Answer to a Popish Pamphlet Called the Touchstone of the Reformed Gospel

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

THis assertion of our's (as he calleth it) is contrary (saith he) to the express words of our own Bible, which he nameth thereafter. To whom I answer 1. In general, that he beginneth with a gross cal • mny, affirming that to be our assertion which is not, for we deny not to be in the Church an infallable rule of faith, or for understanding the Scriptures, and conserving unity in the matters of faith, as our Confession of faith showeth, anno 1581. art. 18. but affirmeth this rule of faith to be the Scripture itself, which is therefore called the Canon or rule of Scripture, & that the right understanding thereof in all matters of faith is to be had frō the scripture itself, and that analogy of faith clearly set down therein or deryved therefra. as Pope Clement speaketh (dist. 37. cap. 14.) saying that we should, Ex ipsis Scriptures sense • m capere veritatis, that is, Take the meaning of the Truth out of the Scriptures themselves, which he calleth there, integram & firmam regulam veritatis, or, The full and firm rule of Truth.

Next for answer to him in particular, he adduceth four 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 Prophesy according to the proportion of faith. the second is, Phil. 3. 16, which saith, Nevertheless whereunto we have already attained, let us mind the same thing. the third is, Gal. 6. 16. which saith, And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them & mercy. the fourth is, 1. Cor. 11. 16. which saith, We have no such custom nor the Churches of God. The First, proving only (as their own Estius Professor at Duay showeth) that all the doctrine of Teachers should be squared according to the rule and analogy of faith, which we also maintain and is contained in Scripture, the second (as the same Estius showeth) exhorteth only to Christian Unity and concord, The third (as the same Estius likewise out of Chrysostom and Theophylact proveth) that the Apostle speaketh not there of the rule of doctrine, but of life, which verse 15. he calleth the new creature, or holiness, to which he exhorteth them, and as to that which he subjoineth 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 only of his Apostolical mission and jurisdiction, which was to the Gentiles, of whom the Corinthians were a part, as PETER was to the Jews specially, and as we see Gal. 2. 7. And the fourth (as Estius also showeth) speaketh only that the custom of the Church is not to be contentious.

As for the testimonies of Fathers which he bringeth here, and alongst this whole Pamphlet, First, I may answer to them in general, not in my words, but in their own Gabriel Biels on the Canon of the Mass lect. 41. saying, Their authority cōpelleth no mā to assent to their sayings, except (saith he) they be grounded on holy Scripture & divine reveltion. Therefore before this be manifest, it is lawful to control their sayings, (saith he) and to be of a contrary judgment, wherefore, saith S. Jerome, If I say anything which I shall not prove by one of the two Testaments, let me not be believed. (no word then of traditions) and S. Augustine (saith he) in his 8. Epistle to Jerome speaketh thus, saying, This honor is only to be given to the holy canonick Scriptures, that whatsoever they say, therefore it must be believed to be true, but as for others, I read them only upon this condition, that however famous the • be for holiness or learning, I think it not true therefore, because they have thought so, until I be otherwise persuaded by canonick Scriptures or probable reasons that they have not erred from the Truth. and which is more (saith he) we see that one holy father sometimes contradicteth another, as holy Cyprian contradicteth Augustine concerning the rebaptising of Heretics & Scismaticks, as likewise he contradicteth Jerome concerning Paul's reprehending of Peter, and so of many other like examples I might speak (saith he.) These are all their own B • e • s words, and what little reckoning Jesuits make of Fathers or their exposition of Scripture when they disagree with them, and jump with those whom they call Calvinists, I will show by this one instance, Maldonado. on John. 6. 62. bringeth Augustine's exposition of that place, (which is also Beda and Ruperts exposition) and with it another exposition whereof he saith, He will not deny that he hath no other man as Author thereof, but yet (saith he) I will rather approve it than Augustine's 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 particular to Vincentius Lyrinensis words which he bringeth, saying, That the line of Prophetical & Apostolical expositiō should be directed according to the rule of the Ecclesiastical & Catholic sense, but he forgets the words of that ancient Author, both before and after cap. 2. & 35. where he saith before these words. That the Scripture is a perfect rule, full, and more than sufficient for decision of all controversies in points of faith, with which therefore all Ecclesiastical and Catholic sense must agree, and that only must be held which hath been believed ever, everywhere, and by all. And so this testimony maketh nothing against us, and to which rule and words of Vincentius if we will apply the points of Popery, as I have shown by five particulars in answer to the Preface, we shall find them quite contrary and disagreeable, yea, and to be only mere novelties.

And albeit with Vincenti{us}, Bellar. (lib. 4. de verbo c. 7. §. ad hunc.) as also the Jesuit S • lmeron in 1. Johan. 3. disp. 25. §. 30) affirm That whē he Fathers all of thē, or almost all agree in one judge-meant, or in the exposition of any place of the scripture, that then they gi • e a sure and inevitable argument of Catholic verity and of a sure and sound exposition of Scripture, yet according to this rule, let trial be (beside the former five) but in this one point of popery, to wit, The Virgin Mari's conception without sin (decreed in the Council of Trent, decreto 5. Sess. 5.) whether it be of Catholic verity or not, and (I hope) it shall be found but a lurd error and a blafphemous novelty. And that they go close and cross against the unanimous expositiō of Scripture which all the Fathers give and agree therein. For example Rom. 5. 12. It is said of Adam. In whō all have sinned. from which text all the holy fathers with one mouth (saith their Bishop Cano loc. theol. lib. 7. cap. 1. affirmeth the blessed virgin to have been conceived in original sin, of whom he citeth 18. & their words in particular, The like doth Cardinal cajetan in his treatise concerning this matter which he wrote to Pope Ieo the tenth ( • om. 2. opusc. tract. 1. cap. 5.) The like also doeth the master of sentences witness, lib. 3. dist. 3. saying, It may be truly said, & we must believe according to the unanimous testimonies of the holy fathers, that the flesh which Christ took was formerly subject to sin, 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 only being excepted, of all others that have been borne of Adam, it may be said, which humbly and truly (saith he) David saith of himself, I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me, and therefore in the same place he calleth the feast of her conception without sin, a presumptious novelty, the mother of rashness, the sister of superstition, and daughter of inconstancy. & whosoever denieth that all others without exception, (except Christ) are conceived in sin, he is found (saith Augustine lib. 5. con • . Julian. cap. 9.) to be a detestable heretic, because herby (as Salmeron testifies in Rom. 5. disp. 49.) Aquinas saith, that this were to equal the virgin Mary with Christ himself.

