell (sayeth hee) to consecrate the bodie of Christ, according to the Priests prayer▪ saying, [Page 112] Omnipotent God, command that these things be carried by the hands of thy holie Angel before thy high Altar, therefore except the Angel come, it cannot be called a Masse, (sayth he) seing therefore (as Bellarmin hath told us) that it cannot be a Sacra­ment without the Priests intentiō, and that no man can know the inten­tion of another (sayth Bellar.) & farr lesse be sure of an Angels cōming downe to comsecrate the bread, & turne it into Christs body. I would thē on these grounds of their own, ask any papist when he adoreth the hostie, how he can be sure whether hee adoreth Christs body, or onely a piece of bread, which were most grosse Idolatrie, as all must confess.

6. To come to the words of con­secration themselves. 1 in generall, next in particular, let us see how they agree heerein, 1. The most [Page 113] common opinion is that in gene­rall they are to bee taken properlie, and not figuratiuely, but on the contrarie, Bertram and the others with him forecited, as also Cardinall Cajetan (in 3. q. 78. art. 1.) hol­deth that they are, and may be ta­ken figuratiuelie and after a Sacra­mentall manner of speech, as wee see in Circumcision and the Passo­ver, yea more, in the Popes owne canon Law, (de consecra. dist. 2. c. hoc est) it is said ther, That the hea­venlie Sacrament which trulie repre­senteth Christs flesh, is called Christs Bodie, but improperlie and not in ve­ritie of the thing (sayeth that place) but by a mysticall signification, so that the meaning is (sayth the glosse) it is called Christs Bodie, that is, it is a sign of his bodie.

7. Next to come to the words in particular, 1. The Catholicks do not [Page 114] agree sayth Bellarm. lib. 1. de Euc [...]. cap. 11) in the manner of explicating, what is properlie meaned by this Pro­nowne (hoc) or (this) in the words of consecration (this is my Bodie) & in this there are two famous opinions (sayth he) the one that this pronowne (hoc) signifieth the Body of Christ, the other is of S. Thomas (sayeth he) that it signifieth not the body of Christ precis [...]ie, nor yet the bread (as some hold) but in cōmon that substance (be what it will) which is under these formes, so that the meaning is, hoc, this, that is, under this, and th [...]se formes or accidents is my bodie. Nei­ther determinating it to the bread (says Biel in can. Missae, lect. 48.) because so, this speech should be false, this bread is my Bodie, nor to the bodie of Christ, for this were absurd to say, this bodie is my bodie (sayeth he) as also, seing the vertue of the words of [Page 115] consecration depends on the pro­nouncing of the last word (meum) as Biel showeth in the same place, therefore by (hoc) Christs bodie cannot bee understood. A­gaine the same Biel in the place forecited, sayeth, that concerning this, there are diverse opinions, which he reduceth to two. 1. That by (hoc) nothing at all is demonstrat, and this Durand. also declareth, (lib. 4. rat. divin. f. 64.) 2. Some say that by (hoc) the bread is demon­strat, so that the meaning should bee, this bread is my bodie, that is, in a Sa­cramentall way, the signe of my bodie. But because this would seeme (sayeth he) to be hereticall, therefore sayeth Richardus de sancto victore, that it is a mixt demonstration, partlie to the sense, partlie to the understanding, so that the meaning is, this in which the bread (which is seene) is to be trans­substantiat, [Page 116] is my bodie (which must be believed) and so the word (is) must be expounded in the future, (shall be) & this is likewise the opi­niō of Richardꝰ de media villa and o­thers, but Alexander Ales expre [...]slie will haue by (hoc) the bread to bee demonstrat, and thereafter to bee transsubstantiated by the words of consecration.

8. They controvert no lesse like­wise, in the next words ( corpus me­um or my bodie) as Gabriel Biel showeth in his 37. lecture on the canon of the Masse, Whether that bodie which Christ gave to his Dis­ciples was his mortall and passible bodie or that which was immortall and im­passible, to these who say the first, it is objected that then (sayeth he [...] it is not the same bodie which is now given in the sacrament which is immortall and impassible, and that the Masse is [Page 117] therefore called an unbloodie sacrifice, Againe, in the contrarie to these who hold that it was his immortall and im­passible bodie, it is likewise objected, that, this co [...]ld not be, because his Bo­die did afterward suffer and die, being yet unglorified, and therefore was mor­tall and passible. Therefore (sayeth Biel) Hugo Cardinalis being strait­ned on both hands by the former contradictions, concludeth for his part, siding with neither of them, saying, That in this questiō as in such like others, I professe (sayeth hee) that I will rather reverence than dis­pute such secrets, and in simplicitie of faith. I think this sufficient, if we say, that Christ gaue them such a bodie as pleased Him to give, because Hee was Omnipotent. And so leaveth the matter in doubt which of them it was, and useth a short & easie way to solve all questions.

[Page 118] 9 In the words also that follow­eth (which is broken for you) as they are set downe 1. Cor. 11. 24. They are againe like the Midianits, Judg. 7. 22. Every mans sword against his fellow, For 1. Pope Nicolas the 2. with his Councell at Rome, as wee may see (decret. 3. p. d. 2 cap. 42) affirmeth, That it is Christs Bodie sen­suallie that is broken & torne in pieces with the teeth of the receivers, which yet (sayeth Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 24. §. quartum) cannot be spo­ken of Christs bodie or flesh without great blasphēie. And which a little af­ter that time, made that great phy­sitian & learned Philosopher Aver­roes to say (as B. Esponceus reporteth lib. 4. de Euch. ador. cap. 3.) mun­dum peragravi▪ &c. that is, I have travelled through the world (sayeth hee) and I never saw a worse & more foolish [...]ect than that of the Christians [Page 119] is, because with their teeth they devoure that God whō they worship, & which I may say is at this day the grea­test scandell to Turks, Iewes and Pa­gans that scarreth and debarreth them from embracing Christiani­tie, as sir Edmund Sandys showeth in his speculum Europae p. 230. Next, their master of sentēces Lombard (l. 4. dist. 12.) telleth us that this de­finition of the Pope and his Coun­cell is false & erronious, seing Christs bodie is now incorruptible, immortall, and impassible, & that Christ rebuked the carnall understanding of his Dis­ciples (sayeth he) who thought that his flesh was to be divyded in parts, or torne in morsels as other flesh is, ther­fore sayeth he (dist. 11.) because it is nefarious to devoure Christ with our teeth, he hath recommended his flesh and blood to us in a mysterie. 3. Others againe (sayth he) affirmeth that there [Page] is no reall breaking there, as men see­meth to see with their eyes, but that it is said to be broken, sicut fit in mago­rum prestigiis, &c. that is, as useth to be done by magick tricks or Iuglers, who by delusion deceiveth mens eyes (sayeth he) that they seeme to see, that which is not (a right compari­son indeed of masse priests) 4. O­thers againe (sayeth the same Lom­bard) affirme that by the wonderfull power of God, there is a breaking ther, where notwithstanding nothing is bro­ken. (a grosse contradiction) and this Durand. in his rationale divi­norum. lib. 4. f. 36. maketh to bee the fourth miracle of the eleven, that is dayly wrought by the masse Priest, to wit, That in the Masse that which is indivisible yet is divyded, and tho it be divyded, (sayeth hee) it remaineth whole. 5. Biel also on the canon of the Masse, lect. 36. [Page 121] fayth, that, That which Christ brake, and the Priest now breaketh, is the sa­cramentall species, as whytnes, round­nes, but neither Christs bodie, nor yet any thing that is whyte and round. (a strange Chimera indeed.) The like sayeth Lombard lib. 4. d. 12. That it is neither Christs body that is broke, nor bread (though the Apostle say­eth, 1. Cor. 10. 16. the bread which we break) but this fraction is of the forme onelie and shape of the bread, sacramentallie done (sayth he) which was also the opinion of Pope Innocent the 3. And so speaketh Cardinall Cameracensis in 4. q. 6. saying, That this is the common opinion, that the ac­cidents of the breade which remaine without any subject ar only that which is broken. Than which Assertion there can be no greater absurditie.

10. No lesse digladiation is a­mongst Romanists, concerning [Page 122] what is eaten in the sacrament, ac­cording to Christs words, Take, Eate, For 1. (as hath beene said) according to pope Nicolas judiciall defyning, It is Christs bodie & flesh that is eaten with the mouth and torne with the teeth, (which Bellarmin calleth blasphemous, and Lombard hereticall.) But on the contrarie, Alexander Ales) p. 4. 11. memb. art. 2. (as also Bonaventure) in 4. sent. d. 12. art. 3.) Affirme that the eating of Christs bodie is mysticall, and not orall or corporall and giveth this as a reasone thereof, that whereas three things are implyed in corporall eating, to wit, 1. a masticatiō or chew­ing with the teeth. 2. a trajection into the stomack and bellie. And 3. a Con­version of the thing eaten into the sub­stance of the eater, this last which is most essentiall in eating, cannot agree to the bodie of Christ, which is not tur­ned [Page 123] into our substance, but rather in a mysticall manner turneth us into it self (say they) to which they might also added that which our Saviour [...]peaketh of that which goeth in at the mouth, that it likewise goeth out in the draught. Math. 15. 17.

Againe, if a Mouse or Ratt, or any such beast happen to eate the con­secrated Hostie, it is controverted what is eaten by such. 1. then in the Roman missall and cautel's of the Masse, it is affirmed that they eate Christs bodie, for these ar the very words, Item [...] corpus Christi a muribus vel araneis consumptum vel corrosum fuerit, &c. that is, If the bodie of Christ be consumed or gnawne by Myce or spiders, if these vermine can be found, let them be burned, and what remaineth of that which is gnawn by them unconsumed, if it may be done without horror, let it be eaten. But [Page 124] Lombard in the contrarieꝰ (lib. 4. d. 13.) sayeth, That Christs bodie is not eaten by such beasts, though it would seeme that it were, and if any will ask (sayeth he) What is it then which is eaten by such? he answereth verie bl [...]ntlie, saying, Deus novit, that is, God knoweth, not hee. But Durand. in his rationale divinorum. lib. 4. f. 63. telleth us that Pope Innocent the 3. resolveth the matter other­wise, and sayeth, That as the sub­stance of the bread is miraculously tur­ned into the bodie of Christ when it be­ginneth to be in the Sacrament, so doth bread miraculously returne whē Christs bodie ceasseth to be there, and therfore, that the mouse or any such beast eateth onlie the bread that miraculouslie is so furnished unto them by God. Even as the same Durand tells a tale there, how a Matron that furnished bread sabbathlie to Pope Gregorie did [Page 125] laugh when shee heard the Pope affirme, that to be Christs bodie which shee knew to be bread that her self had baken, whereupon the Pope to cōvince her of her errour, by his prayer he converted the ho­stie visiblie into a finger of flesh, & when heere on shee was converted, he prayed againe, and turned the finger of flesh into bread againe. And so heere were three pretie cō ­versions, si credere fas ect. The first, of the Hostie into Christs bodie in­visiblie, the next, of the Hostie into a finger of flesh visibly, & the third, of the finger of flesh back againe into bread visiblie. Quis talia fando temperet. &c,

11. Heere againe in the other Ele­ment of the Sacrament, they con­tend one against another, concer­ning the mixture of water with the wine, & the Transsubstantiatiō [Page 126] of both. 1. Then Cardinall Aliac [...] (in 4. sent. q. 5.) telleth us that Scotus did hold That water is not sim­plie necessarie at all to be used in the sa­crament, seing there is no mention thereof in the institution, but only that it is the precept of the Church (sayeth he) and that the Grecian and Easterne Church useth it not to this day. But others againe pleadeth the neces­sitie of the mixture of water, and therein placeth a mysterie. Next, Whether the water mixed with the wine be both converted in Christs blood, it is controverted (sayeth Biel on the canon of the Masse, lect. 35.) and of this (sayeth hee) there are three opinions. 1. That the water remaineth still in it owne kind and substance, ta­king onlie the colour and Taste of the wine. 2. That the wine is turned into Christs blood, and the water into that which came out of Christs side on the [Page 127] Crosse, but to that it is answered (say­eth he) that the words of consecration extendeth not themselves to the con­version of water at all, & specially in­to that which came out of Christs side, The third opinion (sayeth he) is, that the water is turned into wine in the mixture thereof, and then, that both together are turned into Christs blood, and so that ther are two Transsub­stantiations of the water whereof no mention is in scripture. I could instance more concerning the ado­ration of the Hostie, whether it should be absolute or conditionall, as also their disagrement in everie other point of poperie, beside the dissentions and divisions betweene the Scotists and Thomists, the Domi­nicans and Franciscans, the Sorbone and the Iesuits, and all, in weightie matters, but studying to brevitie, these shall suffice, wherein I da [...]e [Page 128] challenge all the Priests and Pa­pists in the world to instance the like amongst us, especiallie in one point of doctrine. Whose differen­ces (wherewith they upbraid us] ar like molehills in regard of these mountains, and rather in matter of government or ceremonie, nor in any point of fundamentall do­ctrine and substance, so that these Pharisee-like papists, should first take the beame out of their owne eye, before they spy the mote in their neighbours, and hence-forth ceasse to brag of their Catholick u­nitie, & frō all which disagrements and digladiations amongst them­selves. I shall onlie conclude in Bel­larmins owne words (lib. 4. de Ec­cles. cap. 10. §. adde.) That it is a most sure Note of false doctrine, that hereticall authours agree not therein amongst themselves.

11. THat S. Peter was not or­dayned by Christ, the first head, or chief amongst the Apostles.

VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Math. 10. 2. where Pe­ter is first named, and therfore con­cludeth that he was first not onelie in order, but in power and jurisdi­ction aboue the rest. Which is an absurd inference, that of twelve persons of one equall function, be­cause such an one is first named, therefore hee hath authoritie and jurisdiction over all the rest, for so, Gal. 2. 9. where Iames is first na­med before Peter, it would follow that Iames had jurisdiction over Pe­ter. Whereas all were alike in pow­er and jurisdiction, as Cyprian (de unit. Ecclesiae.) sayeth, The rest of the Apostles were the self same that Peter was, endued with alike fellowship both of honour & power, And we know [Page 130] (sayeth Cardinall Cusanus. lib. 2. de concord. Cath. cap. 13. That Pe­ter received no more power frō Christ than the other Apostles.

The second place which he brin­geth is, Math. 16. 18. Ʋpon this rock I will build my Church. Which he adduced before for the Popes infallibilitie, and to which I haue alreadie answered in the sixth As­sertion. And now he bringeth it to prove the Popes supremacie, wher­as beside Cardinall Cusanus foreci­ted words on this place, their lear­ned Ferus sayeth thus, It is proper onlie to Christ to be called this rock, as Peter himself calleth him. 1. Pet. 2. 4. and whereby it is evident (sayeth he) that Christ built not his Church on Peter, or any other man, for there is no man so firme and constant, who cannot be moved, which in Peter him­self we manifestlie see, therfore Christ [Page 131] himself is that rock wheron his Church is built (sayeh he) according to 1. Cor. 3. 11. other foundation can no man lay, than that which is laid, even Jesus Christ.

The third place is, Math. 16. 19. I will giue to thee the keyes of the king­dome of heaven, Wherunto I answer, that not only all the fathers (except Origen) declareth that all the dis­ciples received the power of the keyes aswel as peter (as Maldonat on this place confesseth) but also Car­dinall Cusanꝰ (lib. 2. concord. cath. cap. 13.) and with him Ferus and others, say, that Peter received no more power heereby from Christ, than did the others. Iohn 20. 23.

The fourth place is, 1. Cor. 3. 4. where one sayeth, I am of Paull, another I am of Apollos, another I am of Cephas, another I am of Christ, where Peter is named next to Christ, [Page 132] ascending from the lesser (sayeth he) to those whom he would haue esteemed greater. To whom I answere, 1. from nomination in order (as hath beene said) to conclude jurisdictiō over others in power, is an absurd consequence. 2. If the ascending be here from the lesser to the grea­ter, then it will follow that Paull who is named heere first, is lesse [...] (though an Apostle) than Apollos which is absurd.

The fifth place is, Luke 22. 31. where it is said to Peter, When thou art converted confirme thy Bretheren, that is (sayth he) practise & exercise greatnes & dōinion over thē. I answer, that this is a strange glosse indeed, for to confirme, is a duty of Mini­stration, but not a dignitie of Do­nation, as is said Act. 15. 32. That Judas and Silas exhorted the bretheren with many words and confirmed them, [Page 133] which is not that they excercised greatnes & dominion therby over thē, but far otherwise, as Theophy­lact on this place teaches (and with him Beda, Lyra, Stella, and Maldo­nat) Our Saviour showing that Peter having after his denyall gotten such mercie from God, and restoring to his dignitie of Apostle-ship, he should from this experience confirme thē that were [...] of mercie and not to dispaire, if thorow frailtie they should fall, and did there-after repent (sayeth he) which du­tie also we see David in the like case promiseth to performe. Psal. 51. 13.

The sixth place is, Luke 22. 26. wher Christ saith, He that is greater amongst you let him be as the younger, which showeth (sayeth hee) that a­mongst the twelve one was greater thā [Page 134] another even in Christs account. To which I answere. 1. The Evange­list Mathew, cap. 20. 16. showes, that it was not, that amongst the Apostles one was greatest or chief in Christs account, but that some would haue been so, as we see in the mother of Zebedes sonnes petition, Math. 20. 21. Next their own Lyra Carthusian & Stella, showeth that here the Apostles wer taxed of am­bition by Christ, because of the cō ­tention of some for preheminence aboue the rest. Which was equally forbidden to all, and not adjudged to be in the person of one. There­fore also sayeth Ambrose on this place, Ʋnto all the Apostles is given one plat forme of interdiction, that none of them should brag of preheminence.

The seventh place is, Iohn 21. 15. where Christ sayeth to Peter Feed my sheep, that is, (sayth he) governe [Page 135] my Church. whereunto I shall an­swere onlie in Cardinall Cusanus words (lib. 2. de concord. Cath. cap. 13.) saying, If it was spoken to Peter, feed my sheep, yet it is manifest (sayeth hee) that this feeding was but by the word and his holie example, and that according to S. Augustin in his Commentarie on these words, the same was commanded likewise to all the o­thers, in saying, go yee into all the world and preach the Gospell to everie creature, so that nothing is spoken to Peter (sayeth he) which importeth any other power, and therefore we con­clude rightlie (sayeth the Cardinall) that all the Apostles were equall in power with Peter. Bellar. also (l. 4. de pont. cap. 23. §. addit) acknow­ledgeth that what was givē to peter by these words (feed my sheep) was given to all by these other words, as my Father sent me so send I you.

[Page 136] His last place which he bringeth, is, Math 12. 25. Every kingdome di­vided against it self is brought to deso­lation, and if Satan cast out satan &c. whence he most ridiculouslie rea­soneth thus, Satan hath a kingdome whereof he is chief, if then there be not onelie a visible head of the Church tri­umphant in heaven▪ but also a visible head even in hell, why not also a visible head on earth? (sayeth he) risum te­neatis amici. A goodlie conformitie indeed! But as he would ha [...]e the Church to haue a visible vicar head on earth, aswell as a chief one in heaven▪ so he should let Satan also haue a visible vicar head on earth, aswel as he is the chief head in hel, and indeed wee acknowledge the Pope to be that vicar of his power▪ but not the vicar of Christ, Horned like the Lamb, but speaking like the Dragon. Revel. 13. 11.

[Page 137] As for Testimonies of Fathers which he citeth as of Theophy lact, who calleth Peter the prince of the disciples, this importeth no more supremacie of jurisdiction over the rest, nor where it is said of Virgil, That he is the Prince of poets, that therefore he had jurisdiction over all poets in his age. Therefore, Cy­ril Hier▪ his words (which he also citeth) showeth the true meaning thereof, calling Peter Prince, that is, The most excellent of the Apostles, which none doth deny. And wher­as Eusebius calleth him, The first Bishope of Christians, this impor­teth onlie primacie in order, but no supremacie of power. As for Chrisostome his 55. Homile on Ma­thew, where he alleadgeth that hee is ther called, The head of the church, there is no such title there, which (as I shall show heere-after) Pope [Page 138] Gregorie calleth proud and pro­phane. Lastly, he citeth one Eu­thymius a late Monck, as a Father, who lived 1118. years after Christ, who calleth Peter, Master of the whole World, not by dominion over it, (as all knoweth) but in respect of that Apostolicall commission, Math. 28. 19. Go teach all nations, &c. And the last is, Pope Leo's te­stimonie, in his owne behalf, cal­ling Peter, Head and chief of the A­postles in the sense forenamed, and yet all these prove onlie what Pe­ter was personallie, but nowise that the Pope is the same successivelie.

But before I leaue this so pleaded for papall supremacie, I will batter this loftiest tow [...]e of mysticall Ba­bylon, with a batterie furnished on­lie by a Pope himself. Gregorie the great, thus Bellarmin (lib. 2. de pont. cap. 31.) proveth the Popes [Page 139] supremacie by these two titles gi­ven to him to wit, that he is cal­led The Head of the Church and Ʋni­versall Bishop. Of the first wherof, sayeth Gregorie (lib. 4. indict. epist. 36) It is Sa [...]anicall pride by any such title of Head, so to subject all Christs members to one man which cohereth to one Head onely & alone, Christ Iesus. And of the second, he saith, Any one so to mount aboue others, to such an hight of singularitie, as that he would be under none, but he alone would bee aboue all, (as Pope Boniface thereaf­ter claimed Extrav. lib. 1. Tit. 8. cap. 1. (to be acknowledged by al, under paine of damnation,) It is a most proud and prophane usurpa­tion.

And lest that Gregorie should seem to oppose these titles in the person of Iohn Bishop of Constantinople, who first obtained the same from [Page 140] the Emperour Manritiꝰ as a wrong done to him, or his sea, to whom these titles wer due. Therfore 1. he cleareth himself of this, saying to the Emperour, Epist 32. In this matter (most religious Lord) do I de­fend any cause of mine? or do I chal­lenge heerin any wrong done to mee? No. And yet the more to cleare this, he sayeth epist. 36. None of my Predecessours would ever consent to use such a prophane title, no▪ not Pe­ter himself the first founder of this sea, who, altho he was chief of the Apostles, and according to his Apostle-ship had the care of all the Church committed to him, yet notwithstanding (sayth he) was not called the universall Apostle. And in the same Epistle to Eulogiꝰ B. of Alexandria, hee showeth that himself would no wise accept of any such style when it was offered to him. And therefore he sayeth to [Page 141] Eulogius, Let not your Holinesse in your letters style any man whosoever universall Bishope, yea morover (say­eth he) epist. 38. I confidentlie af­firme, that whosoever calleth himself universall Bishope, or desireth so to be called, he is the fore-runner of Anti­christ. Yea, more yet, (epist. 39. & lib. 6. epist. 30) whosoever assen­teth, or acknowledgeth any such style, he loseth the faith (sayeth hee) and maketh shipwracke thereof, (a sadd doom against all papists) all which made Cardinall Cusanꝰ to say thus. (lib. 2. de concord. Cath. cap. 13.) whil we defend this, that the Pope is not universall Bishope, but onlie the first aboue others (to wit in place or pri­macie) in so doing we defend the truth (sayth he) Thus doth a great Pope and famous Cardinall pleade a­gainst papall supremacie, as much as any Protestant can do.

12. THat a womā may be head or supreame governesse of the Church in all causes, as the late Queene Elizabeth was.

VVHich is contrarie (sayeth hee) to Tim. 2. 11. where it is said, Let the woman learne in si­lence with all subjection, but I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp au­thoritie over the man, and againe, 1. Cor. 14. 34. Let women hold their peace in the Churches. whereunto I answere, that none of these Texts proveth any other thing, but onlie the subjection of a married wife, to her husband, and that no woman whosoever should usurp the pub­lick & pastourall office of preach­ing, and thus do Aquinas, Lombard, Cajetan and other Romanists ex­pound, & their late Est [...]ꝰ especially.

And as for that Religious & late Queene of happie memorie, Shee [Page 143] was Supreame Governesse of the Church within her Dominions, in causes Ecclesiasticall, no otherwi [...]e than as we reade David was in eve­rie matter pertayning to God, as we see 1. Chron. 26. 32. and as He­zekiah was, 2. Chron. 29. 15. & 31▪ and Iosiah 2. Chron. 35. 2. 3. and 6. and as Nehemiah was, 13. 7. 8. and 28. acting in matters ecclesiastical civilie, but not usurping any pow­er or practise (as Ʋzziah did 2. Chron. 26.) which belonged to the Priests office. or of a Pastourall charge in doctrine, discipline or administration of sacraments, but as Princes should, to cause, and see that God be worshipped aright, & discipline be exercised as it ought within their Dominions, that so, as their power is from God: so it may be imployed chieflie for God, as nursing Fathers and mothers to his [Page 144] Church, and as no scripture de­barreth Princes and Magistrats frō medling with such causes in the manner forenamed, but admitteth them to be Governours therein, so likewise doth antiquitie, as we may see in the person of Constantine the first Christian Emperour, as Euse­bius in his third book of his life, c. 13. reporteth, and of his carriage in the first Councell of Nice, and decision of matters of faith, wh [...] medling the Emperours also [...]ad in such causes, Socrates likewise de­clareth in the p [...]oeme of his fifth book of ecclesiasticall historie. Au­gustin also contra Cresconium, lib. 3. cap. 51. and de Civit. Dei lib. 5. c. 24. & Athanasius in his second A­pologie, p. 797. Graecolat. appea­ling to the Emperour Constantine a­gainst the unjust proceedings of the Councell of Tyre, in his behalf. [Page 145] As Flavianus in the like case did to the Emperours Theodosius and Va­lentinian.

But I cannot marvell enough that this pamphleter should so touch upon a womans government of a particulare nationall Church, in a civill way within her Dominion, whil as a craftie & vile Strumpet, named Pope Iohn the eight did go­verne the whole Roman Church which they cal Catholick as Christs vicar and head thereof, two years, a moneth and foure dayes, till go­ing in procession and surprysed by paines of child-birth, being upon the publick street delivered, Shee thereafter died, for which cause in detestation of the fact, (as Platina the Popes Secretarie & all ancient Romanist histriographers speake) No Pope ever since went that way in publick procession, as Mar­tinus, [Page 146] Polonus, Sigebert, Fasciculus temporum, Marianus Scotus, and many others ancient Records do testifie, whom I can produce.

And as for any testimonies of Fa­thers which he bringeth, as Da­mascen's where he sayeth, I consent not that the Church of God be go­verned by Kings, and in Theodorets historie, that one Eulogius said con­cerning the Emperour Valens cō ­manding by his officer what did belong to a Bishop, What? was hee made Bishope (sayeth he) that day when he was crowned Emperour? and Ignatius who commandeth all men, even the Emperour himself to be obe­dient to the Bishope, all these (I say) makes nothing against that which I haue said before, but onlie against civill Princes their usurpation of what belongeth properlie and on­lie to the Ecclesiasticall office and [Page 147] persons vested therwith, in doctrin and discipline.

And if we will look to Antiquity, we shall find that in this point, po­pish doctrine debarring princes or the civill Magistrat from any med­ling in Ecclesiasticall effaires, (as Bellar. teaches lib. 1. de clericis, c. 28. & 29.) joyneth hands with the anciēt hereticks the Donatists, who did contend in likemanner, that the cognition, tryall and medling with Ecclesiasticall effaires, belongeth nowise to the Magistrat. And ther­fore this was the speech of Donatꝰ, Quid est Imperatori cum Ecclesia? or What hath the Emperour adoe with the Church? as Optatus Milevitanꝰ declareth in his third book against Parmenian, and Augustin likewise, lib. 1. contra epist. Parmeniani, c. 7. & epist. 166. Whereas the har­monie of confessions of faith, and [Page 148] ours in particulare 1581. art. 24. sayeth, Moreover to Kings, Prin­ces, Rulers a [...]d Magistrats, we affirme that chieflie and most principallie the conservation and purging of Religion appertaineth, so that not onlie they are appointed for civill policie, but also for maintainance of the true religion, and for supressing of idolatrie and superstition, as in Da­vid, Iosaphat, Ezekias, Iosias and o­thers highlie commended for their zeale in that case may be espyed, & in our later confession 1647. cap. 23. That for the better effecting wher­of, they haue power to call Synods, to be present at them▪ and to provyde that whatsoever is transacted in them, bee according to the minde of God.

13. THat Antichrist shall not be a particulare man, and that the Pope is Antichrist.

[Page 149] VVHich he sayeth is contrary to 2. Thess. 2. 3. where he is called, That man of sinne, &c. and therefore a particulare man onlie. Whereunto I answere in the Iesuit Ribera's words on Revel. 17. 10. That it is not unusuall in Scripture, that by one man, many the like and of the same incorporation are signified, (sayeth hee) which he proveth out of Math. 22. 11. where, by One man that wanted the wedding gar­ment many such are signified, and out of Dan. 7. where, by the King of the Medes and Persians, not any individuall and one onlie person is signified, but the whole succession of these Kings one after another. likewise by the cōsent of all Roma­nists, that speech 2. Thess. 2. 7. wher it is said, (Onlie he who now letteth, will let, till he be taken out of the way) is to be understood, not of an indi­viduall [Page 150] Roman Emperour onelie, but of the whole succession of the old Roman Emperours then resi­dent at Rome, in their full integrity. Yea, the papists even now, when they say, that the Pope is Christs vicar, they meane not this or that Pope onlie, but the whole succes­sion of such one after another.

The second place is Revel. 13. 18. Where the number 666. is called the number of a man, whence hee con­cludeth That Antichrist shall be one onlie individuall man. To which I answere, that from the number of a man, 666. to argue to the singu­laritie of a person, is a bad conse­quence, but by this number the Ie­suite Ribera teacheth us better, that Ireneus who lived neare to the A­postles times, according to the cō ­putation by the greek letters, found it out, to be Lateinos or Roman, as [Page 151] their Church is called at this day, Ecclesia latina seu Romana, and the Pope Papa Romanus, &c.

The third place is, 1. Iohn 2. 22. That Antichrist denyeth the Father & the Sonne, which the Pope doeth not. Whereunto I answere 1. That the word (Antichrist) is somtimes ta­ken generallie, for all these who openlie & avowedly oppose Christ and his trueth, and of such the A­postle Iohn speaketh verse 18. That even in his time there were many An­tichrists. And somtimes it is taken more strictlie, as 2. Thess. 2. for that great Antichrist to come, & wherby is signified the succession of such, who under the profession of the Christian name. shall notwithstan­ding oppose Christs trueth, by all deceavablnesse of unrighteousnes, and in deepest hypocrisie working in a my­sterie, and therefore is said to bee [Page 152] herned like the lamb, but to speake like the dragon. And in this sense we say, that the Pope is Antichrist. 2. Hee who denyeth the sonne, is said to deny the Father, as wee see, 1. Iohn 2. 23. Now the Sonne is denyed either directlie and in expresse words, or indirectlie, by consequence or in deeds (as Augustin speaketh, lib. contra Donatistas) & that this way the Pope denyeth the sonne in the veritie of his humane Nature by their transsubstantiation, and in all his three offices, as sole King of his Church, sole Priest and sole Pro­phet, by many learned divines hath beene clearlie proven, the Pope al­so claiming all these three▪ a▪ Mo­narch of his Church on earth, high Priest, and infallible Prophet ther­of.

The fourth place which he brin­geth is, 2. Thess. 2. 4. where it is [Page 153] said, That Antichrist shall exalt him­self aboue all that are called gods. To which I answere, that this place ra­ther clearly proyeth him to be An­tichrist, it being evident that Prin­ces and Kings are called so, Psal. 82. 6. and it is notour, both by do­ctrine and practise, that the Pope exalteth himself above all such, as wee may see (Extravag. lib. 1. tit. 8. cap. Ʋnam S [...]nctam.) to the very making them kisse his feet, depo­sing them, and treading on their necks, as Alexander the third did to the Emperour Frederick, and as I haue showne at large in my late Treatise Of Antichrist, painted and poynted out in his true colours.

The fifth place which he bringes, is, 2. Thess. 2. 8. which sayeth, That our Lord Jesus shall kill him with the spirit of his mouth at his comming, which agreeth no more to the Pope [Page 154] he) then That Christ is come the se­cond time. To which place I answer, 1. That this deceatfull Seducer dea­leth most falslie and fraudfullie in citing these words, as if they were the words of our Bible, whereas the words of our Translation ac­cording to the originall are these, Whom our Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, & destroy with the brightnes of his cōming, and in the Rhemes translation, it is thus, whom our Lord Iesus shall kill with the spi­rit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the manifestation of his advent. So that the Apostle maketh two de­grees of his destruction, The first whereof he calleth a consumption by the spirit of his mouth, & a consump­tion we know is a lingring disease, whereby one wasteth away piece and piece. And this is by the spirit of Gods mouth, whereby is signified [Page 155] Gods Word, as wee see Gal. 3. 5. 1. Tim. 4. and 1. 1 Iohn 4. 1. And this consuming of Antichrist by this meane, by the preaching of the everlasting gospell Revel 14. 6. we see (praised be God) in a good measure performed. The second degree he calleth the destroying of him altogether by the brightnes, or (as the Rhemists speake) by the manifestatiō of his cōming. which wee hope in God also is drawing verie near.

The last place which he bringeth, is Iohn 5. 43. I am come in my Fa­thers name & ye receive me not, if ano­ther shall come in his owne name, him yee will receive. To which I answer, 1. That our Saviour speaketh not of Antichrist strictlie taken, and by way of eminencie, as he is described by Paull, 2. Thess. 24. who was to come and appeare after the dissol­ving [Page 156] of the ancient Romā Empire, but of false Prophets that were shortlie after Christs ascension to arise, to deceiue the incredulous Iewes, (as histories report) because they did not beleive, but rejected the true Messias. And this their owne Ferus declareth to bee the meaning of the place, and diverse other Romanists.

2. We see that the jewish Nation onlie were to receive these of whō our Saviour speaketh. But Anti­christ (of whō the Apostle speakes 2. Thess. 2.) was to be an universall deceiver of multituds, of peoples, of nations and tongues, which (Re­vel. 17. 15.) are called the waters whereon the Whoore sitteth, and whereunto the papall title of Ʋni­versall Bishop doth therefore pro­perlie agree.

14. THat none but God cā for­give sinnes.

[Page 157] VVHich he sayeth is contrary to Iohn 20. 23. where it is said, Whose sinnes yee forgive are for­given them, and Math. 9. 8. wher it is said, When the multitude saw it, they marvelled & glorified God which had given such power to men. To which I answere, that this place of Iohn, proveth onlie a Ministeriall power given by Christ to his Apo­stles and their successours, which we deny not, and which his owne words also on Math. 9. 8. doth only grant unto them, saying, Which tho they (to wit the multitude) knew to appertaine to God onlie by nature, yet they perceived that it might be done by mans Ministrie on earth.

Wherfore we say 1. with Ambrose (lib. 3. desp. Sancto c. 19. Men (says he) doeth onlie afford their Ministrie to the remission of sinnes, but they exer­cise not any right of authoritie. Istiro­gant, [Page 158] Divinitas donat (sayeth hee) that is, They seeke it, but God giveth it, 2. Lombard also their Master of sentences teacheth, how God only forgiveth sinnes properlie, & men Ministeriallie, saying, lib. 4. sent. dist. 18. God onlie remitteth and re­taineth sinnes, and yet he hath given power to the Church to do so, but Hee remitteth and retaineth otherwise than the Church. For he remitteth sins on­lie by himself (sayeth he) because he purgeth the soule from the inward spot thereof, and delivereth it from the debt of eternall death. But he hath not gi­ven this power to Priests, notwithstan­ding, he hath given them power of bin­ding and loosing, that is, (sayeth he) of declaring that men ar bound or loo­sed, as the Priest declareth the Leper to be cleane, whom first the Lord had cu­red and made cleane. And therefore this is their Commission to preach [Page 159] repentance and remission of sinnes in Christs Name. Luke 24. & Act. 13. 38. And this Ministeriall power is that onlie which the Fathers whō he citeth doth prove as out of Am­brose I haue alreadie showne.

15. THat wee ought not to con­fesse our sinnes to any man, but to God alone.

FIrst for confession of sinnes, I will showe what wee hold, and and 2. what wee oppose. 1. then wee hold that ordinarlie it sufficeth to confesse only to God, according to that Psal. 32. 5. I said I will con­fesse my transgressions to the Lord, but if any persons for any secret or hid sinne, or his sinnes otherwise, bee weyghted in conscience, and can­not find of themselves comfort or counsell, concerning such, these a [...] the words of Calvin (lib. 3. instit. cap. 4. num. 12. Let every faithfull [Page 160] man remember that this is his dutie, if privilie he be so distrest and afflicted in conscienc, thorow the sense of his sins that without the help of others he can­not be comforted see that he neglect not the remedie that the Lord offereth to him, to wit, that for his reliefe, he use private confossion to his Pastour, and for giving him comfo [...]t, he privatlie implore his help, whose office is both privatlie and publictlie by the doctrine of the gospell to comfort Gods people.

Wee oppose not then privat con­fession altogether to man, being voluntarie, free & occasionall, but that politick picklock of popish sa­cramentall auricular confession, whereby everie one is forced to confesse to a Priest all their sinnes which they can remember with all the agravating circumstances, else to expect no forgivenes of them from God, which (as their owne [Page 161] Ferus on Math. 11. 28. sayeth) (by the confession of the learned) is nihil nisi carnifi [...]ina conscientiae, that is, nothing else but a torturing of the conscience (sayeth he) when men are forced to auricular confession, and may not make it, but to their owne Priest, though he be unlearned, naughtie and inconstant. And trulie (sayeth their owne Cassander, consult. art. 11.) I believe there should be no controver­sie in this, if this wholsome medicine of confession had not beene insected and de­fyled by many unskillfull and impor­tunat soule-physitians, whereby they haue laid snares upon their consciences, and as it were by certaine tortures, tormented them whom otherwise they should haue eased and relieved.

Next, to come to answere to his scripture Arguments, which hee bringeth for his popish auricular confession, the first is Math. 3. [Page 162] where it is said That Ierusalem & all Iudea, and all the region round a­bout Iordan went out to Iohn the Bap­tist, and [...]er baptised of him confessing their sinnes. To whom I shall an­swere onlie in the Iesuit Maldonats words on this place, saying, What Catholick was ever so unlearned that he would prove the sacrament of con­fession by this place? seing as Cardi­nall Cajetan showeth on act. 19. 18. This their confession was but generall and publick, any other being by all pro­babilitie impossible, that hee could heare in particular and in private, such a huge multitude, as out of all the forenamed places came to him to be baptised of him. We see then by Maldonats verdict, that this Pamphleter is an unlearned dolt.

The second place is, act. 19. 18. where it is said, That these who belie­ved came to Paull and confessed and [Page 163] shewe their deeds. To which place al­so I answer in Cajetans words, which are these, As they did flock together (sayeth he) to the baptisme of John, confessing their deeds, without doubt ge­nerallie, or their publick sinnes, so here. For none of these confessions were Sa­cramentall, but a profession onlie of re­pentance for their former life (sayeth hee)

The third place which hee addu­ceth is, Numb. 5. 6. Then shall they confesse their sinnes which they haue done. To which I answere 1. That hereby sacramentall confession can­not be proven, because they hold it to be a sacrament of the gospell, & which was not instituted (as Bel­larmin granteth, lib. 3. de pont. c. 20) till after Christs resurrection. 2. Bonaventure (lib. 4. d. 17. art, 1) citeth Augustin, saying, That the offe­ring of sacrafices was the legall confes­sion [Page 164] of sinnes, whence he inferreth, That it appeareth that there was no o­ther confession under the law, but the oblation of sacrifices. 3. Their owne Lyra on Levit. 16. 21. showeth, That the Priest did not heare in par­ticular the confession of the people, but in generall, for the other had been im­possible (sayeth he)

But I wonder how he omitteth that which usuallie they object, & is Bellarmins maine argument for auricular confession, to wit, Jam. 5. 16. which sayeth, Confesse your sinnes one to another. To which I can not answere better than in Cardi­nall Cajetans words, and by addu­cing his reasons, saying, Ther is here no speech of sacramentall confession, for sacramentall confession is not one to ano­ther, but to the Priest onlie (sayeth hee] wherefore this confession is that, whereby we mutuallie confesse our sel­ves [Page 165] to be sinners, that one may pray for another, or for reconciliation, where wrong is done (sayeth he.)

As for Fathers which hee citeth, they are either false & counterfit, as Clements Epistles which Bellar. in his book of Ecclesiasticall writ­ters, declareth and proveth to bee spurious, or else they are falslie al­leadged, as Ireneus and Tertullian, who as their Beatus Rhenanus testi­fieth speaketh only of publick con­fession, and not of private, saying, (in Tertul. de poenit) Let none-mar­vell that Tertullian speaketh nothing de clancularia illa admissorum confes­sione, that is, of that secret confession of sinnes. Neither is there any such thing in Origen, or any alleadged works of Ambrose that makes for popish sacramentall and auricular forced confession, nor any such work of his, as, in muliere peccatrice, [Page 166] in all the Catalogue of his works set downe by Bellarmin de scrip ec­cles. and though there were such a work and such words, As confesse freelie to the Priest the hidden secrets of thy soul, this were but onlie as one stood in neede of comfort and counsell, upon distres of conscience (as hath beene said) but I wonder most of his citation of Chrisostom and Augustin, both of which are a­gainst any such forced confession. Chrisost. (conc. 4. de Lazaro) saying, Do I say confesse to thy fellow servant who may upbraid thee? No. Confesse unto God who can cure thee, & Augu­stin lib. 10. confess. c. 3. sayth thus, What haue I to do with men, that they should heare my Confessions, as if they could heale all my diseases.?

16. THat Pardons & Indulgen­ces were not in the Apo­stles times.

[Page 167] VVHich he sayeth is contrary to 2. Cor. 2. 10. where the Apostle sayeth, To whom yee forgive any thing, I for giue also. To which I answere, 1. That this showeth on­lie the Apostles consent to the re­leasing of the incestuous Penitent from the Church censure of Ex­communication, formerly pronun­ced 1. Cor. 5. 3. and this (sayeth Estius) is the exposition of all the latine Fathers, and so maketh no­thing for papal indulgences or par­dons. Which their owne Prierias lib. cont. Cath. de indulg. and Ca­jetan opusc. lib. 5. cap. 1. granteth to haue no ground in scripture, tho this Pamphleter would wrest scrip­ture for them. Yea moreover (say­eth Cajetan) none of the ancient fathers greek or latin haue broght any such to our knowledge. which makes that Bellarmin bringeth not [Page 168] one father for them. 2. Their Al­fonsus a Castro. lib. 8. cont heres. Tit. indulgentia, as also B. Fisher cont. Luth. art. 18. granteth that their use is onlie of late.

The second place which he brin­geth, is, 2. Cor. 2. 6. Sufficient to such a man is this punishmēt, whence he concludeth, that it lyeth in the hand of the spirituall Magistrat to measure the time of such censure or punishment that is imposed. To which I answere; That these his words confirmeth what wee haue said before, showing what ancient indulgences were in foro Ecclesiae, & which we practise in the exercise of our discipline towards pēitents, as we see cause, but this maketh nothing for papall indulgences, which they extend not onlie to the living, but also to the dead in pur­gatorie, and wherein, what is their [Page 169] unitie, or rather huge division of tongues and pen's, we haue showne in the answere to the tenth Asser­tion.