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

Yet for all this (saith Bellarmine cōtradicting himself, lib. 4. de amissa gratia cap. 15. §. ab hac) seeing the Council of Trent hath decreed the contrary, as likewise Pope Sextus 4. and Pius 5. they are not to be accounted catholicks that esteems this an error, and consequently all the ancient fathers, are not to be accounted Catholics, nor Cardinal Cajetan, bishop Cano nor there master of sentences, and canonized Aquinas, and many more besides.

We 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 saith the Jesuit Valentia, in the last chapter of the 5. book 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 speaks Cardinal Cajetan in the beginning of his comentars on Genesis, as also Baronius tom. 1. annal. 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 Cardinal Cusanus words testyfie (epist. 2. ad Bohemos pag. 833. and 838.) who saith, That one time the Church iuterprets the Scripture one way, and at another time another way, and that the understanding of the scripture, must follow her practice, & when she changeth her judgment, God also changeth his, then which, I know not what can be grearer blasphemy.

Next, for answer to that testimony which he brings out of Tertullian, where he saith, we admit not our Adversaries to dispute out of scripture, till thy can show who their ancessors were, and from whom they received th • scriptures. These words of Tertullian makes no ways 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 fear that woe which is allotted to such as add or take away. but he showeth only, that Apostolical 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 claim to them, which heretics who dissented from these scriptures and apostolical churches of these primitive times could not do.

As for Irenaeus, whom only he citeth, but not his words, he hath nothing in that place that favoreth tradition, as an unwritten rule of faith, for so he should not agree with himself, who saith lib. 3. cap. 2. that these things which are to be shown in the scriptures, cannot 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 mind, I have shown out of the for • cited testimony, concerning Hermogenes, and who in that same 22. Chapter. saith, that he adoreth the fullness of scripture.

Chrysostom also, hom. 3. in. 2. cor. calls it a most exact rule and balance, which it could not be, if either it wer A partial rule only (as Bellarmine calleth it) or that tradition were the rule of faith.

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

Yea Bellarmine himself (lib. 1. de verbo, cap. 2.) having shown that the rule of our faith should have these two properties first, that it should be most sure (which tradition cannot be, luke 1. 4. (2. pet▪ 1. 19.) and 2. most known, he concludeth, that the scripture is the most sure and best known rule both of faith and manners.

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

Basel also hom. 13. in Genesis saith, thes things which may seem to be ambiguous and obscure in some places of the holy scripture, must be explained by these which elsewhere are more plain and manifest.

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

2 THat in matters of faith we must not rely on the judge-meant of the Church or her Pastors.

WHich he saith is contrary to Math. 23. 2. Where the jewish people are commanded by Christ, To observe all whatsoever the Scribes and Pharisees did bidd thē observe, not only (saith he) in some principal matters, but in all whatsoever without distinction or limitation. For answer to whom, I cannot admire enough the man's impudency or ignorance, seeing First, our Savior 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 Author of the ordinary gloss (with whom agreeth Lyra) on Deut. 17. 10 saith, 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 Frier and Preacher at Mainz. on this place speaketh thus, Christ would not that they should receive all the doctrines of the Pharisees (saith he) but so far only as they agreed with God's Law, else they should have admitted all the false glosses which our Savior refuteth, Math. 5. from verse 21. to the end. To this also agreeth the Jesuit Maldonado upon this place, And that Christ spake not of their own doctrine, but of Moses doctrine and the Law which they were to deliver. The publication only being theirs, but the doctrine the Lord's; as we see Math. 28. 19.

The next place which he bringeth is Luke 10. 16. where our Savior saith to his Apostles, He that heareth you heareth me. To which my former answer may suffice. Therefore also saith Ferus, It is hereby evident that the Apostles, themselves, were to be heard in so far only as they were Apostles, that is. Did Christ's message, and preached and taught what he commanded them, but if they should teach otherwise, or any doctrine contrary to Christ's, then they were not Apostles, but seducers (saith he) and therefore not to be heard.

His third place is Math. 16. 19. where our Savior saith to Peter, What soever thou shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, &c. giving us to understand (saith he) that not only the bands of sins, but all other knots & difficulties in matters of faith are to be loosed by S. Peter and his successors. To whom I answer 1. Their own Cardinal 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 Peter, whatsoever thou shall bind on earth, &c. was it not said also to all the rest, whatsoever ye bind on earth, & • . (saith he) whence it will follow that all knots and difficulties in matters of faith are to be loosed by the successors of all the rest of the Apostles wheresoever, as well as by S. Peter's pretended successors. Next if by loosing the solving of all doubts and difficulties in matters of faith be 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 affirm. And which when Peter's successors doth on earth, God must also do the same in heaven. As Cardinal Cusanus saith Epist. 2. ad Bohemos, p, 838. That when the Church changeth her judgment, God also changeth his. Which is open blasphemy.

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

WHich saith he is contrary to the express words of 2. Pet. 3. 16. Where Peter speaking of Paul's Epistles, saith In which are some things hard to be understood. To which I answer. 1. That by saying some things ar hard to be understood, it followeth, that the rest (which is the greater part) are not hard but easy to be understood, For the exception of some only, cleareth the rest from obscurity, therefore from the greater part of the Scripture easy to be understood which concern faith & manners necessary to salvation, we rather conclude the plainness of Scripture • & that people should read the same, then because some things are hard to be understood, to put obscurity upon the whole Scripture, and therefore to debar people frō reading thereof. Cheiflie seeing not only Augustine lib. 2. de doctr. Christ. cap. 9. But Bellarmine also consenting to Augustine's words, lib. 4. de verbo cap. 11. §. ultimo testifieth, That all doctrines which are simply necessary for all men to salvation are plainly set down in scripture, where upon (speaking to the people in his 55. sermon. de tempore, he saith, Neither let it suffice you that ye hear the holy Scriptures read in the Church, but also in your own houses either read thē yourselves, or desire others to read them. And so likewise saith Chrysostom con. 32. de Lazaro & hom. 2. in Math.

The next place which he brings is Act. 8. 30. where Philip saith to the Eunuch. Understandeth thou what thou readeth? who said how can I without a guide? Whereunto I answer, 1. This place was a prophecy, and such are hard to be understood, till they be fulfilled, and the Eunuch was a Proselyte and a Novice only in religion, therefore from one place which was prophetical and dark to a Novice in religion, to conclude that the Scriptures in whole are dark & obscure, and therefore not to be read by people, is an absurd consequence. Yea this place rather maketh against papists, seeing the Eunuchs practice here was reading of the Scripture, which Philip did not reprehend in him (as popish Priests would have done) but only explaineth unto him the Prophesy, of whom it was meaned, and that it was▪ fulfilled by Christ's suffering, and so maketh him thereby to be a Christian convert, the occasion of which benefit, the reading of the Scripture did afford unto him. Wherupon saith their own Carthusian, Great was the care of that Heathen man (saith he) and his diligence condemneth our negligence in learning holy Scriptures. Therefore also Chrysostom giveth this directiō to people in reading holy scriptures, saying, (in his 10. homily on John.) That which is easy to be understood get by heart, and these things that are obscure, read 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 all things concerning himself. To which I answer, that this maketh nothing against people's reading of scripture, commanded by Christ himselse, John 5. 39. enjoined by the Apostle, Eph. 6. 17. Coloss. 3. 16. and for which Timothy was commended, 2. Tim. 3 15. That from a child he had known the scriptures, but only showeth that hard places specially, such as prophecies, are to be expouned to people, as Christ did here to his disciples, & as the former place Act. 8. 30. and that speech of Chrysostom showeth.

The fourth place which he adduceth is, Revel. 5. 1. concerning the sealed book which none was able to open, and which this pamphleter would have to be the book of scripture. whereunto I will only answer in the Jesuit Ribera's words on that place, saying, The prophecy of these things which shall fall out in the last times is here only meaned, as Andrew Archbishope of Cesarea expoundeth it (saith he) & proveth that hereby the book of the scripture cannot be meaned, because evē then John 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 book the scripture were understood. then it would follow (saith he) that the rery Apostles upon whom the holy ghost descended, in their time understood not the scripture, but it was sealed even to Peter and Paul, and to the rest who died before this revelation was made unto John. which were absurd to say.

But I cannot but marvel that he should bring so manyplaces of scripture to prove that people should not be permitted to read the scripture because of the obscurity thereof, seeing that their late and famous Bishope Espenseus, on Titus, 2. testifieth, that the with-holding of the scripture from the people was neither in the Apostles times, or agreeable to their doctrine, nor yet was it in the time of the primitive Church. his words are these.

It is manifest (saith he) by the doctrine of the Apostle, Col. 3. 16. and by the practice 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 speech at all to his point or purpose, nor tells he in what book of Origen. any such thing is to be found, and as to Ambrose testimony which calleth the scripture a sea, and depth of prophetical riddles, I answer, that no man denieth but that (as Gregory, also speaketh in his epistle to Leander) it is as a sea, and deep wherein an Elephant may swime, as also so shallow wherein a Lamb (saith he) may wade. containing both high mysteries, for exercising the most learned, as also most easy instructions, (as David speaketh psal. 119. 130) To give understanding to the simple. Next, to Augustine's testimony, where he saith, that the things in scripture which he knew not, were much more then these which he knew, I answer, that this showeth only 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 people's reading of scripture, whereunto so earnestly he exhorts them, Serm. 55. de tempore, and as for Gregory we differ no ways from him in the place forecited.

As for S. Dennis testimony (as he calleth him) where he saith, that the matter of the scriptures was far more profound, then his wit could reach unto, I answer, that by nature it is true of all, except (as David prays psal. 119. 18.) The Lord open men's eyes that they may understand the wonders of his Law, But this proveth not that therefore the scriptures are not to be read. or are everywhere obscure.

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

WHich he saith is expressly contrary to 2. Thess. 21. 5. where the Apostle biddeth them, Hold fast the traditions which they had been taught, whether by word or Epistle. and which traditions by word, he saith are of equal authority with what was written, if not more, because first named.

I answer, 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 verbal tradition, but he speaketh of the same doctrines diverslie only 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 grievous, but for you it is safe, which Bellarmine also confirmeth, (lib. 4. de verbo cap. 11.) while he grants, That all things, were written by the Apostles which they preached to the people, or which was necessar (saith 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 doctrinal traditions are not necessary to salvation, for of such only is the question, and not of any other sort of traditions, ritual, historical, 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 which they received of him, to which I answer, that Cardinal 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 therefore 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 (saith their Estius) that the Apostle speaketh in general of the institution of a Christian life, The derection whereof no man can say but is set down in scripture.

The third place which he bringeth is, 1. Cor. 11. 2. where the Apostle praiseth them that they keeped the traditions which he had delivered them, whereunto I answer, that in that text, there is not a word of tradition, but as their own vulgare and Reims Translation hath, is, that they keeped his Precepts, where the deceatfulnes of this Pāpleter is to be noted, that to seduce the simple when he pleaseth, he departeth from the vulgare Translation, which at other times he so magnifieth as only authentic, and doeth idolize.

As for the testimony which he bringeth out of Basil, where he saith, Some things we have frō scripture other things from the Apostles, both which have alike force unto godlinessis. I answer. First, that the most learned except against this Book as corrupted, as B. Andrew's showeth (opose▪ con • . Peron p. 9.) 2. he speaketh of these that were received frō the Apostles and not of such as the Romanists thenselves acknowledge not to have ben taught by the Apostles, neither by word nor write, as the invocatiō of saints is confessed to be by their own Ecks{us}, 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 & decency in celebration of holy mysteries, according to that general rule 1. Cor. 14. 40. & the Apostles speech, cap. 11. 34. where he saith, The rest I will set in order whē I come, whereby he understandeth (saith Esti{us}) such things as belong to a worthy, honest, and orderlie celebratiō of holy mysteries, & so speaketh also Lombard, Aquinas, Cajetan, and the Jesuit A lapide.