17. THat the actions and pas­sions of the saints serve for nothing to the Church.

VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Coloss. 1. 24. where the Apostle sayeth, I now rejoyce in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is wanting of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh, for his bodies sake which is the Church. To which I an­swere, The true meaning of these words in their own Aquinas words, on this place is this, saying, These words according to the superfice might haue an ill sense, as if Christs passion were not sufficient for our redemption, but for filling up that which wants, the sufferings of the saints wer to be added, but this is hereticall (sayeth he) for [Page 170] the blood of Christ is sufficient for the redemption of many worlds, himself being the propitiation for our sinnes, but it is to be understood (sayeth he) that Christ and his Church make up but one mysticall person, whose head is Christ, and all the godlie are his bodie & mem­bers thereof, this then was wanting, that as Christ had suffered in his natu­rall bodie, so he was to suffer in Pauls person as a member of his mysticall bodie, Christs sufferings in his bodie, being for the redemptiō of his Church, but the sufferings of the saints for the Church, being for this, that by their example the Church may be confirmed, (sayeth he) where we see that the sufferings of the saints serve to the church for cōformity & confirma­tion, but not (as this Pamphleter would haue them) to be a treasure for papall indulgences to bring in a treasure of money to the popes cof­fers.

[Page 171] The second place which he brings is, Philip. 2. 30. wherein Paul ex­horteth the Philippians to receiue Epa­phroditus with all gladnes, because for the work of Christ hee was neare to death, to supplie their work of service towards him, which as Aquinas says, They were not able in their owne per­sons to performe to him. which words of Paul no more proveth the Pam­phleters point wherat he aimeth, of the benefit of popish indulgences, then that Rome is in Ʋtopia, but showeth both his usuall imperti­nencie, impudence and ignorance.

18. THat no man can do works of supererogation.

VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Math. 19. 21. wher our Saviour sayeth to the young rich­man, If thou will be perfect, go sell all that which thou hast and give to the poor &c. and follow me, whēce it plain­lie [Page 172] appeareth (sayeth he) that a man by the assistance of Gods grace may do somthings counselled, which are of more perfection than are things com­manded. To whom I answere 1. in their owne Ferus words on this place, saying, In these words is im­plyed that which is necessarie & com­manded to all, to wit, Poverty of spirit, which is nothing else, but with the heart to cleaue to no creature, neither doeth the kingdome of heaven belong to any but to such as do so (sayeth he) 2. This cōmand to this young at this time to sell all. was a personall cōmand, given for this end to discover this young mans covetousnes and hy­pocrisie, in saying he had keeped the whole law from his youth▪ like that personall command given to Abraham of sacrificing Isaac, to discover his great faith and obe­dience to all after ages. And wee [Page 173] know that such personall cōmands for tryall or discovery doth not tye all. 3. The perfection of Angels is to do Gods Commandements, as wee see Psal. 103. 20. and in that petition of the Lords prayer, Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Yea Christs owne perfection was in this, the doing of his Fathers will, & shall wretched sinfull man be able to go beyond the perfectiō of these?

The second place which he brin­geth is 1. Cor. 7. 25. Now concerning virgins, I haue no Commandement of the Lord, yet I give my judgement (we reade counsell, sayeth hee) and to do that which is counselled is not necessa­rie, because one nevertheless may bee saved (sayeth he) To which place I answere 1. Not only the origin [...]ll hath the word, judgemēt [...], & not counsell, but also Cardinall Ca­jetan [Page 174] acknowledgeth the same on that place ingenouslie. 2. By com­mand, the Apostle meaneth a ge­nerall command, oblieging all per­sons & at all times, as the precepts of the Morall Law do, and concer­ning such special cōmands of living single and keeping virginitie, hee showeth that he hath no such Cō ­mandement of the Lord, but in re­gard of the present condition of Christians lyable to daylie persecu­tion, he declares his judgement on­ly, that to live single, & in the estate of virginitie, it is better then to liue in a married estate, for their owne good, but not that thereby they could supererogat at Gods hands, & therfore leaving it in the meane time free to every one to do, as God hath distributed to every one his gifts, as he speaketh 1. Cor. 7. 17.

[Page 175] 3▪ Gerson (de consult. evang. & statu perfect.) and with him their Paludanus (in lib. 3. sent. d. 34. q. 3.) do teach, That some may attaine to as great hight of perfection living in marriage, and possessing riches (as we see in Abraham & Iob) as they who liue single, or in the estate of povertie. As also Jansenius in his concord. on the Evangelists cap. 100. al­leadging the authoritie of Aquinas teacheth, That the perfection of a Christian life consisteth essentiallie in keeping of Gods Commandements. A­quin. 2, 2. q. 184. art. 3. and as we see Philip. 4. 8. beyond which in performance can no flesh go.

Lastlie, We find in scripture Gods counsell to man & his cōmand to be all one, as these places testifie, psal. 73. 24. Prov. 1. 25. 30. Jer. 49. 20. Act. 20. 27. and Revel. 3. 18. How soever with man it may [Page 176] be said, as it is proverbiall, Counsell is no command.

The third place which he bringes, is Math. 19▪ 12. There be Eunuchs who haue made themselves so, for the kingdome of heaven, he that is able to receive it, let him receive or keepe it, now of precepts it is not said, keepe them who may, or is able, but keep thē absolutlie (sayeth he)

For answere 1. Let him hear the Iesuite Maldonats exposition upon this place, saying, The words receive it, in this place signifieth the same as to understand, for Christ thereby would say no other thing than elswhere hee useth to speake of any grave matter, saying, he that hath eares to heare, let him heare (sayeth he.)

2. These Eunnchs that made thē ­selves such, that is, lives as Eunuchs chastlie and in a single life, the text sayeth that they did it for them­selves, [Page 177] to attaine to the kingdome of heaven, (which everie one is bound to do) and not to superero­gat for others.

As for Origens words which hee alleadgeth on the 1. Rom. 15. say­ing, These things which we do over & aboue our dutie. I find nowise in that place, and though they were, yet we must distinguish betweene du­ties to which wee are bound, by a generall precept common to all (as hath beene said) & duties to which we are not so bound, but left to the performance therof, according as every one findeth himself gifted or not, which answere serveth also to that place alleadged out of Chriso­stome, that wee may do more than wee are commanded. Next for this hee citeth Gregorie Nissen. 1. Moral. cap. 5. wheras Gregory Nis­sen. never wrote such a book, but [Page 178] he seemes to mistake Gregory Nis­sen. for Gregorie the great, who lib. 21. Moral. cap. 15. quyte over­throwes works of supererogation.

19. THat by the fall of Adam wee haue lost our freewill, and it is not in our power to choyse good, but onlie evill.

VVHich he sayeth is contrary to 1. Cor. 7. 37. and Prov. 23. 26. wher the Lord requireth us▪ To giue to him our heart, which if wee haue not freedome of will, why doeth the Holie Ghost require this of us? (sayeth he) To which I answere, that all such precepts are the Rules of our dutie, but not proofs of our abilitie by nature, which when we see we are not able to performe of our selves, it is to drive us by praier to him who onlie can inable us, and (as is said Philip. 2. 13.) Who wor­keth in us both to will and to do of his [Page 179] good pleasure, & as we see the proof thereof, Ioel. 2. 12 compared, with Lam. 5. 21. as also Ezek. 18. 31. Where, though the Lord sayeth, Make you a new heart, yet cap. 36. 26. he sayeth, I will give you a new heart &c. For as Augustin speaketh (tom. 7. de gra. & l. arb. c. 16.) To the Pelagians of old who objected such places, That God cōmands us to do what we are not able, (to wit of our selves) that we may know what wee should seeke of him, who can make us able, and workesin us both the will & deed. So Bernard de gra. & lib. arb. And as for Scholasticks, how much (sayeth their Cassander. consult. art. 18) They ha [...]e ascribed to Divine grace, in place of the rest, Bonaven­ture doeth witnesse, saying, This is the profession of all pious minds to a­scribe nothing to themselves, but all to the grace of God.

[Page 180] Next, as to that 1. Cor. 7. 37. wher it is said, That he that standeth sted­fast in his heart, having no necessitie, but hath power over his owne will and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keepe his virginitie, doth well. This Text (I say) maketh nothing for mans naturall freewill, a-like to good as to that which is morallie evill, nor was there ever any lear­ned Romanist (to my knowledge) that alleadged this place to prove freewill. For Cardinall Cajetan, A­quinas, Catharinus and others upon this place, showeth that the Apostle heere speaketh onlie of a fathers power over his child, and that as he willeth or pleaseth he may dis­pose of his virgin, either to marrie her, or keepe her unmarried, as he should find her inclination, or the fitnes or unfitnes of times. As wee haue the like speech Act. 5. 4. of [Page 181] Peter to Ananias though in another matter.

The second place which he brin­geth, is Iohn. 1. 11. 12. which say­eth, That Christ came to his owne and they received him not, but as many as received him, he gaue them power to become the sons of God. which plain­lie implyeth a libertie of will, (say­eth he) To whom I answere. 1. That this Text implyeth no liberty of will by nature in them who re­ceived Christ, to receive him. but that he that gaue them power to become the sonnes of God, gaue them grace also to receiue him, whil as others did not receive him, & this is according to the Apostles speech, 1. Cor. 4. 7. Who made thee to differ from another? & what hast thou which thou hast not received? and ac­cording to 2. Cor. 3. 5. That we ar not able to think any thing as of our selves, [Page 182] but our sufficiencie is of God, wheron sayeth their owne Estius (and with him Lyra) The greeke Commenta­tors as Chrisostome, Theophylact, and O Ecumenius, explicating the Apostles meaning, speaketh after thi [...] manner (sayeth he) That there is not some­thing on our part, and somthing on Gods part in the first worke of our con­version, but plainlie, that there is no­thing on our part, no not the least thing, but all to be ascribed to God.

The third place which he bringes is Deut. 30. 19. where Moses ha­ving set before the people life & death, &c. he biddeth them choose life. To which place my former answere to Prov. 23. 26. sufficeth, Therfore also sayeth their Hugo de S. victore, (Miscell. 2. lib. 2. Tit. 137.) That for doing good ther is a three fold grace, a preventing, a cooperating, and a fol­lowing grace. The first giveth us the [Page 183] will to choyse, the second, the abilitie to do, and the third, the perseverance to continue. Estius likewise on 2. Cor. 3. 5. To this purpose citeth the words of the councell of Orange, whereby they decreed, That he was deceived with an hereticall spirit, who will say, that a mā by the power of na­ture can but think as becometh him any good that belongeth to eternall life, let be to choyse the same.

The fourth place is Luke 13. 34. O Ierusalem, Ierusalē, how oft would I gathered thy children, as an Hen does her brood under her wings, but ye wold not. Which Text showeth indeed the perversnes of mans will by na­ture, and the opposition thereof to the will of God, but no freedome therof by nature, to wil that which is morallie good & tendeth to sal­vation.

As for the testimonies of fathers. [Page 184] He bringeth first Hilarie, saying, That he would not that there should be a necessitie for men to bee the sonnes of God, but a power. To which I answer 1. That Hilarie wrote 12. bookes of the Trinitie, but he telleth not which of them. 2. Hilarie speaketh of a manichean necessitie or coac­tion, which we also deny to bee in mans will at all, or in his first con­version, and by power, hee means not the power of freewill by nature, but that power or efficacy of grace which our Saviour giveth, Iohn 1. 11. Therefore also of this power, & against the forenamed coaction, Prosper speaketh thus, (de voca­tione gentium) Wee both belieue & feel by experience (sayeth hee) that grace is so powerfull, that yet wee con­ceive it not to be any wayes violent.

The second testimonie which hee bringeth is, Augustins, saying, To [Page 185] consent or not to cōsent to Gods calling, lyes in a mās own wil. To which I an­swer 1. That he cites, l. 1. ad simpl. q. 4. wheras in that whol book ther ar but two questions. 2. I answer to the words of August. out of Augu­stin himself in his 107. epistle to Vi­talis. That not only, not to cōsent to Gods calling lyes in mans will which is per­verse by nature, but also to consent to Gods calling lyeth also in a mans owne wll, for grace takes not away the liber­ty of the will which is by Gods creation, but the pravity therof which is frō mans corruption. So that (as he said before l. de gra. & l. arb.) It is sure that we will freely whē we will, but it is he that maketh us will that which is good, of whom it is said, It is God who worketh in us both the will and the deed.

In this sense also doth Cyrill speak whom hee bringeth, saying. W [...]e cannot any wayes deny freedome of will [Page 186] in man. And Augustin also speaking against manichean coaction, and saying, How should our Saviour reward everie one according to their works if there were not freewill? con­forme wherunto sayth the harom­nie also of the cōfessions of the re­formed Churches, & ours in parti­cular, 1647. cap. 9. God hath indued the will of man with that natural liber­tie, that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to do good or evill. So that wee ac­knowledge the will to be free, as freedome is opposed to coaction, but not free, as able of it self to choyse the good that tendeth to salvation, or that it is equallie pro­pense to good as to evill, as the Pe­lagians of old, & now papists main­taine. Therefore (said Bernard de gra. & lib. arb.) Let no man think that therfore it is called freewill which [Page 187] wee haue, because it hath an equall power & inclination to good as to evill, seing it could fall by it self, but not rise but by the holie Ghost.

20. THat it is impossible to kepe Gods Comandements, tho assisted with his grace and the holie Ghost.

VVHich he sayeth is contrary to Philip. 4. 13. where the the Apostle sayth, That he can do all things through Christ. that strength­neth him. Whereunto I answere, That the word (all things) is not of further extent, than these things whereof he speaketh in particular in the preceeding verse, where hee sayeth, In all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungrie, to a­bound and to suffer neede. Thus doth Sedulius and their owne canonized Aquinas expound this text, as also their late Estiꝰ, saying, The meaning [Page 188] is, all things before rehearsed, & what else I am to suffer I am able to do tho­row Christ who enableth me, so that he speaketh no [...] of his perfect ful­filling of the Law in generall, the contrarie whereof hee confesseth, Rom. 7. 23.

The second place which he brin­geth is, Luke 1. 5. 6. where it is said of Zacharie & Elizabeth, That they walked in all the commandemen [...]s of the Lord blamelesse. To which I answere 1. That this was the old Pelagian objection which they cal­led their impenetrable Buckler, as Ierome witnesseth, lib. 1. cont. Pe­lag. with whom the papists heerin agree. And to whom I answere in his words to the Pelagian. That where it is said, that they are called righteous, this is (sayth he) as many others are called so, in the holie scrip­ture, as Io [...], Iehosaphat and Iosias, not [Page 189] that they wanted all fault, but are com­mended so, because for the most part they wer vertuous, for Zacharias him­self was punished with dumbnes (say­eth he) and Io [...] by his owne speech was rebuked, and Iehosaphat & Iosias are reported to haue done things which greatlie displeaseth God. Next, where it is said that Zacharie and Elizabeth walked in all the Commandements of God without blame, that is, without any grosse wickednes (sayeth he) but that they walked without sinne, I deny (sayeth he) that any man can do so, for that is cōpetent onlie to God. Their owne Carthusian also (& with him their late Stella) showeth, That this is spoken according to that measure which is agreeable to humane conditiō, but that there walking was not without sinne, for there is none so righteous in this mortall life (sayeth he.)

The third place is, Luke 11. 27. [Page 190] where Christ sayeth, Yea rather blessed are they who heare the word & keepe it. To which I answere, and to all such places that speake of keeping Gods word or comman­dements, that such a keeping ther­of is heere meaned (as there Car­thusian sayeth) Which is agreeable to humane condition in this life. For as Ierome sayeth lib. 3. cont. Pelag. If thou can showe me but one man who hath fulfilled the Commandements, Thou may showe me a man that needes not Gods mercie (sayeth he.)

The fourth place is, Luke 11. 2. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. To which I answer, as their owne Carthusian also expoundeth, That this is, readilie, reverendlie and sincerlie, Q [...]antum nostra fragilitas permittit, that is, as farre as our frail­tie permitteth (sayeth he) so that the word (as) hath relation not to that [Page 191] degree of perfect obedience which Angels performe in heaven, but to the manner of doing the same, as hath ben said by Carthusiā, & as our frailtie permitteth, which sufferes us not to be free of sinne, & of not doing Gods Will perfectlie, and therefore in the same prayer wee are also taught to crave daylie forgiv­nes, which we needed not, if wee could obey Gods will perfectlie as the Angels do.

The last place is, 1. Iohn 5. 3. For this is the love of God that we keepe his Cōmandements, which is coinci­dent with the third place, & there­fore alreadie answered.

As for any testimonies of Fathers, he bringeth the words onlie one of Basil, saying, That it is an impious thing to say that the Commandements of God, are impossible. To which I answere, Though hee telleth not [Page 192] where Basil speaketh so, that it is impious indeed to say that Gods commandements are impossible to be keeped in any measure, for wee see the contrarie in Zacharie and Elizabeth, but to say that in this life they may be keped perfectlie with­out sinne or any breach of them, that is lykewise impious, & plaine Pelagianisme or heresie, therefore in this sense sayeth Ambrose on gal. 3. (which Aquinas citeth on the same place) The Commandements ar such that it is impossible to kepe them (sayeh he) but I admire how hee citeth Hilarie in psal. 118. whose words are these on the 39. verse in his contrar, saying, The Prophet be­ing in the bodie speaketh, and knoweth that no living man can be without sin, except one whom he remembreth, who had no sinne, and in whose mouth was found no guile, to wit, Christ. As also I [Page 193] have showne how opposit Ierome is to him, l. 3. cont. Pelag. whom not­withstanding he citeth as for him. As Origen and Cyrill, who no wise patronizeth him.

21. THat faith onlie justifieth, & that good works are not absolutlie necessarie to salvation.

VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to 1 Cor. 13. 2. Though I haue all faith, so that I could remove mountains, & I have not charitie, I am nothing, therefore faith onlie doth not justifie (sayeth he) To which I an­swere, 1. That there is no word in this Text of Iustification, but of the necessitie of charitie to be joy­ned with faith in a christian profes­sion, which no protestant ever yet denyed. 2. The Apostle speaketh not of a justifying faith, but (as the words importeth) of a faith of working Miracles, which their [Page 194] owne Estius acknowledgeth, say­ing, (on 1. Cor. 12. 9.) The greeke Fathers do rightlie understand that faith heere, of which is spoken, cap. 13. 2. which they call the faith of signs and miracles, which faith (sayth he) is of it self a grace onlie given for the benefit of others. And so not a justi­fying faith for a man himself, as wee may see, Math. 7. 22.

The second place is Iam. 2. 24. where it is said, Yee see therfore how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. To which I answer, That beside O Ecumenius, Theodoret and Beda on this place, their owne Aquinas showeth the true meaning thereof, Who objecting to this place, Rom. 3. 20. where it is said, by the deeds of the Law no flesh shall be justi­fied in his sight, he reconcileth them thus, I answere (sayeth he) that to justifie may be taken two wayes, either [Page 195] for the execution, or for the manifesta­tion of our justification. and this way indeed a man is justified by works, that is, he is declared and manifested to bee just, or it is taken for the infused habit of righteousnes, and this way no man is justified by works (sayeth he) Like­wise sayeth Doctour Paes a Portu­gall Frier. The meaning of these words, That Abraham was justified by works, may be this, as Theodoret ex­poundeth, that he was declared just, which exposition I approve most (say­eth he.)

The third place is, Iam. 2. 14. where the Apostle sayeth, What doth it profit though a man say, hee hath faith, & not works, can that faith saue him? I answere, 1. That the Apostle sayeth not, Though a man haue faith, but, Though he say hee hath faith, showing therby that an alleadgance onlie of faith availeth [Page 196] not to salvation, 2. A [...] their Estius with us showeth, it is said ther, that a dead and fruitlesse faith onlie ac­cording to the Apostles words verse 17. and 18.) availeth not to salva­tion. nor can be called a justifying faith.

The fourth place is, Gal. 5. 6. Neither Circumcision nor uncircum­cision availeth any thing, but faith which worketh by loue. which place is coincident with the former, and doeth nowise militat against our doctrine of Iustification, as the words of our cōfession, anno 1581. and 1647. c. 11. testifieth, saying. That faith receiving and relying onlie on Christ and his righteousnes is the on­lie instrument of our Iustification, [...]et it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other sa­ving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by loue. And that this is also [Page 197] the doctrine of all other reformed Churches, their own Cassander wit­nesseth, consult. art. 4. As also Bel­larmin (lib. 1. de Iustif. cap. 14.) saying, Iohn Calvin in his Antidote of the Councell cap. 11. Sess. 6. sayeth, That it is faith onlie that justifieth, but yet not fayth which is alone, as the heate of the sunne is that onlie which heateth the earth, yet heate is not alone in the sunne, but their is light also joy­ned with it. the same also (sayeth he) doth Melancton. Brentius, & Chem­nitius teach with others.

And as for Fathers whom hee ci­teth, or whose words he setteth downe, such as Ambrose, saying, That faith alone sufficeth not, & Au­gustin that faith onlie saveth not with­out observing Gods Commandements, they militat nowise against out do­ctrine as wee see confessed.

But I admire at the impudence [Page 198] or ignorance of this Pamphleter, who in the next place ascribeth to us, that we hold That good works are not necessarie to salvation. whereas in the contrarie, These are the words of our Confession of faith. cap. 16. concerning their necessitie, That they are the fruits and evidences of a true and livelie faith; and by them Believers manifest their thankfulnes, strengthneth their assurance, edifieth their brethren, adorneth the profession of the gospell, stops the mouth of the adversaries: and glorisieth God, whose workmāship they are, created in Christ thereunto, that having their fruit in holines, they may haue the end, life eternall. being as Bernard speakes▪ via Regni, non causa regnandi.