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

WHich he saith is contrary to 1. Cor. 11. 8. Wher the Apostle speaking of the diversity of gifts, saith, That to another is given the gift of prophecy or interpretation of scripture, as also which is contrary to 2. Pet. 1. 20. where its said, That no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation, as also is contrary to 1. John 4. 1. where the Apostle biddeth Try the spirits whether they be of God.

For answer to whom, 1. We disclaim any such Assertion as the harmony of confessions witnesseth, and ours in particular 1581. art. 20. And so the places which he adduceth maketh no wise against us. For we put a distinction between a private man & a private spirit, and of a private man we say, that sometimes such a mā may have more knowledge of the true meaning of scripture, that public persons, as ignorant Bishops, such as their own Stella (on Luke 6. p. 184) telleth wer at the late Council of Trent, yea, then Popes themselves who pretend infallibility, of whom their own Alfonsus à Castro speaketh thus (lib. 1. adv. heres. cap. 4.) Seeing it is certain that many of them were so unlearned (saith he) that they were altogether ignorant of the grāmer, how could thy then interpret Scripture? (saith he) But we say, that such knowledge private men have not from their own private spirit, but from the spirit of God speaking in his word, comparing Scripture with Scripture, & obscurer places with plainer, and with David psal. 119. • 8. using prayer for illumination, and such other means as conduce to that end, and that this is not only our doctrine, but the doctrine also of most famous Romanists, we may see in Panormitan, (cap. Significasti, de electione) and in Gerson, (parte 1. de examinatione doctrinarum.) who say, That one private man's opinion is to be preferred, even to the Popes & a whole Council, if that private man be moved by better authority of the old & New Testament, the practice whereof Gratian showeth (36. q. 2. c. ultimo) That Jerome by authority of the scripture withstood a whole Council, and had his judgment preferred before them, as Paphuntius also had done before in the Council of Nice in the matter of Priests marriage.

6. THat Peter's Faith failled.

WHich is contrary (saith he) to Luke 22. 32. where Christ saith to PETER, I prayed for thee, that thy faith faill not. To whom I answer first, That we hold no such Assertion contrary to this Text, which speaketh of Peters own particular saving grace of faith, which never failed, and not of his infallibility of professiō, wherein he failed when after this he denied his Master. 2. If he would have Peters infallibility to be grounded on these words, There is no doubt (saith their own 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 universal Church, as Bellarmine acknowledgeth (lib. 4. de pont. cap. 3.) and therefore it inferreth no more infallibility of Peter in particular, than it doth of the whole Church in general, and the members thereof. And giving that it inferreth only Peters infallibility, who was an Apostle and Penman of scripture, yet it infers nothing of the popes infallibility as his pretended Successor, this being personal to him, but not transmitted to others.

His next Testimony that he bringeth is Math. 16. 18. where our Savior saith, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church. To which I shall answer in their own Cardinal Cusanus words (lib. 2. de concord. Cath. cap. 13. whō Ferus also on this place followeth, and both of thē the stream of ancient Fathers) who speaketh thus, Tho it was said to Peter, upon this rock I will build my Church yet by the rock (saith he) we 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. Jerome) groundstones (saith he?)

His third place of scripture which he bringeth is, Math. 23. 2. to which I have already answered in the second Assertion, but cannot pass by this, that he matcheth the Pope sitting in Peters Chair, with the Scribes and Pharisees Christ's greatest enemies, sitting in Moses Chair, and indeed herein they fitly agree.

The last place which he bringeth is, John 11. 49. where speaking of Caiaphas words, it is said, That he spake not this of himself, but being High Priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the Nation, which (he saith) the High Priest spake-truly-speaking out of Moses Chair, which Christ commanded to be heard and obeyed, touching matters of faith. To whom I answer first, That his alleged speaking truly in this point, cannot be attribute to the Chair of Moses, nor to him as High Priest who sat therein, for then he had not erred so groslie there-after in it, when he pronounced Christ to be a blasphemer. But 2. Cardinal Tolet answers for us clearly, saying, Remarke that Caiaphas sentence in that sense, which he conceived it, was both wicked and false. False, because it was neither lawful nor expedient to kill an innocent mā for the temporal safety of a Republic, And Wiked, because it was against justice to kill an innocent, thersore Caiaphas (saith he) sinned most grievouslie therein, and all who consented with him. Let any then consider how this maketh for the Popes infallibility.

7 THat the Church can err, and hath erred.

WHich he saith is expressly contrary to Isai. 59. 21. To which before I answer, I will state the question, and show what is truly to be held of the Churches infallibility, to wit, as their own Cardinal Turrecremata in his summa de Ecclesia lib. 2. cap. 91. declareth, saying, That the Church cannot err, 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 have true faith which worketh by charity, and who holdeth the true profession thereof. As were the 7000. in Israel who had not bowed their knee to Baal, and the few orthodox, when (as Lyrnensis speakeh) The whole world groaned and wondered that it was become Arian. But when the papists speak of the Churches infallibility, they understand not the universal church, but the Roman and western part thereof. Next they distinguish the Roman Church into the Collective Church, which is the whole number of Teachers and professors. And into the Representative, which is, Bishops and others assembled in a general Council. And thirdlie, into the Virtuall Church, which they call the Pope, and to whom only in end they ascribe infallibility, as Bellarmine 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 answer to them generally, that none of them proveth the Popes infallibility, to whom only they ascribe the same, 2. I answer to Isai. 59. 21 that saith, As for me, this is my Covenant with them (saith the Lord) my spirit that is upon thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall 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 forever▪ 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 therein 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 answer serveth also for John 14. 16. 17. where Christ promiseth 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 only in the Elect likewise.

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

The fourth place is, Ephes. 5. 27. where it is said, That he might present to himself a glorious Church without spot or wrinkle. Whereunto I answer. That their late Estius out of Augustine showeth that the Apostle speaketh, not of th • Church Militant, but Triumphant, and as she shall be after the blessed Resurrection, and this is also the exposition of Jerome lib. 3. dial. cont. Pelag. as also of Primasius & Thomas. (saith he.)