22. THat good works are not meritorious.

VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Math. 16. 27. where [Page 199] it is said, That Christ at his second cō ­ming shall reward every one according to his works. To which I will an­swere onlie in the words of Pope Gregorie (in psal. 7. poenit. & verba, fac auditam) who sayeth thus, If the felicitie of the saints be mercie and not acquired by merits, where is that which is written, who shall render to every one according to his works? If it be rendred then according to works, how shall it be esteemed mercie? but it it one thing (sayeth he) according to ones works, and another thing to render for the works themselves. For in that it [...] said, according to his works, the qua­litie of the work is understood, that whose works are seene to be good, his reward shall be also glorious, as whose works are evill his reward shall be con­trarie; but as to that eternal life, which we haue of God & with God, no labour can be equalled (sayeth he) no works [Page 200] can be compared. Therfore also sayes their late Ferus on Rom. 2. 6. All that this word (according) doeth import in relation to good works, is, that the doing of them is a requisite condition, without any sort of meriting (sayeth he.)

The second place is Math. 5. 11. Rejoyce and bee glad for great is your reward in heaven. As also Math. 10. 42. That a cup of cold water given to one of Christs, shall not want it reward. Whereunto I answere 1. That we deny not but that good works haue their reward abyding them, for so sayth our Confessiō of faith 1647. cap. 16. art. 6. That the Lord looking on believers in his Son, it pleased hi [...] to accept & reward that which is sincere, altho accompanyed with many weak­nesses and imperfections. But wee di­stinguish and say that there is a re­ward in mercie wherof Hosea spea­keth [Page 201] 10. 12. saying, Sowe in righ­teousnes and reape in mercie. As also the Apostle 2. Tim. 1. 16. 17. And there is a reward of merite called wages Rom. 6. 23. Where the A­postle sayeth, The wages of sinne is death, but (by way of opposition) he sayeth, Life eternall is the free gift of God. upon which place therfore sayeth Cardinall Cajetan according to Augustins like words, de gra. & lib. arb. cap. 9. The gift of God is E­ternall life, that we may understand (sayeth he) that it is not for our me­rits, but of the free gift of God that in end we attaine to eternall life. So also speaketh Lombard, That we may un­derstand that God bringeth us to eter­nall life (sayeth he) for his owne mer­cie sake and not for our merits. So also speaketh their Ferus on Iohn 3. and Math. 20 & Gabriel Biel on the the Canon of the Masse, lect. 47. [Page 202] [...]nd others, yea, Bellarmin himself, lib. 5. de Iustif. cap. 19. confesseth That this hath beene the common and constant judgement of Divines in the Roman Church, as Thomas, Bonaven­ture, Scotus, Durand▪ a [...]d others, that God rewardeth good works of his meer liberalitie aboue any condignitie. Flat cōtrar to that blasphemous speech of the Rhemists on Heb. 6. 10. say­ing, That our good works are so fullie worthie of eternall life which God of his justice oweth to the workers [...]f the same, that he should be unjust if Hee rendred not heaven for them.

Lastlie, Where he sayeth that the holie Fathers unanimouslie affirme the same, but setteth downe none of their words, Let their own Cas­sander witnesse the contrarie, (con­sult. art. 6.) saying, This doctrine is not to bee passed by, which with a full consent all the ancient Fathers deliver, [Page 203] That our whole confidence of remission of sinnes, and hope of pardon and Eter­nall life, is to be placed in the only mer­cie of God and merite of Christ, which made Bellarmin also conclude (lib. 5. de Iustif. cap. 7.) saying, for the uncertantie of our own unrighteousnes, and the danger of vaine glory, it is safest to place our whole confidence in the onlie mercie and bountie of God.

23 THat Faith once had, can­not bee lost.

VVHich he sayeth is contrary to Luke 8. 13. Where the seed on the rock, are th [...]se who when they heare, receive the word with joy, and for a whyle believe, but in the time of temptation fall away. To which I answere, That by the believing of such, no true saving faith is mea­ned. But a temporarie assent onlie to that which is spoken, as their own Carthusian & late Stella show­eth, [Page 204] because their hearts (say they) are hard and rebellious, and destitute of the moysture of grace.

The second place is, 1. Tim. 18. where it it said, That some having put away a good conscience, concerning faith, have made shipwrak. Where­unto I answer, That by faith is not understood true saving faith, but the profession of the gospell onlie, which oftimes in scripture recei­veth this title, as 1, Tim. 4. 1. and Act. 13. 8. where it is said, That Elimas the Socerer sought to turne a­way the deputie from the faith. which by way of exposition, Heb. 10. 23. is called the Profession of the faith. And thus also doth Lombard, Aqui­nas and Estius expound, who decla­reth it to be also the exposition of Auselmus.

The third place is, 2. Tim. 2. 16. Concerning the overthrow of the faith [Page 205] some, which receiveth the same an­swere with the former. And which the very words of the preceeding verse cleareth, calling this over­throw, Their erring from the trueth. As the forenamed, Lombard, Aqui­nas and Estius also showeth.

As for Fathers, he sayth that they affirme the same frequently, but ci­teth onlie Augustin in two bookes. but telleth not what chapter, wher­as there are 24. in the one, and 16. in the other.

24. THat God by his will and inevitable decree hath or­dained from all eternitie, who shall bee damned, and who saved.

VVHich he sayeth is contrary to 1. Tim. 2. 3. 4. Where it is said, That our Saviour will haue all men to be saved To which I an­swere 1. That Augustin in his En­chiridion, cap. 103. expoundeth [Page 206] this place thus, That God will haue all to be saved that are saved, and that none can be saved but such as he will. And next, that by all men hee mea­neth, all sorts of men. And thus al­so doeth Aquinas and Lombard ex­pound the words (all men) Aqui­nas also and Cajetan, showeth, that by our Saviours Will, is not meant that which is called Voluntas bene­placiti, or his secret Will, whereby from all Eternitie, he hath elected some to salvation, and reprobated others, but Voluntas signi, or his re­vealed Will. wherby he offereth to all the meanes of salvation. And their late Estius telleth us, that by (all men) a part onlie by the whole is understood, as Philip. 2. 21. where it is said, All men seeke their owne, not the things of Christ.

The second place 2. Pet. 3. 9. That God is not willing that any [Page 207] should perish, is coincident with the former.

And as for the words of Ambrose. That he will not referr to God the pre­varication of Adam, nor the treasone of Judas, though he knew the same be­fore it was committed. They no wise make against us, who in our Con­session of Faith, cap. 5. art. 4. af­firme, That the sinfulnes of men or Angels proceedeth onlie from thēselves, and not from God, Who being most Ho­lie and Righteous, neither is, nor can be Authour or Approver of sin. And as for other Fathers whom hee ci­teth onlie, he doth this so looslie as none can know at what words hee aimeth, for example he he citeth Augustin lib. 1. de civit. Dei, but no chapter, whereas there are 36. in that book, as also he citeth Am­brose lib. 2. de Cain & Abel. but tel­leth not in what chapter the words [Page 208] are which he alleadgeth, whereas there are ten in that book. And as for others, none of them ar against us, yea, they are clearlie for us, as also Cardinall Cajetan and Aquinas on Rom. 9, 20. As likewise their late Estius on Rom. 9. 13. 20. & 21. goeth as farre in this point of Ele­ction and reprobation with us, as any Protestant writter whosoever, and citeth Lombard, Aquinas Hugo▪ de S. victore, Lyra, Cajetan, Prierias and others as of the same minde with him, and us.

25. THat everie one ought in­falliblie assure him [...]elf of his salvation, and believe that he is of the number of the predestinat.

VVHich he sayeth is contrary to 1. Cor. 9. 27. wher the A­postle sayth, I keep my bodie under in subjection, lest by any means when I haue preached to others, I my self [Page 209] should be a Castaway. To whom I answere 1. To the point of our do­ctrine, that we say no further herin than their bishop Ambrosius Catha­rinus, as Bellarmin testifieth (lib. 3. de Iustif. cap. 11.) That a godly man may haue assurance of his Iustification and salvation without doubting, by the certaintie of divine faith, but yet as our Confession of Faith speaketh, cap. 14. That saving faith is different in degrees, weake or strong, and may be often and many wayes assailed and also weakned (to wit by doubting) but in end it gets the victory, & growes up in many to the full assurance thorow Christ, yea, sayeth their owne Cas­sander consult. art. 4. That there is none of the Schoolmen who doth not teach and diligentlie urge (sayeth he) that confidence & assurāce of the grace and mercie of God and glorie to come, should be opposed to doubting and di­strust. [Page 210] Therefore though the god­liest may haue their owne doub­tings, yet they should strive against the same, and use all the means or­dained by God to gather assurance, and make their election sure by well doing, & not to cherish doub­ting as a dutie, the doctrine wher­of is as contrarie to the nature of faith, as light is to darknes, as wee may see Rom. 4. 20.

Next, to answer to the place fore­cited 1. Cor. 9. 27. 1. The word rendred (Castaway) or as the Rhe­mists translate, Reprobat, is not in op­position to (Elect) but is as much as (reproved) as the word [...] signifieth. 2. This place proveth not that the Apostle doubted of his salvation, wherof by papists owne confession he was sure, as Rom. 8. 38. 2. Tim. 1. 12. 4. 8. and gal. 5. 20. showeth. But in his person hee [Page 211] showeth the sutablenes of the pra­ctise of mortification with his do­ctrine thereof, and the like necessi­tie of conformitie in all other Pa­stours, as they would eschewe the danger here mentioned. And this to be the true meaning of the place both Aquinas and Lombard doeth showe.

The second and third places are Rom. 11. 20. Of not being high min­ded but feare, and Philip. 2. 12. Work out your owne salvation in feare and trembling. To which I answere, That there is a twofold feare, the one which is called, Timor incerti­tudinis, or a distrustfull feare, con­demned, Isai. 35. 4. Luke [...]. 74. 12. 32. and Revel. 21. 8. And another, which is called Timor solicitudinis, or a feare of holie carefullnes, sus­pecting their owne infirmitie and corruption, and causing godlie [Page 212] watchfulnes, which is therefore called, Godlie feare, Heb. 12. 28. and they are pronounced blessed who haue it, psal. 128. 1. and this is that feare which is commanded in both these forcited places, as Cardinall Cajetan showeth on Phi­lip. 2. 12. As also Estius, saying, With feare and trembling to work out our eternall salvation, is to work it out, magna cum solicitudine, that is, with great carefulnes.

As for the testimonies of fathers, he citeth Ambrose in psal. 118, Ser. 5. wher nothing makes against us, nor in Basil, or Jerome, whose book he only nameth, but no chap­ter, whereas there are 11. long chapters therein, nor yet in Chriso­stome, and as for Augustins words on psal. 40. (which should be 41) where he sayeth, Whether his owne justice remaineth or not, hee knoweth [Page 213] not, for the Apostle terrifieth me (say­eth he) saying, he that standeth, let him take heed lest he fall. To which I answere, with Bernard, who ci­teth this same place, ser 2. de Sep­tuagesima. That this is the feare of an holy solicitude, which everie one should haue to keepe him humble (sayeth he) as Augustin likewise showeth in the words that followeth the former, that he speaketh not against assu­rance of salvation, which the god­lie may haue, but against self con­fidence and presumption.

The second Testimonie that hee bringeth is Bernards words in the same sermon, saying, Who can say, I am one of the Elect? but he forget­teth to bring the following words, which are these, Yet the confidence of hope comforteth us, that we be not altogether tormented, with the anxietie of doubting (sayeth hee) for this [Page 214] cause are given to us signes and evident marks of our salvation, that it may be put out of doubt (sayeth he) that hee is of the number of the Elect, in whom these signes remaine. Even as against such anxioꝰ doubting that excellēt speech of Cyprian is remarkable. Ser. 4. de mortalitate, pag. 317. That if wee do believe an ho [...]est mans promise, much more should wee the Lord who hath promised life and im­mortalitie.

26. THat every man hath not an Angel guardian or kee­per.

VVHich he sayeth is contrary to Math. 18. 10. wher it is said, That Children haue their An­gels that behold the face of God. And psal. 91. 11. Hee shall giue his An­gels charge over thee &c. To which I answere, That these places speak not of one onlie Angell guardian [Page 215] appointed for everie one, but of Angels in the plurall, which wee deny not to to be sent furth (as the Apostle showeth Heb. 1. 14.) As Ministring spirits for the good of the Elect, somtimes many, as Gen. 28. 32. to attend Jacob. and 2. King. 6. 17. to protect Elisha, and somtimes fewer, or one as Act. 12. 7. As it pleaseth God to direct & dispose. So that I know not any great con­troversie betweene Romanists and us heerin. Which Bellar. therfore never toucheth in all his book of Controversies.

27 THat the holie Angels pray not for us, nor knoweth our thoughts and desires on earth.

AS for the Angels their know­ledge of our thoughts, he brin­geth no place of scripture, neither indeed can he, this being the Lords onelie prerogative, as wee see 1. [Page 216] King. 3. 36. and Rom. 8. 27. And as Theophilact. showeth on Luke 5. 22. And their owne Jansenius ac­knowledgeth, concord. cap. 32. Neither is this the Controversie, what Angels do in heaven in pray­ing for the Church in generall, but what we should do on earth, in re­lation to them in particular, as whether we should pray to them, and give to them that which Bel­larmin calleth, That most excellent sort of worship which is praier (pref. de sanctis) but because he wresteth some Texts of scripture to prove that the Angels pray for us in par­ticular, therfore we shall free these from the wrong sense which hee would put upon them.

First then he bringeth Zach. 1. 9. (which should be verse 12.) wher the Angell sayeth to God How long will thou not haue mercie on Jerusalē? [Page 217] To which I answere 1. That this Angell was Christ as Remigius Al­tisioderensis expoundeth. so called frequentlie in scripture, as Gen. 48. 16. Exod. 32. 34. Hos. 12. 4. and Mal. 3. 1. Who is the onlie Me­diator for his Church 1. Tim. 2. 5. And 2. Though this wer a created Angell, yet he prayeth for mercie onlie to the Church in generall.

The next place of Canonicall scripture which he bringeth is Re­vel. 8. 4. And the smoake of the in­cense of the prayers of the saints ascen­ded from the hand of the Angell before God. To which I answere in like­manner, That Andreas Caesarensis & many others (sayeth the Iesuite Ri­bera) expoundeth this Angell to bee Christ, as Ambrose and Beda like­wise expound, Lyra also & Carthu­sian, who affirmeth moreover, That this is the exposition of all Catholicke

[Page 218] As for the testimonies of Fathers, he bringeth one of Hilaries saying, That God needeth not the intercession of Angels, but our infirmitie needeth.

The first part whereof maketh a­gainst him. And in the last, how­soever he sayeth that our infirmity needeth, yet this doth not positive­lie prove that they do interced, es­peciallie for particular persons, and in particular cases. As for other fa­thers whom he onlie citeth, to wit, Ambrose and Victor Ʋticensis they speake nothing which is contrarie to our doctrine, or for him.

28 THat wee may not pray to them.

VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Gen. 48. 16. The Angell who redeemed me from all evill bless the Lad's To which I answere, That by the Angell (sayth Cyrill of Alexan­dria lib. 3. Thesaur. cap. 1.) Hee [Page 219] understandeth the word of the Father, for Hee was not ignorant, that he was called the Angell of the great Counsell, (sayeth he) Likewise sayeth Atha­nasius (cont. Arrian, ora. 4.) As also Procopius. It is cleare that the pa­triarch Iacob coupled no other in his prayers with God, but his word, which he therfore calleth the Angell, because (sayth he) he onlie revealeth his Fa­thers will.

The next place of canonical scrip­ture which he bringes is, Hosea 12. 4. Wher Iacob is said to haue had pow­er with the angell & made supplication to him. To which I answere, That by this Angell the text showeth clearlie that God is understood. 1. seing it is said of Iacob verse 3. That by his strength he had power with God. 2. He telleth us v. 5. that this An­gell was The Lord of Hosts. 3. The change also of Iacobs name to Is­raell, [Page 220] Gen. 32. 28. and the reason therof showeth this, For as a Prince thou hast prevailed with God (sayth he who wrestled with him.) And 4. the name of the place proveth this, being called Peniell, for I haue seen God face to face, (sayeth Iacob)

As for testimonies of fathers, he bringeth onlie Augustin on Iob. 19. 21. where he fayth That Iob spea­king thus. haue pitie on me my friends, he addrest himself to the Angels. To which I answer 1. That he wrongs Augustins words, which are these only, That Iob seemeth to desire the Angels or-else the saints to pray for him, which exposition Pineda a Ie­suite condemneth, and expoundeth it of Iob [...] owne friends. 2. The scripture it self in the ve [...]ie next verse maketh against any such ex­position, which sayeth, why perse­cute yee mee (to wit, by reproaches) [Page 221] which the good Angels abhorre to do to the godlie. 3. Pope Gregory also in his Moralls on that place, expoundeth it thus, saying, Behold he calleth thē friends, who by reproachs hitherto had afflicted him. Thus also doth Lyra expound this place, Fe­rus like wise, and Mercerus profes­sour in the Universitie of Paris.

29. THat the Angels cannot help us.

FOr answere, This calumnie is most impudentlie and malicious­lie imputed to us, for on the con­trarie, we grant that both they can and do help the godlie, seing (as is said Heb. 1. 14.) They are Mini­string spirits sent forth for the good of the Elect as many examples in scrip­ture doeth prove.

30 THat no saint deceassed hath afterwards appeared on the earth.

[Page 222] FOr answere, This likewise wee nowise affirme nor are we con­trarie to Math. 27. 52. That after Christs death, the graves were opened, and many bodies of saints that sleeped arose, & came out of their graves after his resurrection, and went into the holie citie and appeared to many, nor to Math. 17. 3. That Moses and Elias appeared at Christs transfiguration to to the three disciples. But this Pam­phleter heerin showeth his igno­rance, saying, That they talked with them▪ whereas Thy talked onlie with Christ. And as for Samuels appari­tion to Saull. 1. Sam. 28. Tertullian lib. de anima prope finem. Iustinus Martyr q. 52. Augnstin quaestionū vet. Test. q. 27. Procopius and Eu­cherius in 1. Sam 28. Aquinas, sum. p. 1. q. 89. art. 8. and the Popes owne Decretall, causa 29. cap. 14. All these declare that it was [Page 223] not Samuell, but the devill that ap­peared like him to Saull. But the intention of this Pamphleter in all the places adduced, is for estab­lishing that lucrative errour of Purgatorie, and of the apparition of soules being there, and desiring by soule-masses to be freed therfrom. To which I will answere onlie in Chrisostoms words. Hom. 29. on Math. These voyces that say, I am the soul of such a one, proceedeth (saith he) frō the deceat of the Devill, for it is not the soul that departed that sayth that, but Satan, who that he may deceive the the hearers, faineth himself to be that sonle (sayeth he) As likewise thus [...]peaketh their owne Lyra on Dan. 11. People being thus deceived by mi­ [...]acles fained by Priests and their adhe­ [...]ents for their gaine (sayeth hee) as [...]he people of old were deceived by the Priests that worshipped the dragon and [Page 224] God permitting this (sayth their Ga­briel Biel in canone Missae lect. 49.) and mens infidelitie so deserving the same. Against which sort of jugling tricks and apparitions their owne famoꝰ Valla mightily exclaimeth, in his book of Constantins donation about the end thereof.

31 THat the Saints deceassed know not what passeth heer on earth.

VVHich is contrarie (sayth he) to Luke 16. 29. wher Abra­ham knew that they had Moses books on earth. when he sayd to Dives con­cerning his brethren, they haue Moses & the Prophets. which himself had never seen while he was alive. To which I answere, 1. That this is a parable as Theophylact sayeth expreslie on Luke 16. and Iustin Martyr, q. 60. As also Chrisostome Hom. 1. de Lazaro, and their owne Arboreus [Page 225] showeth that others affirme the same, as Erasmus doth (and para­bolicall speeches are not argumen­tative by consent of all.)

The second place is, Iohn 5. 45. where our Saviour sayeth There is one that accuseth you, even Moses in whom yee trust To which I answere, That by Moses is understood not his person, who should be their ac­cuser, and therefore knew their faults, but as this Pamphleters own words are, Moses books. And so this place proveth not his point.

The third place is, Revel. 12. 10. taken from Satans accusing the breth­ren before God▪ ergo (sayeth he) hee must know wherof, and who without shame can deny that to saints, which must needeth be granted to devils? To which I answere, That this is an absurd inferēce, for glorified saints remaine onlie in heaven. And ther­fore [Page 226] (as is said Iob 14. 21. and Isai. 36. 16.) know not mens effaires on earth, whereas the Devill compas­seth the earth to and fro walking in it (Iob. 1. 7.) being the Temper, and therefore may know mens effaires and actions.

The fourth place is, 2. King. 6. 12. where Elisha told the King of Israel the words that the King of Syria spake in his bed-chamber. To which I an­swere, That from one extraordina­rie act of Gods revelation to his Prophet, and of one thing onlie on earth, to argue to an ordinarie re­velation to his glorified saints of all things in heaven, is as absurd a con­sequence as was the former.

As for Fathers, hee citeth onelie three, Euscbius, Maximus and Ie­rome, but none of their words, and so lo [...]slie also, as 14. chapters be­ing in that book of Ieromes he tel­leth [Page 227] not in which of them.