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 herein a little more, seeing it concerneth the whole Fabric of popery, and is the basis whereon it standeth, being that rock whereon the Church is built, as Bellarmine teacheth (lib. 4. de pont. cap. 2. & 3.) And will batter the same with four arguments furnished by thenselves unto us. Wherof the First is, That this very question itself amongst Romanists. Whether the Pope may be deposed for heresy, presupposeth that he may be an Heretic, and that he may be deposed for heresy, Bellarmine granteth (lib. 2. de pont. cap. 30. §. 5.) saying, We cannot deny, but that Pope Adrian with his Council at Rome yea, with the whole eight general Council, thought that the Pope for Heresy might be judged, add this also that the estate of the Church, (saith he) should be miserable, if it should be forced to acknowledge him for their Pastor, who were a ravening Wolf 2. Howsoever it is now the most common opinion that the pope cannot err, yet, it is confessed that many Roman Catholic Doctors of great note, do maintain the contrary, to wit, that he may err not only personallie, but also as Pope and judiciallie, which (as Bellarmine confesseth lib. 4. de pont. cap. 2.) was not only the opinion of Nile, Gerson, Almain, and the Doctors of Paris, but also of Pope Adrian the 6. & Alfonsus à Castro. To whom he might have added the Councils of Constance and Basil, also Ockam, Michael Cesenas, Cardinal Cameracensis, and Cusanus, Waldensis, Picus Mirandula, Lyra, Cano, Erasmus & their late Stella, with all others who mantaine that the Council is above the Pope. These two assertions then being directly contradictory, that the Pope cannot err, & that the Pope (even as Pope) may err, and this last being maintained by famous Doctors and Councils of the Roma • Church, (as said is) we may not only see what there bragged of unity is, but also that papists have no sure ground of their faith at all, who build upon the Popes infallibility, so much controverted amongst themselves, and as yet in question.

3. It is manifest that the Popes have foullie erred de facto, & been Heretics, therefore it followeth, that they may err, and so are not infallible. And that they have erred and been Heretics, is witnessed by most famous Romanists, for it is manifest (saith Alfonsus à Castro (lib. 1. cont. heres. cap. 4.) That Pope Liberius was an Arian, & Anastasius the second a Nestorian, so likewise doth Cano testify (Loc. Theol. lib. 6. cap. 8.) that Honorius was a Monothelite, and by the sixth and seventh general Councils condemned as an Heretics, and their late Didacus Stella on Luke 22. 30. showeth that many Popes have been gross Heretics and Idolaters, as Marcellinus (saith he) who sacrificed to Idols. Liberius who was an Arian (as Platina and Bellarmine also witnesseth, lib. 4. de pont. cap. 9) and Anastasius the 2. who for the crime of Heresy (saith he) was rejected of the Church, and many others who persisted not in the Catholic faith, but were against the same. Wherefore (saith their own Lyra) on Math. 16.) It is evident that the Churches stability consisteth not on men, either in regard of their ecclestiasticall dignity, or secular, seeing many Princes and Popes too, have been found to have made Apostafie from the faith.

4. Out of their own grounds I argue against the Popes infallibility thus. 1. If he have any such infallibiliitie, he hath it as he is Bishope of Rome, and consequently Peters alleged successor. 2. He cannot be Bishope of Rome, but he must be in holy orders. 3. He cannot receive orders (which papists call a sacrament) but from him, who hath power to ordain or give orders, upon which grounds that are granted, I reason thus, in respect That the validity 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 been infallible, because he cannot be so, except he be in holy orders from one that had power to give them, and that he that had that power, had also an intention to give thē, (whose intention (saith Bellar.) none can know, and consequently à primo ad ultimum, none can know whether such a Pope be truly Pope or no, & by a second consequence, whether he be infallible or no, according to the pretended privilege as he is Peters successor. And so upō what an unsure & sandy foundation papists build their faith, and consequently their salvation, let any man judge. But I cannot admire enough Bellarmins impudency that saith (lib. 4. de pont. cap. 2.) That all Catholics agree in this, that if the Pope alone, or with a particular Council discern in anything that is doubtful, whether he err, or not, yet he is obedientlie to be heard by all the faithful (saith he.)

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 hath ben at anytime invisible, but in it we say that the true and sincere professors may be sometimes brought to that estate. as the 7000. were in Israel who bowed not to Baal, and as the sound and persecuted Orthodox Christians were, by that prevalent faction of Arians, who then usurped the title of the only true Church, altho they were only but a prevailling faction therein.

But this Pamphleter contendeth for a constant and conspicuous visibility to all, of the Church of true and • ound professors, like a City on a hill, &c. by these Texts following.

1. Math. 5. 14. Where our Savior compareth his disciples to a City on a hill, &c. To whom I answer shortly, that this is meaned of the Apostles, (who as their own Jansen as also Maldonado expoundeth) were a light to the World, by their preaching and holy life, Therefore saith Maldonado, That by these three similituds of salt, a light, and a city, our Savior would declare one and the same thing, to wit, how far beyond other common Christians his Apostles and their successors should eminentlie shine in life and doctrine, and so doeth Chrysostom, Theophylact Lyra, Ferus, and Carthusian expound this Text, and not of any constant & conspicuous visibility of the Church to all.

The second place which he bringeth is Math. 18. 17. (tell the Church) to which I answer, that Origen, Chrysostom and Hilary on this place showeth, that a particular Church, and the Rulers thereof are meaned (as hath been said) which is indeed visible to it own members, specially in time 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 itself under Antichrist, that the faithful shall lurk and have their communion amongst themselves only in private, & so to have no conspicuous visibility to all, & whence it followeth that what may be 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 saith. If our Gospel be hid, it is to them that are lost. To which I answer, that there is no word here of a Church or of persons, but of the gospel itself, which being preached to any, if it be not believed, is said to be hid from misbelievers, as is said in the words following, Whose minds the god of this world hath blinded, that they should not belie • e, as the Lord threateneth Isai 6. 9. which is the exposition both of Aquinas, Cardinal Cajetan, and their Bishope Catharinus, with their late Estius.