32. THat the Saints pray not for us.

TO which point I answere first in generall, That the contro­versie is not (as I spoke of Angels) what the saints in heaven out of their charitie do for the Church & their fellow brethrē in general, but what our duty is, & if it be lawfull for us to pray to thē in particular. Next I answere to the wrested pla­ces of scripture which he bringeth to prove that they pray for particu­lar men ordinarlie and in particular cases, knowne unto them (as hee said before) The first whereof is Revel. 5. 8. where, The twentie four Elders in heaven are said to fall downe before the Lamb, having everie▪ o [...]e harps and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of the saints. to which I answere, That Haymo, Be­da, [Page 228] Aquinas, and Richard de S. vi­ctore, all expound these Twentie four elders to represent the church militant, said to bee in heaven (as that woman Revel. 12. is said to be) because of their heavenlie disposi­tion and affections, & because that this was represented in a heavenlie vision to Iohn, and are said to have Harps and golden vials, the speech being borrowed frō the Leviticall Ministrie, as the Iesuit Ribera show­eth, to expresse the spirituall wor­ship of Christians praises & prayer under the gospell, as wee see fore­prophecied, Mal. 1. 11.

The second place of Canonicall scripture which he bringeth, is Ier. 15. 1. Tho Moses and Samuel stood before mee, yet my mind could not bee towards this people. To which I an­swere 1. That the speech is hypo­theticall or by supposition, & ther­fore [Page 229] nowise concluding, as our Sa­viours like speech showeth Iohn 21. 23. 2. This cannot prove that Mo­ses and Samuell did pray for the people Being then till Christs Re­surrection in Limbus Patrum, as Bellarmin sayeth, (lib. 1. de sanctis, cap. 20) and so not injoying Gods sight or presence, and therefore they neither praied for men, nor wer prayed unto by men. And 3. This their praier is meant for the people of God onlie in generall, and not for any one in particular.

The third place is, Revel. 2. 26. Hee that overcometh and keepeth my words to the end, to him I will giue power over the nations, and hee shall rule them with a rod of iron. Therfore (sayth he) seing Christ imparteth his power to them upon the nations, they may pray for them over whom they are s [...]t. To which their owne Iesuite [Page 230] Ribera answereth thus, Our Saviour alogether speaketh here of power (say­eth he) that the saints shall exercise in the day of j [...]dgement, upon all nations that haue not obeyed Christ, judgeing them with Christ, and giving them o­ver to the p [...]nishment of eternall death, signified by ruling them with an iron rod, as wee see cap. 19. 15. Thus we see that they are so farre frō pray­ing for them being alive, that they are to adjudge them to eternall pu­nishment after death.

His last place is from the parable of the rich-glutton Luke 16. Pray­ing to Abraham for his brethren, and it were absurd (sayeth he) that the damned in hel should haue greater cha­ritie than the saints in heaven. To which I answere 1. That this is a parable (as hath been proven) and therefore not argumentative. 2. The damned in hell haue no cha­ritie [Page 231] or Christian vertue at all, and therefore this Rich glutton did it not out of charitie to his brethrē, but to eschewe the augmenting of his owne torment, by their conti­nuance in these sinnes, wherein he had given them ill example or in­ducement, when he was alive with them. 3. To argue from the pra­ctise of a damned Wretch in hell, which had so bad a successe, as not to be heard, to alike practise which Christians should use on earth, is a bad inference, and a worse dire­ctorie.

As for fathers, hee citeth onelie Augustin, Hilarie and Damascen, but not their words, of whom Au­gustin maketh nothing for him in that place, neither Hilarie, for what he speaketh is onelie of Angels, grounded also upō an Apocryphall book onlie, Tobit. And as for Da­mascen [Page 232] (as I shew before) as hee is not of so great antiquitie, so also he is noted by Sixtus Senensis in his Bibliotheck (lib. 6. Annot. 187.) to bee hereticall speciallie concer­ning the procession of the Holie ghost.

33 THat wee should not beseech God to grant our prayers for the saints merits, nor do we receiue any benefit thereby.

VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Exod. 32. 13. where it is said. Remember Abraham, Isaac and Israell thy servants. To which I an­swere, That this was to remember his owne free promise which hee made to them, that he should bee their God, & the God of their seed after them, as the very following words showeth, saying, To whom thou swearest by thy self, and said, I will multiplie your seed, as the starrs [Page 233] of heaven, as their owne Lyra upon that place showeth, and the subse­quent place which he citeth pro­veth, 2. Chron. 6. 16. so that this was not to remember their merits, (which Iacob wee see utterlie dis­claimeth Gen. 32. 10.) but his own free promise and mercies.

The second place is 2. Chron. 6. 16. Now therefore O Lord God of Israell, keepe with thy servant that which thou hast promised him. Where we see a­gaine clearly, no mention of merite on Davids part (which hee everie where also disclaimeth) but only of the free promises of mercie made to David on Gods part, as we said before.

The third place is, Exod. 20. 5. I will showe mercie to thousands of them that loue me and keepe my Cōmande­ments, which place maketh clearlie against merit, wher the Lord spea­keth [Page 234] onlie of mercie, which he will showe on the godlie and their of­spring, as the Apostle speaketh, 2. Tim. 1. 16. The Lord give mercie to the house of Onesiphorus for he oft refreshed me. And wher mercie is onlie, it excludeth merite.

34 THat wee ought not expresly pray to them, to pray or in­terceed to God for us.

VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Luke 16. 24. Where the Rich-glutton in hell prayeth to Abra­ham to haue mercie on him. To which I haue alreadie answered, That it is parabolicall and therefore proveth not.

The second place is, Iob 5. 1. Call now, if there be any that will answere thee, and to which of the saints will thou turne? To which I answe [...]e, That Cardinall Cajetan setteth this down as the meaning of the words. [Page 235] That heerby Eliphaz would showe Iob that his innocencie which he so much maintained, wold get none of the saints that would maintaine so bad a cause, & to pleade such innocencie as he did, or who would approue his speeches. The intention of Eliphaz being onlie to convince Iob that none wer ever so sharplie punished as he was, except he had ben wicked or an hypocrit, (which was Eliphaz errour) & ther­fore he biddeth him showe any of the saints or godly before him that ever were so punished. 2. Their owne Lyra also expoundeth this place thus, That Eliphaz telles Iob, That seing God answereth him not in his sad affliction, to whom other can he haue his recourse? For thou shalt not haue the saints (sayeth he) to be thy helpers, so that this place rather ma­keth against prayer to saints, nor for it. [Page 236] As for the Fathers whom he citeth onlie (as his use is) but setteth not down their words, they make no­thing for him and hee citeth the works of some, as that of Athana­sius, which is nowise extant.

And because this man would bear his reader and proselits in hand (as most of them do deceatfullie) That they pray onlie to saints to pray to God, or interceed for them, but that they seek not pardon or grace & such like frō the saints themselves, as Bellar. also pro­fesseth, lib. 1. de Sanct. cap. 17. I will showe how deceatfullie they deale with simple soules, and that their practise is quyte contrarie, & that they seeke these thinges from them whereof God onlie is the gi­ver, as Mercie, pardon of sinnes, grace, and other good gifts. And shal instance this onlie in these pla­ces of their own old printed books, [Page 237] against which they cannot except, & which I haue beside me to show to any who desireth. The first is that idolatrous invocation of the virgin Marie in the Romā Missall, the words wherof are these, O felix puer pera, nostra pians sce [...]era, jure matris impera redemptori. tua sēper ubera nostra sanent vulnera. That is, O blessed Mother who expiateth-our sinnes, by the authoritie of a mother, command our Redeemer. and let thy pape milk heale our wounds. Which is so grosse, that Bellarmin is asha­med therof and most shamleslie de­nyeth it, saying, (lib. 1. de sanct. beat. cap. 16.) Who ever of us spake so▪ why do they not proue it by some instance? To the same purpose it is said and worse, in their psalter of the virgine Marie printed at Rome▪ 1588. psal. 35. Coge illum peccatori­bus nobis misereri, that is, compell [Page 238] him to haue mercie upon us sin­ners. In which book also, which is a rapsodie of horrid blasphemies, all the psalmes of David are turned from the Lord to our Ladie, and psal. 50. it is said. Haue mercie on me our Ladie, who is the Mother of mercies, and according to the bowels of thy mercies clange me from my sinnes. And againe psal. 71. it is said, O God give justice to the King, and giue mercie to the queene his mother, whēce it is that their Gabriel Biel on the Canon of the Masse, lect. 80. sayes thus, As Ahasuerus promised to Esther even to the half of his kingdom, even so, seing our heavenly Father hath Justice and mercie, as the best things of his kingdome, reserving justice to him­self, he hath given mercie to his mother the virgin Marie (sayth he) whence (sayeth their Bernardin de busto in Mariali part. 3. ser. 3.) It is lawfull [Page 239] to appeale from the Sons justice to the mothers mercie. Hence it is also, as Sir Edvin Sandys observed in his Euro­pean travails, and speculum Europae, p. 4. That the honour which they do to her is double for the most part (sayeth he) to that which they do to our Savi­our, and where one professeth himself a devoto or peculiar servant of our Lord, whole towns, as Siena by name, are the devoti of our Ladie, & where one voweth to Christ, ten vowe to her, and not so much to herself, as to some peculiar image of hers, which for some select vertue or grace, together with greater power of working Miracles they chieflie worship, as the glorious La [...]ie of Loreto, the devote Ladie of Rome, the miraculous Ladie of Pro­ven Zano▪ and the annunciata of Flo­rence. And as their vows are such are their pilgramages and rich offerings. Yea their devils in exorcisme are [Page 240] also taught to endure the conjuring of thē by the name of God or the Trinitie without trouble or motion (sayeth he) but at the naming of our Ladie to [...]oss & torment, as feeling then a new force of a more unresistable power. I could instance the prayer to many other saints in their Roman Missall for grace, pardon and glorie, whereof God is the only giver, as to S. Mau­rus fol. 51. S. Martha fol. 56. & S. Francis &c. And yet (sayth Bel­larmin lib. 1. de sanctis cap. 20. §. alii) to the knowing of prayers, that at one time are made in diverse places, is required ubiquitie, which we believe doth neither agree to the spirits of men nor Angels.

35 THat the bones and Reliques of saints are not to be kee­ped, no vertue proceeding from them after they be once dead.

VVHich he sayeth is contrarie [Page 241] to 2. King. 13. 21. wher it is writ­ten, That the bones of Elize [...]s being [...]o [...]ched by one that was dead, they did revive him. To which I answere 1. That it is not said there, that the bones of Elisha did revive that dead man, but that when he was let down into Elisha's sepulcher, & touch­ed the bones of Elisha [...]e revived, this vertue proceeding not from the bones of the Prophet, but frō God, who for confirming these that wer then present, that hee was a true Prophet, wrought this miracle, but wee reade not that thereupon they raised his bones, & inshryned them as Reliques, to bee carried about in procession or adored, as the Popish practise is.

The second place is, Act. 5. 14. 15. where it is said, That the sicke were brought furth to the streets in their beds, that at least the shaddow of Peter [Page 242] passing by might over shaddow them. To which I answere, as to the for­mer, but in their owne Gabriel Bi­els words on the canō of the masse, lect, 47. saying, S. peter by his shaddow healed the sick, as we reade in the acts, but (sayeth he) who will say that the vertue of that healing was in his shad­dow? which is no existent thing, but a privation of light, wherunto no activi­tie can be competent, therfore it was God himself (sayeth he) to manifest the trueth of that faith which Peter preached. And so let any judge, if this proveth that the bones or Re­liques of saints are therfore to bee keeped above the earth, and that vertue proceedeth from them af­ter they be dead, and if argueing heere for this from a shaddow, bee not meer shaddowish it self, having no soliditie.

The third place is Act. 19. 11. That [Page 243] God wrought sundrie miracles by the hands of Paull. To which I answer, Who denyeth this? or who can say that this proveth that the bones of his hands, as holy reliques should therefore beene keeped aboue the earth, set on altars, and adored, or that they wrought miracles after he was dead? But seing in all this he dryveth at the adoration of Re­liques, we would gladlie know, a­mongst such a multitude & variety of forged Reliques, how to discern the true from the false. Seing as their own Cassander speaketh (con­sult. art. 21. printed at Paris, 1616.) That thorow the avarice of Priests to deceive simple people false Reliques ar obtruded for true, and fained miracles are taught unto them, by which their superstition is fostred, and somtimes by the deceat and delusion of the Devill, abusing mens superstitious credulitie [Page 244] by dreams and visions new Reliques (sayeth he) haue beene revealed, and by the same working of satan, miracles seemed to bee wrought. Examples of which sort their owne Eras­mus on Math. 23. 5. mentio­neth, saying. You may now everie where see held out for gaine, Maries milk, which they honour as much al­most as Christs owne bodie (sayth he) also so many pieces of the Cross, that if they were all gathered together a great ship would scarce carrie them. Heere also S. Francis hood is set furth to be­hold, there the Wastcoat of the virgin Marie in one place, Anna's comb in another, Iosephs stocking in a third place & Thōas of Canterberries shoe, in another place Christs foreskin, which they worship more religiouslie than Christs owne person. Neither do they s [...]owe these things (sayth he) as things that may be borne with, and to please [Page 245] the common people, but they place all religion in them. And of which fore­skin of Christs, one is showne at Rome, with his sandals and this in­scription, Circumcisa caro Christi, sandalia clara, ac umbelici viget hic praecisio chara. Another is to be seen at Antuerp, a third in Bezanson in Burgundie, a fourth in the town of Aken, & a fifth in the abbay of Poy­tiers in France.

The like also may be said of the nailes which nailed Christ to the Cross, which from three ar multi­plied to near threescore. As also the speare that pierced Christs side, to the image wherof they ascrive the opening of heaven [...] gate, praying thus to it as if it heard them. Ave ferrum triumphale, intrans pectus in vitale, Coeli pande ostia. Than which what can be greater blasphemie & idolatrie?

[Page 246] As for Fathers whom he onlie ci­teth but sets not down their words, never one of thē proveth any ado­ratiō of Reliques, yea Ierome epist. 53. ad Ripariū, sayeth, Wee are so far from worshiping the Reliques of Mar­tyrs, that we will not worship the Sunn or moone, Angels nor archangels. And as for Ambrose his alleaged words, which he telleth not wher they are to be found, yet I answer to them, that they prove nothing, for hee sayeth onlie, that Hee honours the wounds and ashes of the Martyrs, which is only the memorie of their constant sufferings.

36 THat the Creatures cannot be sanctified, or made more holy than they are alreadie of their own nature.

VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to 1. Tim. 4. 4. where it is said, That everie creature of God is [Page 247] good, if it be received with thanksgi­ving. To which I answere 1. That this proveth nothing against us, for their owne Estius, as also Lombard, on this place showeth, that the A­postle speaketh onlie of the sancti­fied use to believers of meate and drink, being received with praier and thanksgiving. 2 This place maketh rather against poperie, to wit, their prohibition of certaine sorts of meates, at certaine times, for conscience sake, which is con­tratie altogether unto Christian li­bertie. As for Math. 23. 17. and 19. Himself confesseth That the Al­tar is said to sanctifie the gift, and the Temple the gold, as thinges separate from a cōmon, to a holie use, a [...] said to be holy by destinatiō, but not by in [...]esion. But the hallowing of the creature of which this man mea­neth, is the popish hallowing of [Page 248] their bells, (which they also bap­tise) as also of their beads, holy wa­ter, and agnus Dei &c. by plaine socerie conjuring the dead & sens­lesse creatures, & speaking to thē, as if they both heard and under­stood, & ascribing to thē divine & miraculous operatiō, one example or two wherof, instead of many, I shall instance of their conjuring their holie water, as is set down in their owne Missall, saying, I con­jure thee, thou creature of water, in the Name of the Father, Sonne, and Holie Ghost, that thou become a chosen water, to take away all the pow­er of the Devill, & to drive him away, with all his wicked angels. The like they speake to the salt which they mixe with the water. And which doubtles driveth away the Devill from the priests breast that conju­reth the same, as farre as a hungrie [Page 249] dog would flee from a fatt morsell, the sprinkling also of which holie water, might haue beene a good meane to haue driven away the de­vil from pope Sylvester the second, when he came to him, and rent his bodie in pieces. as Platina, and all other Roman Historians record. And what equal vertue to Christs blood, and miraculous operation they as­crive in likemanner to their hal­lowed Agnus Dei, which they carrie about with them, may bee seene by these verses which Pope Ʋrban sent with one of them, to the Emperour of Grecia. saying▪ Pecca­tum frangit ut Christi sanguis, & an­git, &c. and thereafter, Portatus mundae de fluctibus e [...]ipit undae. which if the Spanish Armado found true in 88. themselves best could tell.

37 THat Children may be saved by their parents faith, with­out [Page 250] the sacrament of baptisme.

VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Iohn 3. 9. Except a man be borne againe of the water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the king­dome of God. To which I answer 1. As their owne Ferus expoundeth, by this water, Baptismall water is not to be understood, but metaphoricallie the purging vertue of the spirit of Re­generation (sayeth he) Therfore al­so sayeth Lombard (lib. 4. d. 4.) God hath not tyed his power to sacraments, so that the want doth not damnifie, but the contempt for, that some haue gotten invisible sanctification, without the vi­sible sacrament (saith he) & so also speaketh Bellar. (lib. 4 de Christo, cap. 16. §. ad locum) and other Romanists with him. Wherefore their owne Cassander concludeth, (consult. art 9.) saying. That it is agreable to the judgement of the pri­mitive [Page 251] Church, and to the holy scrip­tures (as Bonaventure on the 4. of the sentences, & Lōbard dist. 4. c. 2. shows) that Infants dying without baptisme may be saved, for if they cannot get baptisme, being prevented by death, as the faith of the Church and of these who offer them unto baptisme, is repu­ted as their owne (sayeth he) so the will and desire of the Church, and spe­ciallie of the parents to haue them bap­tised, is accepted for baptisme, by that mercifull Father who accepts the will for the deed, and tyeth none (sayth he) to what is impossible, nor his own grace simplie to the externall sacrament. As Bellarmin also affirmeth, (lib. 4. de Christo cap. ult §. ad locum) and who also confesseth (lib. 1. de bap­tis. cap. 4. §. 5.) That sindrie fa­mous divines of the Roman Church, as Cajetan, and Biel, & others thoght it disagreable altogether from the mer­cie [Page 252] of God that infants should perish without their own fault.

The second place is Tit. 3. 5. wher it is said, That according to the mercie of God wee ar saved, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the holie Ghost. To which I answere, That this place speaketh onlie of the work of Regeneration or reno­vation, as absolutlie necessarie to salvation, which somtimes is com­pared to washing by water, as Ezek. 36. 25. and somtimes, to purging by fire, as Math. 3. 11. And which without baptismall washing the theefe on the Crosse found avail­able to salvation, (as this text spea­keth) according to the free mercie of God.

The third place is, Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned▪ To which place Bernard [Page 253] worthilie answereth, epist. 77. say­ing, Mark, when Christ said, he that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, warilie and well, be sayeth not, but hee that is not baptised shall be damned, but only he that believeth not shall be dam­ned. Therefore sayeth their Carthu­sian on Iohn 3. 5. It is to bee under­stood, that Baptisme is necessarie if o [...]casion serue to receive the sacra­ment of Baptisme, otherwise the bap­tisme of the spirit sufficeth, else the be­lieving Theefe on the Crosse had beene excluded out of Paradise.

The fourth place is, Gen. 17. 4. The uncircumcised child shal be cut off from his people, but Circumsion was no more necessarie to the Isralits (sayeth he) than baptisme is to Christians. To whom I answer, That it is the con­tempt of that Sacrament that is meant, and not the want therof, if occasion served not to receive the [Page 254] same, as Lombard and Carthusian forecited showeth, for many chil­dren amongst the Isra [...]lits dyed in the womb, some in the birth, and others after, before the eight day, aswell as the children of Christians do, and it were a cruell doctrine to say that all such were damned, as also during fourty years in the wil­dernes there was no circumcision used, and yet wee must not yeeld, that therefore all infants who died then without it, were damned and cut off from their people.

As for Fathers he citeth only Au­gustin, Pope Leo, Ireneus, & Cypriā, but setteth not down their words. But he may remember (as Maldo­nat witnesseth on Iohn 6. 53.) that Augustin and Pope Innocent 1. were as much for the necessity of infants receiving the Eucharist, which opi­nion (sayth he) generallie continued in the Church 600. years.

38 THat the sacrament of con­firmation is not necessarie, nor to be used.

VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Act. 8. 14. wher it is said, That Peter & John having laid hands on them that were baptised, they recei­ved the Holie Ghost. To which I an­swere 1. Wee deny that confirma­tion is a sacrament at all, seing that the Councell of Trent sess. 7. can. 1. affirmeth That all the Sacraments of the new Testament were instituted by Christ, & that the Romanists them­selves, as Alensis, Bonaventure and Marsilius affirme, that confirma­tion was not instituted by Christ, as Bellarmin testifieth, lib. de sacra­mentis in genere, c. 23. 2. Suarez and Bellar. likewise granteth that the imposition of hands Act. 8. was not sacramentall. (Suarez disp. 33. sect. 3. and Bellarmin lib. 2. de con­firm. [Page 256] cap. 9.) 3. Neither will Ro­manists themselves say that everie one that is confirmed by popish confirmation receiveth the Holie Ghost (especiallie the miraculous gifts thereof, which are here mea­ned) nor that their confirmation produceth any such effect, as the laying on of the Apostles hands did on them that were baptised. Beside that there is neither the matter (as anointing with Chrisme, nor form as signing with the Crosse, which in popish confirmation is used.

Neither doth that place Heb. 6. 1. prove any further than that of Act. 8. 14. which speaketh of Baptisme and the laying on of hands. And as for Cyprians testimonie it speaks onlie of two sacraments, but men­tioneth not that popish confirma­tion was one of these two, and gi­ving that it were, yet Bellarmin lib. [Page 257] 2. de effectu sacram. cap. 24. and Cassander consult. art. 13. confes­seth that both in scripture, & other Authours, the name of sacrament is given to many things, which by consent of all are not sacraments properlie and indeed.

39 THat the bread in the Lords supper is but a figure or re­membrance of the bodie of Christ re­ceived by faith, and not his true bodie.

VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Luke 22. 15. where hee sayeth, with desire I haue desired to eat this passover with you. To which I answere 1. in generall, that we ne­ver did hold that the bread in the supper of the Lord is but a bare fi­gure or remembrance of Christs bodie, and therfore sayeth the con­fession of our faith anno 1581. art. 21. Wee utterlie damne the vanitie of these that affirme sacraments to be no­thing [Page 258] but bare & naked signes, and in our late Confession anno 1647. fit­ted for the whole three kingdoms, positivelie we say, Wherin as reallie but spirituallie, the Bodie and blood of Christ are present to the faith of Belie­vers, as the Elements themselves are to the outward senses, (and so speaketh Calvin in 1. Cor. 11. 24.) but that in this sacrament (wherein the soule is spirituallis fed) the bread is transub­stantiated into Christs bodie, and recei­ved by the bodilie mouth, this we deny as most erronius and hereticall. 2. As to that place of Luke which hee bringeth to prove the same. 1. the mans ignorance and impertinencie is to be admired, wherin Christ on­ly expresseth his great desire to eat the typicall passover with his dis­ciples, wherof himself was the sub­stance, 1. Cor. 5. 7. And which lamb being called the passover (it being [Page 259] but a signe and memoriall of the Lords passing over the houses of the Isralits, as we see, Exod. 12. 13. and 13. 9. maketh against papists, who will not admitt in the Eucha­rist such a sacramentall speech.

The second place which he brin­geth is, Luke 22. 16. wher Christ sayeth, That he wil not drink any more of the fruit of the vine, till it be fulfil­led in the kingdome of God. Which words (sayeth he) cannot be under­stood figurativelie, more nor the former of eating the passover. To whom we answere 1. That never any of us said any such thing, that the words of eating the Passover were to bee understood figurativelie, nor yet that these words are to be under­stood figurativelie but properlie, which Christ speakes heer of drin­king the fruit of the vine, which pope Innocent the 3. declareth to be [Page 260] spokē of the sacramentall cup, (de mysteriis Missae lib. 4. cap. 27.) As also their own Iensenius cap. 131. p. 162. and Alfonsus a Castro, lib 6. Tit. de Euchar. §. sexta haeresis, beside fathers (as Origen tract. 301. in Math. Chrisost. Hom. 6 [...]. in Math. Cyprian epist. 68. ad Cecil. and Beda in Luc. 22.) Next, these words are so farre from proving Transsubstantiation, as that they quyte overthrow the same, seing that which out Saviour drank at his last supper, he calles it the fruit of the vine, that is, Wine in sub­stance, and not blood, as what is eaten after consecration is likewise called by the Apostle bread & not flesh 1. Cor. 11. 26. Therefore say­eth Chrisostome (hom. 83. in Math.) speaking against some who used water in this sacrament in place of wine, When our Saviour celebrated [Page 261] this mystery (sayeth he) he gaue unto his disciples wine, calling it the fruit of the vine which produceth not water. For as Theodoret sayeth (dial. 2.) The mysticall signes departeth not after consecration frō their owne nature, but remaineth in their former substance, forme and figure, and may be seen and touched as they were before.

The third place is, Iohn 6. 51. wher Christ sayeth, I am the living bread which came down from heaven, & be­ing granted to bee living, what else is it but his bodie (sayth he.) To whom I answere 1▪ as Bellarmin witnes­seth (lib. 1. de. Euch. cap. 5.) all these Romanists, to wit, Gabriel Bi­el, Cardinall Cusanus, Thomas Aqui­nas, Cardinall Cajetan, Ruardus Tap­perus, Joannes Hesselius, affirmes, and Cornelius Jansenius especiallie (con­cord. cap. 59.) unanswerablie pro­veth, p. 387. & 389. That this chap­ter [Page 262] medleth nowise with any sacramen­tall eating of Christs bodie, or drinking his blood. 2. This Text maketh ra­ther against Transubstantion, for tho Christ sayeth I am the living bread, yet it followeth not that therfore his flesh was transsubstan­tiated into bread, & consequent­lie no more doth it follow, that when Christ said of the bread, This is my bodie, that therefore bread was transsubstantiated into His bodie.

The fourth and maine place is, Math. 26. 26. Take, eate, This is my bodie. To which I answere 1. with the forenamed Theodoret dial. 1. That our Saviour heerby honoured the visible signes with the name of his bodie and blood, not changing their na­ture (sayeth he) but adding grace to nature. And so likewise speaketh Pope Gelasius against Eutyches. (de [Page 263] duabus Christi naturis) 2. Augu­stin cont. Adimant. cap. 12. Tertul­lian cont. Marcion. lib. 4. c. 40. and Eusebius de demonstratione evan­gelii. lib. 8. in fine, and many more fathers expoundeth these words, This is my bodie, that is, a signe and symbole therof. 3. The Popes own canon law, & Gratians glosse ther­on (dist. 2. de consecra. c. hoc est) expoundeth these words thus. The heavenly sacrament which truly repre­senteth Christs flesh is called the bodie of Christ, but improperlie, wherfore it is called so after the owne manner, not that it is so trulie, but in a signi­fying Mysterie, so that the meaning is (sayeth the glosse on the former words) it is called the body of Christ, that is a signe of Christs bodie.

As for the testimonies of Fathers, he citeth Ambrose, wher he sayth, It is bread before the words of consecra­tion [Page 264] but after, of bread it is made the flesh of Christ. To which I answere 1. That hee perverteth Ambrose words, which are these. It was not Christs bodie before consecration, but I say to thee, that after consecration it is Christs bodie. 2. In the same place be explaines himself, showing that the substance of bread remaineth not withstanding, & the change is only sacramētal, so that it is the flesh of Christ only in a sacramental way, Therfore (sayeth hee) Christs bles­sing is of that force, ut sint quae erant, & in aliud commutentur, that is, that the Elements they remaine in sub­stance what they were before, and yet they are changed into another thing. And illastrateth this change by this simile. Thou thy selswas (saith he)- but thou was an old creature, but after that thou art consecrat, thou be­gan to be a new creature. Now I hope, [Page 265] no man will say that by regenera­tion, or our consecrating to Gods service, we are changed in substāce, but in quality, from a sinfull di [...]po­sition to a more holie. And in his fourth book of the sacramēts. cap. 5. he therfore calleth the consecra­ted bread The figure of Christs bodie, wherby the same is represented to us. So that this conversion abolisheth not the things that were, as we see in Theodoret, but maketh them to be in a sacred use what before they were not.

His second testimonie is out of an obscure and late Monck, whom he calleth S. Remigius, saying, That Christs flesh & the consecrated bread are one bodie, but telleth not where he speaketh so, neither doeth it prove any conversion of the sub­stance of the bread into Christs flesh, but that these two are one by [Page 266] a sacramentall union. As for other fathers whom he onlie citeth, but setteth not down their words, none of them proveth any popish trans­substanciation, yea, Justin Martyr whom he citeth, apol. 2. his words overthrowes the same, saying only, That the sacramentall bread is not cō ­mon bread, wherby our flesh and blood is nourished, which is not done by Christs bodie, it being onelie the food of the soule.

40 THat we ought to receive under both ki [...]ds, and that one alone is not [...]ufficient.

VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Iohn 6. 51. where Christ sayeth, If any man shall eat of this bread, he shall live for ever, heer (say­eth he) life ever lasting is promised to him that eateth of the bread onlie. To whom I answere 1. as I shew before in my answere to the same [Page 267] place, a number of famoꝰ Romāists declareth, that ther is no speech of sacramentall eating in that chap­ter, and in particular Cardinall Cu­sanus (epist. ad Bohemos p. 858.) when he hath affirmed the same, and that the spirituall feeding only on Christ by faith is ther set down, he concludeth thus, Et [...]aec est ne­cessaria omnium Doctorum sententia (sayeth he) 2. If this were spoken of sacramentall eating, then al who receive not the sacrament, as chil­drē before ripe age who die, should be damned, because our Saviour sayeth verse 53. Except yee eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drink his blood. yee haue no life in you. 3. We see heere drinking of his blood as necess [...]rie requi [...]ed as the eating of his flesh, which is against their de­priving of people of the sacramen­tall cup.

[Page 268] The second place is, Luke 24. 30. Christ at Emaus (sayeth he) com­municated his disciples under one kind. To which I answere, That the E­vangelist speaketh there onlie of ordinarie refection, as he did Mat. 14. 19. which is heere called The breaking of bread, Therefore sayeth their own Carthusian, He took bread and blessed it but did not convert it in­to his bodie (sayeth he) but onlie as his custome was to blesse meat. whence also sayeth their owne Iansenius (cōcord. c. 146. p. 249) Ther ar s [...]me who from this place would take an ar­gument (sayeth he) to prove that it is lawfull under one kind to give or re­ceive the sacrament of the Eucharist, which opinion is neuher certa [...]ne nor hath it liklie-hood▪ of irueth (sayeth he) And as for the n [...]v [...]l [...]ie of this half communion, which Pope Ge­lasius calleth sacriledge (part. 3. de­cret [Page 269] de consecra. d. 2.) there Al­fonsus a Castro showeth the same; sit. Euch. §. ultima haeres. p. 120. Cassander also telleth us, Consult. art. 22. That it was not in the Roman Church till Aquinas time (anno 1265.) and is not in the greek church (sayeth he) untill this day. Where­fore wee conclude in Bellarmin's words (lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 7. §. quia vero) That it cannot be doubted, but that it is best to bee done which Christ did, and we know that Christ said to his disciples, representing (sayeth Cassander) the persons of all faithfull Communicants (drink yee all of this) as the Apostle also spea­keth accordinglie 1. Cor. 11. 28. And therfore as for their fiction of concomitance, wherby they would e­lude these words. I will ove [...] throw the same onlie by their bishop Ian­senius words (concord. cap. 59 p. 389.) [Page 270] saying, It doth not easilie appeare how the outward taking of the bread alone can be called drinking, for it is rightlie called eating, because ther is somthing taken there by way of meate, but how can that be called drinking (sayth he) where there is nothing taken by way of drink?

41 THat ther is not in the church a true and propitiatorie Sa­crifice of the Masse.

VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Malach. 1. 11. where the Lord sayeth, That in every place incense shall be offered to his Name & a pure offering To which I answer, 1. That Ireneus lib. 4. cap. 20. and Tertullian lib. 4. adv. Marcion. As also Theodoret on this place, expoaes this pure offering to be the spiri­tuall sacrifices of prayer & thanks­giving. 2. Hugo Cardinalis▪ as also their own lyra, showes that the Lord [Page 271] would heerby give the jewish priests to know that spirituall sacrifices were to succeed thereto which were carnall and in particular devote prayer is this pure offering (sayeth Lyra.)

The second place is, Psal. 110. 4. wher Christ is called A Priest after the order of Melchisedek, whose sacri­fice was made in bread and wine (saith he) as the Masse is now. To whom I answer, 1. That Melchisedecks sa­crifice was not in bread and wine, for that was the refreshment onlie which he brought furth to Abra­ham and his followers, as Clemens Alexandrinus witnesseth, & there­fore their owne vulgar hath the word protulit. he brought furth. and not the word, obtulit▪ he offered up▪ 2. Cardinall Cajetan (and with him Andradius) sayeth, there is nothing in that storie (Gen. 14. 18.) of any sa­crifice or oblation that Melchisedek-offered [Page 272] up to God (sayeth he) but that be caused bring furth bread and wine (as Iosep [...]us reporteth) for the refreshment of the victors. And ther­after, when hee cometh to these words (And he blessed him) behold heer (sayth he) is his Priestlie action, according to Numb. 6. 23. which therefore the Apostle mentioneth Heb. 7. 1. and proveth him therby to bee greater nor Abraham, and consequentlie his Priesthood to be greater nor Levi's who was then in Abarhams loines, because at that time Levi was both tythed and blessed by him.

The third place is, Luke 22. 19. This is my bodie which was given for you. To which I answere, That of these words I haue already spoken, by which heere they would make Christ to haue bene a Masse-priest, and to haue sacrificed himself the [Page 273] night before he was sacrificed on the Crosse. And so, (contrarie to Heb. 10. 14. That by one onlie offe­ring hee hath not perfected for ever them who are sanctified,) but contrar to Heb. 7. 27.) That Hee offered himself up twise, whereas it was necessarie (sayth Paull Heb. 9. 25.) That he should not offer himself up of­ter than once, for then (as he sayth) hee must haue suffered ofter than once. which the Apostle counteth a most grosse absurditie.

As for the testimonies of Fathers which hee bringeth, who calleth that which Christ instituted at his last supper, An unbloodie & mysticall venerable sacrifice. I answere in the words of Lombard their Master of sentences, (lib. 4. dist. 12. q. si sit) who showeth in what sense the fa­thers so calleth it, saying, That which is offered and consecrated, is cal­led [Page 274] a sacrifice and oblation because it is the remembrance and representation of that true sacrifice and holy reall obla­tion which was made on the Altar of the Cross, which only was bloodie. In likmanner sayeth Aquinas (part. 3. q. 83. art. 1.) It is called a sacrifice, both because the celebration of this sa­crament is an image and representatiō of the sacrifice of Christ, as also because by this sacrament we are made parta­kers of the fruit of the Lords passion & sacrifice on the Cross. So also speakes Gabriel Biel on the canon of the Masse, lect. 85. calling the Eucha­rist a sacrifice because it is a represen­tation and memoriall (sayeth he) of that true and holy sacrifice offered on the Cross. And subjoyneth this rea­son, for as Augustin (sayeth hee) writteth to Simplician. the Images of things useth to be called by their names whereof they are images. as we say this [Page 275] is Cicero, when it is but Cicero's picture (sayeth he) So in likmanner spea­keth Lyra on Heb. 10. and many more Romanists. So that it is false that Bellarmin sayth lib. 1. de Mis­sa cap. 2. That neither the scripture nor the fathers calleth that a sacri­fice, which is only a representation & remembrance of a sacrifice. And because this is their Idoll of the Masse, which they adore, therfore I will labour to overthrow this Da­gon by some few arguments furni­shed by themselves, as 1. A sacri­fice and Priesthood are relatives (say­eth Bellarmin, lib. 1. de Missa. cap. 2.) so that to a sacrifice properly so cal­led, a Priesthood also properlie called must be correspondent (sayeth he) whence it will follow, that if the Masse be a sacrifice properly so cal­led, the Priest must be a Priest also properlie so called, and if this bee, [Page 276] he must be either after the order of Aaron, which hath ceased, or after the order of Melchisedeck, & this he cannot be, because Christ living, and being a Priest for ever after that order, he hath no successour therein, as we are taught, Heb. 7. 23. 24. Next (sayeth Bellar. in the same chapter §. neque) Melchi­sedecks sacrifice was bread and wine, & so sayth this Pamphleter, whēce it will follow that in the Masse in likmanner that which is offered up by the Priest (giving that he were after the order of Melchisedeck) must be bread and wine only, and consequently not the flesh & blood of Christ by transsubstantiation 3. If they will say that it is not­withstanding Christs owne bodie and blood that is offered up. then out of Bellar. in the same place §. 6. I reason thus, in a sacrifice proper­lie [Page 277] so called there must be some sensible thing that is offered (sayeth he) but this cannot bee Christs bodie, be­cause by none of the senses, as sight, tast, or touch, can it be discerned to be there, and as for the accidents of the bread, as shape, colour and taste. I hope they will not say that this is the sensible thing which they offer up as a sacrifice. 4. (Sai­eth Bellar. in the same place §. 8.) To a true sacrifice is required, that the thing which is offered be in the sub­stance thereof destroyed, that is, that it be so changed (sayth he) that it cease to be what it was before. Which to af­firme of Christs bodie offered up in the Masse, wer most horrid blas­phemie.

42 THat sacramentall unction is not to be used to the sick.

VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Iam. 5. 14. where the a­nointing [Page 278] of the sick with oyle is cōman­ded. To which I answere in Cardi­nall Cajetans words on this place, saying, Neither by these words them­selves, nor by the effects, doth these words speake of sacramentall extreame unction, but rather of that unction (sai­eth he) which the Lord Iesus did in­stitute in the gospell to be exercised on the sick, for the Text sayeth not, if any be sick unto death, b [...]t absolutlie, if any bee sick (sayeth he) and further the effect is the raising up of the sick, wher­as extreame unction is not given but at the point of death (sayeth hee) besids this Iames biddeth call many elders, and many anointers to one sick person, which is altogether disagreable to the manner of extreame unction (sayeth hee)

The second place is Mark 6. 13. And they anointed many with oyle who were sick, and healed them. wherun­to [Page 279] the same Cardinall answereth thus, This unction (sayeth he) was not sacramentall, for it is evident that they used oyle heer, for healing, not for ministring any sacrament (sayeth he) as also it is cleare that thereupon fol­lowed health, otherwise the vertue of healing oyle (which was miraculous) had not been known, & this effect is not found by extreame unction (sayth he) And of this same judgement with Cajetan were Ruardus, Iansenius, & Dominicꝰ a Soto with others, as wit­nesseth Bellarmin, de extrema un­ctione lib. 1. cap. 2. who also con­firmeth their opinion by diverse ar­guments.

The third place is Mark, 16. 18. They shall lay hands on the sick & they shall recover. To which I answer, 1. That there is no mention heer of any unction. And 2. The effect of the laying on of the Apostles hands [Page 280] was recoverie, which is not the ef­fect (as Cajetan speaketh) of ex­treame unction.

As for the fathers whom he onlie citeth, but setteth not down their words, none of them maketh for his purpose, and some of them are both looslie cited and judged by E­rasmus counterfit, as Augustin in speculo: for therein are insert some verses of Boetius, who was long af­ter Augustin.

43 THat no inward grace is gi­ven by impositiō of hands, in holie orders, & that ordinarie vocation & mission of Pastors is not necessarie in the Church,

FOr answere 1. The last of these Assertions, That ordinarie vocations and mission of Ministers is not necessa­rie in the Church, is so impudent & gros [...]e a calumnie, as I cannot e­nough wonder how he could vent [Page 281] or invent such a lie. Seing both in our Confession of faith 1581. art. 22. and in our later 1647. the contrary thereof may be seene. And as for the first which he sayeth is contra­rie to 2. Tim. 4. 6. where it is said, Wherefore I put thee in remembrance, that thou stirre up the gift of GOD which is in thee by putting on of my hands. and 1. Tim. 4. 14. wher it is [...]d, Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophe­cie, and laying on of the hands of the presbytrie. I answere, 1. There is heere a gift spoken of (as Cardinal Cajetan acknowledgeth) but not an inward grace, or if grace, an edi­fying grace for others, Ephes. 4. 11. 12. 2. This gift is expounded by Aquinas to be The talent or gift of knowledge wherwith he was endued to gaine soules, or the Episcopall order or degree whereunto for that end hee was [Page 282] called and advanced, as Cajetan and [...]ombard also expoundeth. Their late Estius also expoundeth this gift to be That abilitie that was given him of God to execute his charge of teach­ing, exhorting & convincing &c. not that hee received the gift of all and sindrie of these upon a sudden, when he was ordained (sayth he) for he ought not to haue beene ordained a Bishop, except hee had beene endued with these gifts before (sayeth he) or that by this imposition of hands (sayeth A­quinas) Ministri dant gratiam, The Ministers or presbyters cōferres grace on him that is ordained, but that this signified onlie the grace that was con­ferred upon him before by Christ. And wherby (sayeth the ordinar glosse) was confirmed to him that authoritie which he did receive, to wit, of the publick exercise of the holy Ministrie.

As for his citation of some Fa­thers, [Page 283] the same is either so looslie, as Augustin l. 4. quest. super num. but telles not what questiō, wheras ther ar 65. questions on that book, orelse he citeth them who maketh nowise for him, as Cyprian who speaketh nothing in that Epistle of ordination. He citeth also Optatus, but no book, whereas he write se­ven. also Tertullian de praescrip. but no chapter, whereas there are 53. in that book.

44 THat Priests and other reli­gioꝰ persons who haue vow­ed chastitie to God, may frelie marrie notwithstanding of their vow.

VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Deut. 23. 22. where it is called A sinne to vow and thereafter to break it. To which I answere, That this place speaketh onlie of vows free, lawfull, and possible to be performed which popish forced & [Page 284] mōasticall vows of perpetual single life and the like annexed to holie orders, are not, and are so far from being a degree of higher perfe­ction, as they are rather supersti­tions and sinful snares (as their Cas­sander calleth them) in which no christiā ought to intangle himself. The uncleane fruits whereof may be seene in the lives of the Popes themselves, & frō them downward to the lowest skirts of their cler­gie, as is notour to the world, & as I haue particularlie shown by their owne famous historians in the 16. chapter of my late Treatise, called Antichrist pointed and painted out in his true colours. Which made their owne Ferus on Math. 19. 12. to say, You may see heerby how unwarily & uncircumspectlie they do, who close within Monastries their children being but young, whilas they know not what [Page 185] sort of persons they will be, wherby how great evils do arise (sayeth hee) Who is he that seeth not?

And of the rest of the popish cler­gie▪ thus also speaketh their owne Cassander (consult. art. 23.) The matter now is come to that passe, that yee shall not find scarce the hundreth man who abstaineth from the company of women (sayeth he) And againe, this is to bee remarked, as these who would enter in holie orders at restrained frō that which by Gods institution is permitted, and is a re­medie against lust, to wit, marri­age, which is called The Bed unde­fyled, & honourable in all. Heb. 13. 4. So on the contrarie, whoredom, which is forbidden by God, and wherof it is said in the same place, That God will judge all such, (The same is permitted, as we see in the Popes decretals (dist, 81. cap. Maxi­mianus) [Page 286] wher it is said, That it is cō ­monlie held, that one ought not to be de­posed for simple fornication. And re­marke the reason, because (saith the glosse) very few ar found without that fault. And therefore 1. we affirme that no such inforcement of such vowes should bee 2. That being made, if t [...]y [...]end to the prejudice of a mans soule, by exposing him to the unavoidable danger of sin, as fornication, adulterie & the like, therfore they do not bind, but are better broken than keeped.