The last place which he brings, is Isai. 2. 2. where it is said, That in the last days the mountain of the Lord's 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 answer, that this is a Prophecy only of the calling of the gentiles to the faith of the gospel by the Ministry of the Apostles, and showeth how firmlie the Christian Church should be built, and be of greater eminency and amplitude beyond the jewish church, in respect also of universality, clearer light, and dispensation of grace▪ which is the exposition of their own Lyra, Procopius, Pintus, and Perusin on this place. And not that they prove there by a constant and conspicuous visibility of the Church to all.

As for the testimonies of Fathers which he adduceth, they nowise prove the point, the first whereof is Origen's, saying, That the Church is full of light, which showeth only that (as she is described, Revel. 12. 1.) she is glorious by the light of the truth, which she holdeth forth in profession, and therefore he subjoineth this reason, seeing she is the pillar and ground of truth (saith he.)

2 He bringeth a testimony of Chrysostom, where it is said, That it is easier for the sun to be extinguished, then for the Church to be darkened, which testimony receiveth the same answer with the former. For no more can the Church lose the light of the truth, than the sun can lose his light, though sometimes he may be eclipsed, or by a thick mist or cloudy day he may be unseen to some.

3. He bringeth a testimony out of Augustine, who saith That he is blind that seeth not so great a mountain. To which I answer, that he speaketh not there of a constant and conspicuous visibility of the true Church to all, and at all times, but only of the visible condition of the Church which was at that time, disputing against the Donatists who affirmed that the Church was nowhere but amongst them in Africa: whereas on the contrary, he saith that in Europe and elsewhere they may see famous and flowrishing Christian Churches, like to a mountain that may be seen, except they were blind, and yet we know that a mountain that may be seen to all that are not blind in a clear day, may in a dark night time, or dark misty day be unseen, till the sun rise or a clearing of the mist be. Therefore saith the same Augustine (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, & again in his sixth book of baptism against the Donatists, cap. 4. Somtimes like the Moon (saith he) she may be so hid and obscured, that (as in Elias time) the members thereof shall not know one of another.

9 THat the Church was not ever to remain Catholic or universal. And that the Church of Rome is not such a Church

THe first part of which Assertion we disclaim as a most unjust aspersion, as the harmony of confessions showeth, and ours in particular, 1581. art. 17. And as to the last, That the Church of Rome is not universal we justly affirm, seeing it is a plain repugnancy in the adject (as we say) to be particular or Roman, & to be Catholic or universal. as their own Cassander contradistinguisheth between 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 only speaketh of the Churchs inlargemēt under the Gospel, the first by the conversion of the Gentiles to the faith, and the second, of the Colossians in particular.

Next he bringeth, Rom. 1. 8▪ where the Apostle thanketh the Lord for them, That their faith was spoken of through the whole World. For answer whereunto, 1. This no more proveth the Church of Rome to be universal, than the like words of Paul 1. Thess▪ 1. 8▪ proveth the Church of Thessalonica to be the universal Church For as Rom. 1. 8. it is said That their faith was spoken of through the whole world: so is it said 1. Thess. 1. 8. That from them sounded out the word of the Lord, as also in every place their faith to God ward was spread abroad. And that this is the only thing which these words import, their late Esti{us} on Rom. 1. showeth.

As for testimonies of Fathers, and 1. to that of Cyprian, who writing to Cornelius saith Whilst with you there is one mind, and one • oyce, the whole Church is confessed to be Romā, I answer 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 mind, and one voice, 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 soundness of the Roman Church in Cyprians time, as a menber of the catholic church, but not that she only then was the Catholic Church. 2. Giving that these were the words of Cyprian as they are alleged, they would import only, that while the Romā Church keeped the unity of the true faith, that all other orthodox and sister Churches of these times would acknowledge themselves to be 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 Catholic Church wer held for one thing, because her communion (saith he) with the whole Catholic Church was then most evident and certain, whence it followeth, that she herself then was not the whole Catholic Church. 3. where it is said to Pope Cornelius, Whilst with you there is one mind, & one voice, that is, as long as you keep the truth and profession thereof, this speech being conditional and limited, it importeth that she might lose the same, (as she hath done) Therefore not only was she forewarned, Rom. 11. 20. Not to be high minded but fear, but also Cyprian ad Pompeium, accuseth Pope Steven who succeeded Cornelius, that he maintained the cause of Heretics against the Church of God, the Pope then and Roman Church under him, in Cyprians estimation maintaining Heretics against the Church, could not thē be accounted by him to be the Catholic Church, nor yet to be infallible.

The second testimony of Augustine's, where he saith, That they who dissent from the body of Christ, which is the Church, they are not in the Catholic Church, proveth nowise that the Romā Church is this only Catholic Church. But rather (as the words of that testimony beareth) The whole body of Christendom.

And as for Jerome’s words, That it is all one to say, the Roman faith and the Catholic faith, I have already answered, that this was because of her communion with the Catholic Church, when Rome was orthodox, and (as Isai. 1. 21) The faithful City was not become an Har▪ lot.

10. THat the Churches unity is not necessary in all points of faith.

I answer, that this is an impudent Calumnie, as the Harmonie of Confession of reformed Churches showeth, and ours in particular, of 1581. art. 16. For we maintain that a twofold unity is necessary to be in Christ's church, to wit, An unity in Truth and an unity in affection, both which we should pray for and promove, that (as the psalmist speaketh 122. 7.) peace may be within her walls and prosperity within her palaces.

And because they brag so much of unity in doctrine and all points of faith, for stopping the mouths of all Romanists ever hereafter, ut ex ungue Leonem, I will only amongst many, instance but in one or two main points of popery, that their unity is like the division of tongues which was amongst the builders of Babel,

The first is, papal Indulgences and Pardons, which are so lucrative, & dependeth on their Purgatory, wherein thus they vary. 1. Some of the old schoolmen (as Bellar. witnesseth lib. 1. de Indulg. cap. 2.) they doubt of this spiritual treasure, and Francis Mayro on 4. sent. D. 19. maketh question in particular (saith he) of the treasure of Christ's overflowing satisfactions laid up in the Church. Again, Durand. likewise (on 4. sent. D. 2.) doubteth if the satisfaction of saints belong to the treasure, but S. Thomas and Bonaventure (saith he) thinketh that both belongeth thereunto. Again this is denied by sundry ancient Divines (saith Bellarmine lib. 1. de Indulg cap. 7.) That pardons delivereth men from punishment, not only before the Church, but also before God, and very grave Authors (saith he) as Alfonsus, Durand. Paludanus, Pope Adrian, the 6. Petrus à Soto and Cardinal Cajetan hold, That pardons were never given but for enjoined penance, but Aquinas, Johannes Major, Sylvester, Dominicus a Soto, Michael medina, Ledesinius, Antonius Cordubensis, Navarrus, Panormitan, and Johannes Andreas (saith he) these maintain the contrary.

2. For the Persons that have power to give pardons, it is questioned (saith Bellarmine lib. 1. de Indulg. cap. 11.) by what law Bishops may give pardons, for some hold that they may do it by God's law (saith he) but others deny it, yea Angelus in sum • , and Bartholemus Fumus do hold that all Priests who may hear confession, may also grant pardons (saith he) and they bring for their warrant Pope Innocentius and Panormitan. but the common opinion (saith Bellarmine) is contrary to these.

3. For the persons whom they avail, thus they vary, for amongst the Catholic Doctors (saith Bellarmine lib. 1. de Indulg. cap. 14.) Ostiensis in summa and Biel on the canon of the Mass, lect. 57. have taught that pardons nowise profit the dead (and so this ma • teth soul Masses) but other Catholics (sayeh he) do hold the contrary. Again if they help the dead. Bellarmine (lib. 1. de Indulg. cap. 14.) showeth that it is controverted, whether by way of suffrage or otherwise, and that they are divyded in three opinions. Last of all (saith Bellarmine in the same place) the hardest question of all is, Whether pardons do help the dead upon any justice or condignity, or only of the mere and free favor of God and congruity, some hold the first (saith he) as Dominic{us} 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 unity, let any man judge?

The second grand point which I will instance, is Transsubstantiatiō, whereon is grounded the Idol of their Mass, and that idolatrous adoration of their Hostie, wherein (saith the Jesuit A • lapide on Isai. 7. 14.) by the words of consecration as the bread is truly and really transsubstantiat, so Christ is brought forth, and as it were begotten upon the Altar, so powerfully & efficaciouslie, as if Christ were not yet incarnate, yet by these words (this is my Body) He should be incarnate and assume an human body, therefore (saith he) the Priest is as the Virgin that bare him, the Altar is the manger, the little Emmanuell which he beareth, is Christ brought forth under the little Hostie, Than which, what can be grosser blasphemy let any man judge?

1. In this point thē let us see what is their catholic unity in the ground whereon they build this their transubstantiation. Which is commonly alleged to be express scripture, and in particular these words, Math. 26. 26. (this is my Body.) but concerning this, Gabriel Biel on the canon of the Mass, lect. 40. saith Whether Christ's Body in the Sacrament be by conversion, or without any conversion, the substance and accidents of bread still remaining, is not found expressly in the canon of the Bible. nor can it be proven by any scripture (saith bishop Fisher) cont. Captiv. Babyl. num. 8. (Cardinal Cajetan likewise affirmeth) as witnesseth Suarez tom. 3. disp. 46.) That these words of Christ are not able to prove Transubstantiation, but that they may be taken in a figurative sense, as these. 1. Cor. 10. 4. (Cajet. 3. q. 78. art. 1.) yea Cardinal Bellarmine speaketh thus. (lib. 3. de Euch. c, 23.) It is not altogether improbable, that there is no express place of scripture, which without the Churches determination, can evidently enforce a mā to admit of Transubstantiation for albeit the scripture seem to us that they may compel any that is not refractary to believe the same, yet it may be justly doubted, whether the Text be clear enough to enforce the same (saith he) seeing the most sharp witted & learned men such as Scotus was, have thought the contrary.

2. We have sundry Roman Catholics who have denied Transubstantiation upon any ground whatsoever, as, 1. Bertram a priest in his learned treatise of the Body and Blood of Christ, written to Charles the bald King of France, about the year 880. 2. Rabanus Maurus a • Abbot in his treatise of the Eucharist, which is also extant. 3. Aelfricus Archbishope of Canterbury in his saxon sermon on the sacrament or housel, (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 saith, Tho in the Sacrament we receive a divine thing, to wit, the Body & blood of Christ, yet the substance and nature of the bread and wine ceaseth not to remain (saith he) and Biel on the canon of the Mass telleth us that in his time concerning the sacrament or any conversion therein, amongst Catholics there were four opinions, whereof the first was, That the substance of bread remained still (saith he)

3. In the manner or sort of conversiō, which they pretend to be in the sacrament, Papists they vary, and disagree mightily. For, 1. Bellarmine telleth us (lib 3. de Euch. cap. 11.) that Durand. holdeth That one essential part of the bread, namlie the form is turned, but that the other part which is the matter or substance is not turned, and so did pope Innocent the 3. teach (saith Durand. Rational. Divin. lib. 4. f. 63.) but others have taught the contrary (saith Bellarmine) That the matter of the bread is turned into Christ's Body, but that the essential form remaineth, but as for Lombard their great Master of sentences, his words are these (lib. 4. sent. d. 11) If it it be asked what sort of conversion it is, whether formal or substantial, or what other sort it is, definire non sufficio (saith he) that is, I am not able to define it, and so he quyteth the matter. Biel again on the canon of the Mass, lect. 40. he saith that there are four opinions concerning this conversion. The First, That the substance of the bread remaineth still together with Christ's Body, The 2. is, That the substance of the bread remaineth not still, but after consecration becometh the body of Christ. The 3. is, That though the bread remains not, yet the accidents of bread as weight, color, & taste remaineth, and that Christ's Body begineth to be under these accidents, And the fourth opinion is contradicting all the former, That neither doeth the substance of bread remain, nor yet is it converted into Christ's body, for the absurdities that follow theron, but is annihilat, or redacted to nothing, or else resolved into that which they call materia prima. Bellarmine also in the forecited place, saith, that Abbot Rupertus maintained an opinion diverse from all the former, to wit, That the bread is personallie assumed by Christ in the same manner that the human nature was assumed by him▪ and of this also Cardinal Aliaco (in 4. sent. q 6) saith. That this is possible and more agreeable to reason and easier to be understood. But thereafter in the same place, (he positivlie saith, That the conversion of the bread (according to his judgment) into the body of Christ is successive, as the night is turned into the day, because, as after the night the day cometh, so (saith he) after the breads departing, there is Christ's Body. But Bellarmine (lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 18. §. ex his) will not have this cōversion, productive, nor successive, but adductive (as he calleth it) that is, whereby Christ's Body preexistent before this conversion in heaven, beginneth to be (saith he) under the accidents of bread where it was not before, which indeed is no conversion at all, but only a mere translocation.