The second place which he brin­geth is 1. Tim. 5. 11. But the youn­ger widowes refuse, for whē they haue began to wax wanton against Christ, they will marrie &c. To which I an­swere. That this place is a direction onlie not to admitt to the office of diaconesses (as Phebe is stiled Rō. 16. 1.) which at that time requi­red [Page 287] unmarried women any that were young under the age of 60. years at least, because howsoever they will professe a single life, or continencie (but their is no word of vowes) yet they will not be able to performe the same, and so will make but a rash and an unlawfull profession, from which sort hee therefore disswadeth younger wo­men, verse 14. & willeth that they rather marrie and bare children, not to professe continencie, & yet thereafter (as verse 15.) to turne after satan by whoredom and lust. This place then is rather against the making of such vowes or pro­fession of perpetuall continencie in religious persons that are young, the evills whereof in the Popish Church (as their Ferus speaketh) who is hee that knoweth not? to the great provocation of Gods [Page 288] wrath, staine of Christian religion, and secret murder of thousands of poor infants, as their own famous histories record.

The third place is 1. Tim. 5. 15. For some are alreadie turned aside af­ter satan. To marrie then after the vow of chastitie once made, is here tearmed by the Apostle a turning aside after satan (sayeth he.) To which I answere 1. That Primasius expoundeth this, That they are tur­ned after satan, either by denying the faith of God, or by committing fornica­tion (sayeth he) 2 Their own late Estius sayeth also thus, But wherein they are turned after satan the Apostle telleth not, some expound it because they married after their vow, others because they committed Fornication, which is the more probable (sayth he) for heereby a greater occasion of spea­king evill against the profession was [Page 289] furnished to enemies as v. 14. As also (sayeth he) it may be referred to their deserting of the religion. As the expe­rience therefore of some younger widows, that had turned aside af­ter satan by incontinencie, was a sufficient reason to the Apostle for refusing such, so like wise should the wofull experience of so many whorish Priests, Friers, Nuns and others, teach, that no young per­son should bee forced in their ad­mission to holie orders, to vow and make profession of perpetual con­tinencie. which moved Cardinall Cajetan to say on 1. Tim. 5. 12. As Paull had learned by experience the forenamed inconvenients, by admitting young widows under 60. years to a pro­fession of continencie, so would God (sayeth he) that we would learne by such experience, whither the solemne vowes of persons o [...] both sexes in their [Page 290] youth, that haue entered into holie & religious orders, hath done good i [...] the Church or not.

But it seemeth strange to me that against the marriage of religious persons hee should alleadge scrip­ture, seing in the Popes canon law (causa 28. q. 2.) and by Bellarmin himself (lib. de clericis cap. 18.] it is acknowledged That the marri­age of Priests is not forbidden by Law or gospell nor any Apostolicall authori­tie, but by a later Church constitu­tion, for repealing whereof Pope Pius the second (as Platina reports) used to say, that ther was greater rea­son & cause to repeale it, than ther was for making the same. The fruit of which decree their owne Cassander setteth down (consult. art. 23) say­ing, Wee see by this decree that chasti­tie is so farre from being established, that a window is seene to be opened to [Page 291] all lust & villanie. Therfore also did Gerson Chancellour of the univer­sitie of Paris deplore (de vita spiri­tuali animae lect. 4. coroll. 14) That the places of the holie Ministrie were possessed by Adulterers, whoremasters, Sodomits and such like Monsters, and that the number of this kind was so great, that there was no proceeding a­gainst them. yea, Whoredome was of so little account amongst them, & authorised, that it is said in the glosse on the canon Law (dist. 81. cap. Maximianus) That for simple fornication a Priest is not to be depo­sed, Seing as hath beene said, Few were to bee found who were free of that vyce. So likewise to the very same purpose, (causa 2. quest. 7. cap. Lator) it is againe said, That single fornication is not worthie of de­position. So that as Bernard speaketh serm. 66▪ in cantica. Take from the [Page 292] Church honourable marriage, and the Bed undefiled, you shall fill the same with whoredomes, incests, filthie issues, effeminat and Sodomiticall Monsters, and in a word with all sort of unclean­nesse.

And what opposition was made a­gainst this decree of forced single life made by Pope Gregorie 7. alias Hildebrand, āno, 1074. by the whol Clergie almost. Their own Sigebert declareth in his Chronicle, saying, Pope Gregorie having convocated a sy­nod, removed from their office all mar­ried Priests, and inhibit all Laicks to heare their Masse by a new example, whereupon did arise so great a scandal, that in the time of no heresie, the church was rent with a more grievous scisme, many therby joyning also with inconti­nencie, perjurie and manifold Adulte­ries. Which made that noble poet in his time Chaucer, Esq. of wood­stock▪ [Page 293] anno 1341. to say in his plow­mans tale. They liue not in lecherie, but haunt Wenches, Widows & wives, and punisheth the poore for poultrie, Themselves using it all their lives.

45 THat fasting and abstinence from certaine meates is not grounded on holie scripture, nor cau­seth any spirituall good.

FOr answere, 1. That fasting is not grounded on scripture, nor causeth any spirituall good, we dis­owne, for our Confession of faith, 1647. cap. 21. art. 5. testifieth the the contrarie, where solemne fasts in their severall times and seasons, used in an holie religious manner, are declared to bee a part of Gods religious worship, according to the scriptures there alleadged. So that we admitt both private & publick fasting for humiliation, as the same is joyned with prayer, and fitteth [Page 294] us the better for devotion, as also tendeth to spirit [...]all good many wayes, as we see Act. 13. 3. Math. 17. 21. &c. But as for enjoyning abstinence from certaine sorts of meate at set times, & for cōscience sake, joyned with opinion of merit or satisfaction. This we oppose as a doctrine of devils, so called 1. Tim. 4. 3. contrarie to Christian liberty, and to Gods word, 1. Tim. 4. 4.

As for the example of the Rechabits which he bringeth, Ierm. 35. 5. of forbearing the drinking of wyne for ever, It was a singular case, and a particular humane injunction on­lie of their father, binding no o­thers in that time or ever thereaf­ter, as the like was that of the Na­zarits, Luke 1. 15. to wit, tempo­rarie onlie, & relating to some onlie, as also meerlie ceremoniall.

46 THat Iesus Christ descended not into hell nor delivered [...]hence the soules of the Patriarch's out of the same.

VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Ephes. 4. 8. where it is said, That when Christ ascended on high he led captivitie captive, which Captives (sayth he) were the soules of the fathers which Christ delive­red out of Limbus. To whom I an­swere 1. we deny that ever he shall find in scripture any such place as he calleth Limbus, or that the word Hell, as it relateth to the soule, sig­nifieth any place appointed for the godlie, but for the wicked onlie & damned for ever. 2. By Captivity led captive, Christs enemies & ours are onlie meant, & not his freinds or the fathers, which is clear, first by the alike speech, Judg. 5. 12. where Deborah after the victorie [Page 295] over Israels enemies, sayeth to Ba­rack, Arise Barack and lead thy Cap­tivitie captive. That is, thy vanqui­shed enemies. 2. The fathers also so expound these words, therfore sayeth Tertullian lib. 5. contra Mar­cion. Hee led Captivitie captive, that is death & that slaverie under which man was. Haymo also & Theophy lact on Ephes. 4. 9. sayeth, That this cap­tivitie was the Devill, death, the curse of the Law & sinne And so also spea­keth Augustin (on psal. 67.) 3. So also do their own Doctours ex­pound these words, as Lyra on psal. 67. Lombard likewise and Arboreus on Ephes. 4. 9.

The second place is Act. 2. 27. Thou will not leaue my soul in hel. To which I answere, 1. Their Arias Montanus in his interlineall Bible approven by the Universitie of Lo­van, and printed at Antuerp 1572. [Page 296] translates that place of the 16. psal­out of which this of the Act. is ta­ken, thus, Non derelinques animam meam in sepul [...]hro. And Isidorus cla­rius on this place speaketh thus, ac­cording to the Hebrew phrase the soule is put for the bodie, which he was not to leaue in the grave. And Bellarmin, lib. 4. de Christo. cap. 12. grantes that the hebrew word nephesh or anima, is a generall word which som­times signifieth the bodie, as is cleare (sayth he) by many parts of scripture. Wherof he instances one, Gen. 37. 21. where Ruben sayth to his breh­ren concerning Joseph, Non interfi­ciamꝰ animā ejus where the word ani­ma is not taken for the soule properlie so called nor by a Trope for the man himself, but properlie for his flesh or bodie (sayeth he) and as Nephesh somtimes signifieth the bodie, so in the same sense is the greek word [Page 297] [...] used by the septuagint Levit. 21. 1. & 11. 2. The hebrew word Sheol, also, is taken two wayes in scripture, to wit, either for the re­ceptacle of the corporall part of man after death, and so it signifieth the graue. which is not onlie called in the greek [...] but [...], as 1. Cor. 15. 55. [...] O graue where is thy victorie? orelse it is taken for the receptacle of the spirituall part or soule of man after death, and thus being taken, it is translated, Hell, and then onlie and ever it signifieth the place of the damned, out of which there is no deliverie, as Augustin showeth at length in his 99. Epistle to Evodius, and for probation that the word Sheol is taken for both these fore­named receptacles. Their own Ly­ra's words on psal. 114. are these, [Page 298] In the hebrew (sayth he) for INFER­NUS is put SHEOL which doth not on­lie signifie Hell, but also the graue. as wee also see Gen. 42. 38. Job, [...]7. 13. and psal. 141. 7. A third exposition Romanists give of the word Sheol or Infernus, signifying there by the estate of the dead in generall under the power of death, whereof Peter speaketh Act. 2. 24. and thus doth their Jansenius expound in Prov. 15. 11. and Genebrard in psal. 88. 48. Thus the words being cleared by Romanists thēselves, 1. then whi­ther the meaning be this, Thou will not leaue my bodie in the graue, accor­ding to Arias Montanus translation of psal. 16. 10. relating so to Christs resurrection, which is the Apostles purpose to prove, or 2. whither the meaning be, Thou will not leaue mee under the power of death, as Jansenius expoundeth, or 3. whither [...] [Page 299] or soule be taken for the spirituall part of man, and [...], or hell for the place of the damned, yet how­soever (I say) the words be taken in any of the three former senses, they shall never prove any popish Limbꝰ, or any descēse of Christs soul thither, because the word [...], or Infernus (when it is taken for the grave, or that which is in place thereof, as Gen. 43. 38. and Ionah. 2. 2.) It ever signifieth the place of the damned, as both scripture showeth, and Augustin forecited, and I hope that papists themselves will never say, that the soules of the Patriarchs went down thither.

Moreover, cōcerning the descense of Christs soule to hell. Romanists themselves disagree thus. 1. Scotus in 1. sent. dist. 11. q. 1. disclaimeth any warrant in the gospell for it. 2. Bellarmin (lib. 4. de Christo. c. [Page 300] affirmeth that Christs soul descen­ded locally to the place of the dam­ned. 3. Aquinas denyeth this (as Bellar. showeth in the same place) and sayeth that he onlie descended locallie to that part of hell, which is called Limbus. 4. Durand. man­taineth that Christs soule descen­ded to no part of hell locallie, but virtualie onlie and by effect, seing the scripture (sayeth he) distingui­sheth nowise the hell of the damned frō any other place, otherwise (saith Du­rand. in 3. sent. dist. 22. q. 3.) his soule had beene in two places together, seing he said to the theef on the Crosse, this day thou shall be with me in Para­dise. And which virtuall descen­ding of Christ into hell, Protestāts likewise acknowledge, Chamier speaking thus (lib. 5. de Christo, cap. 3.) Moreover (sayeth hee) when we say. Hee descended into hell, [Page 301] we signifie therby the efficacie of Christs death, wherby he overcame hell. The fruit of which victorie not only apper­taineth to them who were to come after, but also to them who had long gone be­fore (sayeth hee.)

The third place is 1. Pet. 3. 18. Being put to death in the flesh, but quickned by the spirit, by which also hee went & preached to the spirits in prison. Which he sayth wer the Fa­thers in Limbꝰ. To which I answer, That this place proveth no descen­ding of Christs soule to Limbus, for delivering of the fathers therefra. Which shall be made clear by con­siddering 1. By what spirit Christ went and preached in the dayes of Noab. 2. who were these spirits in prison to whom he went. & 3. The time when hee went. First then the spirit by which Christ went and preached, was not his humane soul, [Page 302] but his divine spirit, for so sayeth Augustin epist. 99. ad Evodium, as also Beda on this place. O Ecumeniꝰ likewise and Athanasius, which ex­position Estius sayeth agreeth well with 2. Cor. 13. 4. Aquinas like­wise part. 3. q. 52. art. 2. saith that it was by the spirit of his divinitie that he went & preached (sayth he) by the mouth of just Noah. Lyra in like­manner sayth, That it was by the ho­lie Ghost in Noah and in other good men. So also speaketh Hugo Cardi­nalis & the Iesuite Salmeron on this place. Next, Scripture it self testi­fieth in the same place, That it was by that spirit by which he was quickned and raised from the dead, and that this spirit was his divine spirit, is witnessed Rom. 8. 11. by which also our mortall bodies shall bee quick­ned, and which dwelleth in the Elect. And this is not Christs soule, but his [Page 303] holie spirit, as v. 9. Next, the spirits to whom hee went are descrived 1. That they wer disobedient, & who abu­sed the long suffering patience of God that waited for their repentance in the dayes of Noah. which the patriarchs did not, who ar praised so much for the contrary, to wit, their faith and obedience Heb. 11. 2. They ar said to be such spirits, who wer in prison even then, when Peter wrote this e­pistle, as their own Andradius notes (def. cōcil. Trid. lib. 2. p. 17. 2) & the Text it self declareth, & there­fore wer not fred therfra at Christs Resurrection which was long be­fore. 3. The time when Christ by his spirit preached to these spi­rits in prison, was, as the text show­eth, In the dayes of Noah, and not after his death, which dayes were thousands of years before the same. Therefore sayeth Beda they were [Page 304] the wicked & carnall livers in the age that Noah lived in to whom Christ preached. And so sayth Car­thusian, and this he did (saieth A­quinas) by the mouth of just Noah, & by the holie Ghost (sayeth Lyra) in Noah & other good mē. By all which it is cleare that it was not after Christs death, that in his soule hee descended to any popish Limbus, to deliver the godlie Patriarch's ther­fra. Seing the Patriarch that was then alive in the days of Noah, was onlie Noah himself.

The fourth place is Heb. 11. 40. God having provyded a better thing for us, that they without us should not bee made perfect, whence it followeth (sai­eth he) that these holie soules were de­tained till then in a place distinct from heaven, and hell of the damned. To whom I answere, That no such thing followeth from these words, [Page 305] but that the glorifying both in soul and bodie of these holie pat [...]iarch's shall not be till the generall resur­rection, when both they and wee shall be perfectlie in both glorified together, which is the exposition of Aquinas, Cajetan and Lombard on this place, Calling the glorifying of their soules after death the first robe or stole which they received, and the second which they are to receive to be the glorifying also of their bodie at the last day. This like wise is the expo­sion of their late Estius, which he showeth to be also Augustins, e­pist. 99. and Evodium and 49. Trea­tise on John, as also Chrisostoms, and Erasmus in his paraphrase. And cō ­cludeth thus saying, The Apostle therefore speaketh of the perfyting which is to be at the generall resurre­ction.

The fifth place is, Math. 12. 40. [Page 306] That as Ionas was three dayes & three nights in the Whales bellie: so should the son of man be three dayes & three nights in the heart of the earth. which he expoundeth, Hell. To which I answere, This is onlie spoken of Christs bodie in the graue, and not the being of his soule in hell wit­nesse Chrisostome hom. 44. in Math. 12. whose words are, He sayeth not in the earth, but in the heart of the earth, to wit, in the graue (sayth he) Thus also doth Gregorie Nyssen ex­pound, epist. ad Eustachium. So sai­eth Auselmus on Math. 12. He was in the heart of the earth, to wit, in the graue (sayeth he) Thus also doeth Ignatius expound epist. ad Trallia­nos Euth [...]mius in Math. 12. Jerome also and Tertullian with diverse o­thers, & thus also sayth their owne Lyra, The son of man shall be in the heart of the earth three dayes & three [Page 307] nights, that is in the graue, & so spea­keth their parisian Doctour Arbo­reus, & others. And which answere serveth likewise for that of the E­phes. 4. 9. which others object.

The sixth place is Math. 27. 52. And the graves were opened and many bodies of the saints which sleeped arose, and came out of their graves after his resurrection. To which I answere, That heer is a resurrection of the bodies of the saints: comming out of their graves, but no comming of their soules out of any part of hel o [...] a popish Limbus.

The seventh place is Zach. 9. 11. By the blood of thy Covenant I haue let out thy prisoners furth of the pitt wherein there is no water. That is, the Fathers out of Limbus (sayeth he) To which I answere shortlie, omit­ting Augustins exposition lib. 18. de civitate dei. cap. 35. Of the deep [Page 308] of mans miserie by sinne, out of which by Christs blood we are freed, Bellar. himself answereth clearlie for us, l. 1. de purg. cap. 3. and showeth That no such thing as Limbus patrum can be meant heerby, because their is water of comfort and refreshment in Limbus (sayth he) wheras in this pitt whereof Zacharie speaketh there is no water at all.

As for his last place, 1. Sam. 28. 14. concerning Samuels apparition to Saull▪ wee haue answered it al­readie, that it was not Samuell, but the Devill in his shape. And which place is most impertinently brought to prove Christs descense into hel, by the apparition of any such spirit cōming out of hell of the damned.

As for Fathers, whom he onlie ci­teth▪ Jerome explaineth himself on Ephes. 4. 9. what he sayeth on v. 8. Next, Augustin on psal. 171. hath [Page 309] nothing of Limbus patruū or Christs descense there, and as for Gregorie there is no such place as he men­tioneth, lib. 3. Moral. cap. 20. For that book hath onlie 17. chapters in it.

47 THat there is no purgatorie fire, or other prison wherein sinn [...]s may be satisfied for, after this life.

VVHich saith he is contrar to 1. Cor. 3. 13. 15. The fire shall try everie mans work of what sort it is, if any mans work be burnt, he shal suf­fer losse. yet he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. To which I answer, or rather their owne Estius on this place, saying, Sindrie expoundeth this place (sayeth he) of Purgatorie, wherein after this life, and before the day of the last judgement the soules of the just are purged from their lighter sinnes, but it appeareth that this can­not [Page 310] be said (sayeth he) both because the words showeth that the day of par­ticular judgement is not to bee under­stood, but of the generall judgement, whereas the purging of the soules per­taineth to the particular judgement, as also because the fire of purgatorie doth not try everie mans work (sayth he) but punisheth onlie the evill works of good men. Bellarmin also lib. 1. de purg. cap. 5. sayeth, That the word (fire) in the 13. and 14. verses is to taken onlie allegoricallie, and that the fire of purgatorie is not thereby to bee meant, for of this fire the Apostle sayes it shall burne the work, not the worker (sayeth he) and therefore a purging or afflicting fire of persons is not meant thereby, onlie hee would haue the word (fire) in the 15. verse to bee taken in another sense than in the other two verses, and therby to be meant the fire of purgatorie, but [Page 311] Estius answereth unto him thus, & refuteth him, saying, That not with­out just cause it seemeth to be absurd, that the Apostle in one Text of so few words would speake of fire in so diverse significations, neither can any easilie be perswaded (sayeth hee) that in the third place a purgatorie fire of soules can be signified, when as in the first and second place, another and diverse fire from that is understood. And then he subjoines after the naming of some Romanist Divines that hath ex­pounded these words otherwise thā hee doth, saying, Let none marvell that I haue not followed these authours in all things, because that neither thē ­selves amongst themselves do alwayes agree▪ Such is his testimonie of their braged of unitie.

The second place is Iohn 11. 22. But I know that even now (sayeth Martha to Christ) Whatsoever thou [Page 312] will ask of God, he will give it thee. Ergo there is a fi [...]e of purgatorie, is as good a consequence, as to say, ergo the staff is in the corner.

The third place is Act. 2. 24. Whom God hath raised up loosing the sorrowes of hell, that is, loosing men one of their paines there (sayeth he) To which I answer 1. That he shame­fullie perverteth the Text, for it is in the originall, Thanatu, & in our translation, and their owne inter­linear, (the sorrowes of death, & not hell) So that altho he pretended in the Preface, & promised to refute our doctrine by the expresse text of our owne Bible, yet heere he gros­slie passeth therefra, and for esta­blishing of his purgatorie, he pur­geth out the word (death) & put­teth in (hell) in place therof which is a bold corrupting. 2. The text speaketh onlie of Christs owne be­ing [Page 313] loosed from the sorrowes of death, and not of his loosing any other persons from the same, and farre lesse from hell, or any other place of purgatorie, which thing was done by his resurrection. Therfore sayeth Cardinall Cajetā on this place, The sorrowes were the sorrowes of death (saieth he) by which is was impossible that hee could bee holden, to wit, Christ.

The fourth place is 1. Cor 15. 29. Otherwise what shall they do who are baptised for the dead? That is, afflict themselves & do penance for them that are in purgatorie (sayeth hee) To which I answer 1. That this can not be said of voluntarie afflicting thē ­selves, as by praiers almes and fasting undertaken for the help of the dead (sayeth their owne Estius on this place) which if Paull had meant hee had not said, who are baptised, as if it [Page 314] were by others, but who baptise them­selves for the dead (sayeth hee) The exposition then which he sayeth is worthiest to be preferred before al others, and which Epiphanius (hae­res. 28.) received from them who wer before him as approven, is this (sayeth Estius) to wit, That these ar said to be baptised for the dead, who ha­ving no hope of longer life heere, but as dead men, did craue & get baptisme, reallie heerby declaring that they were baptised for the dead, that is, for this end that baptisme (which witnesseth their faith in the trinitie) might bee profitable to them at that time when they departed this life, and were to en­ter into the condition of the dead. As if the Apostle had said, if there were no resurrection of the bodie at all, what fruit can they reape who are baptised? being about to die, or counted for dead, and who for this cause professe that [Page 315] they were baptised, in respect of that future estate that is after this life, and this meaning is most cleare, pure and simple (sayeth Estius) and most [...]itt to prove what the Apostle intendeth, and which others also doth approve (saith he) Which exposition likewise the Iesuite also A-lapide approveth as most simple and plaine, declaring also that it is Chrisostoms. And so it proveth no purgatorie at all.

The fi [...]th place is Luke 19. 6. Make you friends of the mammon of unrighteousnes, that when yee faile, they may receiue you into everlasting habitations. To which I answere, That this place proveth nowise af­ter death any fire of pu [...]gatorie, but rather the contrarie, that when the godlie and charitable persons faile, that is▪ die, they are received pre­sentli [...] into the eternall habitations of heavenlie glorie. Therfore saith [Page 316] Bellarmin (lib. 1. de sanctis cap. 3. on 2. Cor. 5. 1.) The Apostles reaso­ning heere is excellent (sayeth he) to wit, if this mortall life perish we haue instantlie another far better in the hea­vens, for God is no read [...]er to punish sayeth he (lib. 1. de sanctis. cap. 6.) than to reward. whence it followes, that if the wicked after death pre­sentlie go to hell, that the godly in likemanner after death presentlie go to heaven, and consequentlie to no fire of purgatorie.

The sixth place is Luke, 23. 42. Lord remember me when thou com­meth into thy kingdom. which show­eth (sayeth he) that soules may be helped after death. Which indeed we grant, by Christs receiving thē into his heavenlie kingdome, as is heere by the Theef petitioned, but no word is here of Christs helping out of a hel [...]sh purgatorie. Thus [Page 317] wee see by how weake arguments hee would prove his Purgatorie, which B Fisher (cont. Luth art▪ 18.) granteth was knowne but of late onlie, and after many ages believed. And therefore little or no mention is of it in the ancient fathers (sayeth hee) and yet, which Bellarmin sayeth is a doctrine of faith of such conse­quence. That hee that believeth not purgatorie to [...]e shall never come ther, but shall be tormented in hels fire for ever. (sayeth he lib. 1. de purg. cap. 15.) and so he condemneth all the easterne or greeke churches to hel, (beside the Protestants) which not­withstanding the B. of Bitonto in his oration before the Councell of Trent acknowledgeth to be the only mother Church of the Roman.

As for fathers whō he citeth, Am­brose in that place speaketh onlie of the fire of Gods judgement. Jerome [Page 318] also speaketh nothing of a popish purgatory, & as for Gregory he saies That the fire wherof the Apostle spea­keth 1. Cor. 3. 13. may be meant of the fire of affliction. And as for any other fire, he buildeth it on Math. 12. 32. which both by Mark 3. 29. and by the fathers that comment on that place, as also by Romanists them­selves, as Carthusian and Arboreus, maketh nowise for purgatory. And as for Origen hee speaketh onlie of the fire of affliction. yea, their B. Fisher cont. Luth. art. 18. sayeth, That ther is little or no mention of it in the ancient fathers at all.

48 THat it is not lawfull to make or haue images.

VVHich is contrarie (saith he) to Exod. 25. 18. And thou shall make two Cherubims of beaten gold &c. As also to the 1. King. 6. 35. And he car [...]ed theron Cherubims, [Page 319] and palme trees &c. Whence he in­ferreth that these graven Angels, were images of the highest order of Angels (one excepted) which S. Ierome witnesseth that the Iewes worshiped. To whom I answere, where Moses is commanded to make two Cherubims of gold, and place them in the holiest, & where Solomon on the doors of the Oracle caused carve Cherubims in like­manner. Both had a particular war­rant from God to do so, which Pa­pists haue not for making their I­mages of the blessed Trinitie, and of saints, setting them up in pub­lick places of divine worship to be adored. And therefore worthie & remarkable is that speech of Tertul­lian answering the ancient Idola­ters, who objected in likemanner for their defe [...]ce Moses his ma­king and setting up of a brasen ser­pent [Page 320] to whō Tertulliā (l. 1. de ido­lolatria) replyeth saying, One and the same God both by his generall Law forebad any image to be made ( [...]aieth he) as also by his extraordinarie and speciall command, willed an image of a serpent to be made, if then thou be obe­dient to the same God (sayeth hee) thou hast this-law of his, Make thee no graven image, but if thou respect the image of the serpent that was after­ward made by Moses, then do thou a [...] Moses did (sayeth he) and make no image against the Law, unlesse God cōmand thee as he did Moses. Whose word is a Law.

Next, where he saieth, that S. Je­rome witnesses that the Iewes wor­shiped these images of the Cheru­bims. I answere 1. That they wer not seene by them, seing they were placed in the holie of holies, into which the High-Priest onlie ente­red [Page 321] once in the year onlie. 2. Their owne Estius on Heb. 9. 5. testifieth the contrarie saying, Neither were the Cherubims placed in the Sanctuary to be worshiped (sayeth he) but both for the signification of things to come, as also for augmenting the majestie of the place.

His next place is, Hebr. 9. 1. 5. Where the images of the Cherubims ar called divine ordinances. To which I answere, That this confirmeth what hath beene said, to wit, that those were made by Gods speciall command, and what God cōman­ded under the law to be done, as typicall and significative of more spirituall things under the gospell, (as the Apostle showeth v. 8. 9. 10.) was a sufficiēt warrāt, the like wher of papists haue not for their un­warrantable making of the images of the Trinitie & others abused to idolatrie.

49 THat it is not lawfull to re­verence images or to give any honour to dead & insensible things.

VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Exod. 3. 5. Where Moses is commanded to put off his shoes before he drew neare to the burning bush, be­cause the place whereon he stood was holie ground. To which I answere, 1. That it seemeth strange to me, that for adoration of images, hee should bring any scripture, seing their bishop Melchior Canus inge­nouslie acknowledgeth (lib. 3. de Trad. cap. 3. fund. 3.)▪ That the worship of images is not contained in scripture, neither clearlie, nor obscurelie. 2. As their Cassander testifieth (consult. 21.) the adora­tion of images was condemned in the Councell of Frankfoord, as con­trarie to scripture. 3. This reve­rence that was done by Moses by [Page 323] putting off his shoes was not to the sens [...]es ground, called holy, because of Gods holie presence at that time there, but to the Lord himself, who was manifesting himself ther both by voice & vision, as Hugo de S. vi­ctore showeth, and as their bishop also Lipomanus in his catena upon Exod. and Cajetan whom he citeth doth there also teach.

The second place which he brin­geth, is psal. 99. 5. Adore ye his foot­stoole, for it is holie. By which lite­rallie is understood the Ark, which was worshiped by the Iewes (saith he) in regard of the images that were set on it. To which I answer, 1. That he perverteth the Text, for the words are (as the originall, and their own interlinear hath) Adore yee at his footstoole, for he is holie, so that it is God, & not his footstoole that was to bee adored, 2. In the [Page 324] same psalme v. 9. It is said, worship yee at his holie hill, for the Lord our God is holie, which justifieth the for­mer exposition, and not, worship ye his holy hill. 3. his reason is both naughty & false. First, naughtie, be­cause the Iewes (saith he) worshiped the Ark, because of the images, that wer set on it▪ whence it would fol­low that not only images thēselves were to bee worshiped, but also the places wherein, or wheron they are set. 2. False, because, as their Estius on Heb. 9. 5. testifieth That these images of the Cherubims were placed in the sanctuarie or Ark, not to be worshiped (sayeth he) but for the signification of things to come, and wer not to be seene by the people. And 4. suppose it were, Adore ye his foot­stoole, yet Augustin on that place, [...]elleth us, that thereby is meaned Christs humanitie, which being [Page 325] [...]nited to his Deitie in a personall union, is therefore to be adored, & this exposition doth Lyra follow, as also Lombard, Carthusian, Durand. in his rationale divin. lib. 4. p. 60. and the Doctours of Duay in their notes on this place likewise.

The third place is, Philip. 2. 10. At the Name of Iesus everie knee shal [...]owe. whence he inferres, that seing words are representing signes, or i­mages to the eare, as other images are to the eye, therefore also they are to be worshiped, aswell as the former. To which I answere, that beside O Ecumenius, Theophylect, Se­dulius and Haymo, also their owne Aquinas, all of them testifie, that the name is put for himself who is named, and so likewise sayth their late Estius And that by bowing the knee is signified by a metonomie, subje­ction (sayeth he) therefore the mea­ning [Page 326] is, that all who are in any place, knowing that man who is called Iesus to be the sonne of God, and God him­self trulie, they shall submitt themsel­ves to him (sayeth hee) as God and Lord over all.

The fourth place is Numb. 21. 8. Where the Lord sayeth to Moses, Make thee a firie serpent, and set it on a pole, and it shall some to pass that e­very one that is bitt or stinged, when he looketh on it shall liue. Whence hee gathereth, that an image may not onlie be made and set up to be loo­ked upon, but also reverenced or adored. To whom I answer 1. with Tertullian before cited, that for ma­king and setting up that serpent to be looked upon for a miraculous cure, Moses had an expresse divine precept, with a promise, which pa­pists haue not for making their I­dolatrous images of the Trinitie, [Page 327] and such like, but a precept in the contrarie 2. For reverence or ado­ration, there is no such thing in the Text, but on the contrarie wee see the unlawfulnes therof, by that practise of godly Hezekiah in brea­king the same when it became to be adored. 2. King. 18. because, as their owne Biel showeth on the canon of the Masse lect. 47. This was grosse idolatrie, and that this godly king by breaking the same removed the occasion thereof, (sayeth hee) 3. In his answere to the objection of this place 2. King. 18. he granteth that this worshiping of that serpent was the abuse thereof, and so contra­dicteth himself.

And as for fathers whom he cites, I cannot admire enough his impu­dencie, beside his wresting of scrip­ture, seing their own Cassander (cō ­sult. art. 21.) fayth, How much the [Page 328] anciēt fathers of the primitive Church did abhore all veneration of images, Origen as one, declareth against Celsus lib. 7. (sayeth he) Whence also it was, that in the second Councell of Nice, under Constantine and Irene when some decrees were made concer­ning the adoration of images, and that a copy thereof was brought to the Em­perour Charles, he indicted a Councell at Frank foord (anno 794.) at which the Popes legats were present, wherein by the unanimous consent of all the we­sterne Bishops, the decree of that Nicen Councell was condemned, as being con­trarie (remarke) both to scripture, and to the doctrine of the ancient Fa­thers as also to the custome of the Romā Church (sayeth he) neither did that subterfuge▪ then prevaile, which used to be alleadged by some, that they giue not the honour to the images thēselves, but to them whom they represent, for [Page 329] this excuse (saith he) was also given by pagans for their adoration of their I­mages, as wee may see in Arnobius, as also in Augustin on psal. 113. 4. Or as wee reckon, psal. 115. And yet he citeth Augustin & Gregorie, who in his epistle to Serenus, lib. 9. epist. 9. cōdemnes all worship of images, as Ambrose doeth likewise in his o­ration on the death of Theodosius, calling such worship an heathnish errour, Neither is any such thing in Basil or Chrisostome whom hee ci­teth, that maketh for the worship of images, and as for Damascen al­leadging it to bee an Apostolicall tradition onelie. This maketh a­gainst him, who cited for image worship, testimonies of scripture, beside, that Damascen is but late, & [...]ainted with grosse errours, as the denying of the procession of the holie Ghost, (lib. 1. orthod. fidei) [Page 330] And to what hight of grosse ido­latrie their worship of images is come, shall be evidenced, both by their doctrine, as likewise their practise, and both these onlie out of themselves. And 1. for their do­ctrine, all the schoolmen [sayth their Bishop Peresius de trad. p. 3.) D [...] ­teach that the images themselves are to be worshiped with that same worship as these whom they represent, & therfore that the Images of God and of Christ are to bee worshiped with that highest sort, which they call Latria, as Bel­larmin also witnesseth, lib. 2. de i­mag. cap. 20. §. 2. likewise sayeth he cap. 21 That the images of Christ and of the saints are to be worshiped, not onlie by accident or improperlie, but also for themselves & properlie, so that themselves terminateth the worship, as they are considered in themselves, and not onlie as they supplie the place of [Page 331] them whom they represent, for if the image (sayth he) were to be worshiped but improperlie, to wit, because before it, or in it, or by it, that which it repre­senteth is adored, then certainlie (say­eth he) it might be denyed that images were to be worshiped at all. So that for defēce of this their doctrine, they ar forced to use most subtile distinctions, which scarce themselves understand, let be the unlearned people sayeth Bel­larmin. lib. 2. de imag. cap. 22. §. quarto.

Next, for their practise, It is more manifest than it can be by many words exprest (sayth their Cassander (con­sult. art. 21.) that the worship of I­mages is come to that hight as ever that adoration was, which was by Pa­gans given to their Id [...]ls. And they so dote upon them (sayeth their Gabriel Biel in canone Missae, lect. 49 [...]) That they belieue a certaine Deitie, [Page 332] grace or holinesse to be in them, where­by they are able to work miracles, re­store health and deliver from dangers, out of the confidence of the forenamed, being mo [...]ed to worship them, that they may obtaine some of the former things frō them, whence it is also (sayth hee) that they vowe and obliege themselves to undergo pilgramages, some to this & some to that Church, according as they respect the images, believing that this Image in such a place is of greater ver­tue than that in another, and to be more famous for miracles & of greater pow­er. And if at any time miracles bee wrought, upon men (sayeth he) who haue recourse unto them, this is not by the vertue of the image, but somtimes by the operation of the devill to deceiue such idolatroꝰ worshippers, God so per­mitting, and their infidelitie so deser­ving (sayeth he.)

And which idolatrous adoration of [Page 333] images (sayeth that learned knight and great traveller, sir Edmund San­dys in his speculum Europae, p▪ 228. and 230.) is the greatest scandall of al others, for which both Iewes & Turks calleth us idolatrous Christians, and therfore the Iewes say, when they come to the Christians sermōs, that as long as they see the Preacher direct his speeeh & prayer to the little wooden Crucifix which standeth on the pulpit by him, & to call it his Lord & Saviour, to kneell to it, to embrace and kisse it & to weepe upon it (as the fashion of Italie is) this is preaching sufficient for them (say they) & perswadeth thē more with the verie sight thereof to hate Christian religion, than any reasone that the world can alleadge to loue it.

50. THat no man hath seen God in any forme, & therefore that his image and picture cannot bee made.

[Page 334] VVHich is contrarie (sayeth he) to Gen. 3. 8. Wher God appeared to Adam walking in the gar­den in a corporall forme, and to Gen. 28. 12. where hee appeared to Iacob standing aboue the ladder which hee saw. To which I answere, That he shameleslie belieth Scripture: for there is no such thing that Adam saw God in any corporall forme, but onlie heard his voyce, as it is said likewise, that at the giving of the Law, Deut. 4. 15. 16. The people heard a voice onlie, but saw no shape lest they should corrupt themselves, & make them any graven image. Like­wise it is said, Gen. 28. 13. That the Lord stood aboue the ladder, and that Lacob onlie heard a voice, but not that he saw any shape. Therefore sayes the Prophet Isai. 40. 18. To whom will ye liken God, or what liknes will yee compare to him? whereupon [Page 335] saieth Perusin an augustin Frier and professour of divinity, by these words is refuted and rejected the rashnes of men, yea their madnes and ignorance (sayeth he) who dare be bold to repre­sent God by any image, therefore also their owne Vasques lib. 2. de ador. cap. 3. disp. 4. As also Catharinus bishop of Minori, in his opuscula de imag▪ declareth that the represen­ting of God by any image is expresslie against the second commandement. As also Bellarmin himself witnesseth (lib. 2. de sanct. cap. 3.) that Abu­lensis, Durand. & Peresius do teach plainlie That the image of God is no­wise lawfull to be made. And special­lie to represent him by a three hea­ded Monster, as they do the image of the Trinitie▪ as I haue to showe in their owne Missall.

The third place which he bringes is, Exod. 33. 11. where it is said, [Page 336] That Ged appeared to Moses face to faee, whereunto their owne bishop Lipomanus answereth out of Augu­stin l. 4. de symbolo ad Catechume­nos, cap. 3. Moses did see God (say­eth he) not with his bodilie eyes but with the eyes of his minde, & because that perpetuall light which God is, had in lightned him more than others, ther­fore it is said that he spake to him face to fate, as if it had beene said, that he manifested himself more clearly to him nor to all others, for in that it is said, cap. 10. no man can see my face and live, is showne, that none can see God with his bodilie eies (sayth he) Ther­fore also sayth Cajetan, he sayeth not that God was seen face to face, but that hee spake to him face to face, for God manifesteth himself onlie by speech, nor is he perceived but by hearing onelie (sayeth he.)

The fourth and fifth testimonies [Page 337] which he bringeth are coincident with Isai. 6. 1. 5. and 1. King. 22. 19. wherein it is said, That God was sitting on a Throne, and Dan. 7. 9. whose garments were whyte as snowe, & the haire of his head like pure wool. Whence hee gathereth, that as hee was seene, therefore he may be [...]o pictured, To which I answer, That it followeth not, for before that time he appeared to Moses in the bush in the forme of fire, and yet their own Richeom (tract. 3. c. 9.) saith To picture him so, wer to favour the pagās, who worshiped the fire, & so may we say that to picture God as an old man (as the papists do) is to favour hereticks called the Anthro­pomorphits, who made him to haue the shape and members of a man. Therfore Augustin (de fide & sym­bolo cap. 7.) giveth this reasone why it is not lawful to any Chri­stian [Page 338] to make any such image, Lest we fall into the same sacrile [...]ge (saieth he) whereby the Apostle maketh them execrable who turne the glorie of the incorruptible God into the similitude of a corruptible man Rom. 1. 23.

51 THat blessing or signing with the signe of the Crosse is not founded on holie scripture.

VVHich he saieth is contrarie to Revel. 7. 3. Where it is said, Hurt not the earth nor the sea, nor the trees, till I haue sealed the ser­vants of GOD in the foreheads To which I answere, 1. That there is no word heere of signing, & farre lesse with the signe of the Crosse, but (as the originall hath) of sealing, and what this sealing is, is exprest 2. Tim. 2. 19. The foundation of the Lord standeth sure, having this seale, the Lord knoweth them that are his, & let every one that nameth the Name of [Page 339] Christ depart from iniquitie. So that it is sanctification & departing from iniquititie, which manifesteth their election, & that such ar the Lords. 2. If this were the signing with the signe of the Crosse, then none that did signe themselves so, would perish, for none of these that were sealed heere did perish.

The other two places Mark 10. 16. Luke 24. 50. which spea­keth onlie of Christ and his disci­ples their blessing of Children, ma­keth no mention of any signing them with the signe of the Crosse, but onlie of blessing them. And so are alleadged unto no purpose.

As for Fathers, he setteth downe none of their words, Therfore wee passe by thē, yet with this answer, that none of them proves his point.

52 THat the publick service of the Church ought to be said [Page 340] a language that al the people may un­stand.

VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Luke 1. 8. where it is said, That Zacharte was burning in­cense in the temple, & the whole people were praying without where (sayeth he) hee being within and the people without, then how did they understand him? To which I answer 1. There is no word of his speaking words, to be understood, but of burning incense (for he was strickē dumb.) 2. He being within, and the people without, it was not marvell that they did not understand, in what language he had spokē. wheras the question is. Whither that divine ser­vice which is performed in the sight & audience of the people, & which should be to edification (according to 1. Cor. 14.) should be in a language unknown to the people, which is against the A­postles [Page 341] directiō, for saith Cajetā on that place, out of this doctrine of Paul it is gathered [sayeth he) That it is better for edifying of the Church, that publick prayers which are said in the peoples hearing, be said in the vulgar tongue known to the people & Clergie, nor in latine, or an unknowē language. And that this was the practise of the primtive Church. Aquinas on 1. cor. 14. granteth, as also saith their own Lyra. In the primitive church thanks­givings, and all other common service was performed (sayth he) in the vul­gar tongue.

The second place is Levit. 16. 17. wher it is said, That there shall be no man in the tabernicle of the Congre­gation, when he goeth in to make an at­toniment in the holie place, till he (to wit the High-priest) come out again. Which maketh no more to prove that publick divine service before [Page 342] the people should be done in an un­knowne tongue to them, then it proveth Rome to be in Ʋtopia. For 1. This place speaketh onlie of the High-priests entrie into the most holie place with blood to make at­toniment, once onlie a yeare, which was an action betweene God and him, and no mention of speech in whatsoever language. 2. Which was to be performed in that place, when ther should be no man in the Tabernacle of the Congregation, and therefore private, without any assistance, or presence of any who might either heare or see him. 3. This was a jewish and typicall ser­vice abrogat, frō whence to draw this consequence. Ergo the publick service of the Church under the gospell ought to be said now in a language that people understands not, is as coherent as fire and y [...]e, [Page 334] or followeth aswell in Logick, as to say, that the Authour of this Touch-stone is an Animal. Ergo, Bos cornutus.

You may see likewise how impu­dent and ignorant this man is, to alleadge (as he doth in his preface, and whole Tenour of this Touch-stone) To convince us, that our doctrine is against the expresse words of our own Bible, whereas let any indifferent man judge (beside a number of the like impertinencies) if these two alleadged places of Luke 1. 8. and Levit. 16. 17. be contradicted any wise by this our assertion. That the publick service of the Church ought to be said in a language which all the people may understand.