Moreover (saith Bellarmine lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 5.) There hath been two opinions devysed in the Schools for unfolding the greatness of this mystery, one of Durāds (on 4. sent. d. 10.) who holdeth it probable, that the substance of the body of Christ is in the Eucharist without greatness or quantity, another is of some ancient Divines, whom Ockam followeth, who say, that there is in the sacrament the very magnitude and quantity of Christ's body, which notwithstanding they think cannot be distinguished from the substance thereof, but that all parts do so run one in another, that there is no shape in Christ's body, nor any distinction or order in the parts thereof. But the common opinion of the Schools and of the Church (saith he) is contrary 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 agreeable to a human body. Which is the eight miracle of the eleavē that Durand▪ maketh the priest daily to work in the Mass, (lib. 4. ration▪ divin. f. 63.) which miracles notwithstanding are not seen, whereas Cardinal Cameracensis (in 4. sent. q. 5.) sa • eth, I ought not to believe that he worketh any miracle (saith he) except I see the same. And indeed these are such as are foreprophecied 2. Thess. 2. 9. and are called lieing signs and wonders.

4. They agree no better in this point, to wit, Whereby did Christ produce in his last supper Transubstantiation? Concerning which, their Biel on the canon of the mass lect. 36. saith, There are four opinions. The 1. That Christ did make this conversion, not by any words which he uttered, but by his divine power without any words, and that Pope Innocent 3. was of this mind. The 2. That Christ blessed and consecrated the bread, but with a secret benediction unknown to us▪ whereby he Transsubstanti •• the bread into his Body, of which the Evangelists maketh mentiē, when they say, that he took bread and blessed it, so that hereby Christ's Body behooved to be preexistent in the sacrament by that blessing, before he said, this is my body, that so, that speech of his might be true. The 3. is, That our Savior by these words (this is my body) made that cōversion of bread into his body, but ttha be spoke these words twice, 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 Body) which be spake audiblie he made this conversion of bread into his own Body.

5. Herin again they greatly controvert, to, wit, whereby the Priest daily doth make this conversion. 1. Some say (as Durand. in his rationale divinorum lib. 4. f. 63. and Biel on the canon of the mass lect. 47. with others) That the same is by virtue which Christ hath placed and made wherent in the words themselves of (this is my Body) 2. Others say, That this conversion dependeth upon the intention of the Priest as Bellarmine saith, 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.) saith, That it dependeth upon an Angels descending from heaven to consecrate the Hostie. Whose words are these, It is called the Mass because of the coming of the heavenly Angel (saith he) to consecrate the body of Christ, according to the Priests prayer▪ saying, Omnipotent God, command that these things be carried by the hands of thy holy Angel before thy high Altar, therefore except the Angel come, it cannot be called a Mass, (saith he) seeing therefore (as Bellarmine hath told us) that it cannot be a Sacrament without the Priests intentiō, and that no man can know the intention of another (saith Bellar.) & far less be sure of an Angels coming down to comsecrate the bread, & turn it into Christ's body. I would thē on these grounds of their own, ask any papist when he adoreth the hostie, how he can be sure whether he adoreth Christ's body, or only a piece of bread, which were most gross Idolatry, as all must confess.

6. To come to the words of consecration themselves. 1 in general, next in particular, let us see how they agree herein, 1. The most common opinion is that in general they are to be taken properly, and not figuratively, but on the contrary, Bertram and the others with him forecited, as also Cardinal Cajetan (in 3. q. 78. art. 1.) holdeth that they are, and may be taken figuratiuelie and after a Sacramental manner of speech, as we see in Circumcision and the Passover, yea more, in the Popes own canon Law, (de consecra. dist. 2. c. hoc est) it is said there, That the heavenly Sacrament which truly representeth Christ's flesh, is called Christ's Body, but improperlie and not in verity of the thing (saith that place) but by a mystical signification, so that the meaning is (saith the gloss) it is called Christ's Body, that is, it is a sign of his body.

7. Next to come to the words in particular, 1. The Catholics do not agree saith Bellarm. lib. 1. de Euc • . cap. 11) in the manner of explicating, what is properly meaned by this Pronowne (hoc) or (this) in the words of consecration (this is my Body) & in this there are two famous opinions (saith he) the one that this pronowne (hoc) signifieth the Body of Christ, the other is of S. Thomas (saith he) that it signifieth not the body of Christ precis • ie, nor yet the bread (as some hold) but in common that substance (be what it will) which is under these forms, so that the meaning is, hoc, this, that is, under this, and th • se forms or accidents is my body. Neither determinating it to the bread (says Biel in can. Missae, lect. 48.) because so, this speech should be false, this bread is my Body, nor to the body of Christ, for this were absurd to say, this body is my body (saith he) as also, seeing the virtue of the words of consecration depends on the pronouncing of the last word (meum) as Biel showeth in the same place, therefore by (hoc) Christ's body cannot be understood. Again the same Biel in the place forecited, saith, that concerning this, there are diverse opinions, which he reduceth to two. 1. That by (hoc) nothing at all is demonstrate, and this Durand. also declareth, (lib. 4. rat. divin. f. 64.) 2. Some say that by (hoc) the bread is demonstrate, so that the meaning should be, this bread is my body, that is, in a Sacramental way, the sign of my body. But because this would seem (saith he) to be heretical, therefore saith Richardus de sancto victor, that it is a mixed demonstration, partly to the sense, partly to the understanding, so that the meaning is, this in which the bread (which is seen) is to be transsubstantiat, is my body (which must be believed) and so the word (is) must be expounded in the future, (shall be) & this is likewise the opiniō of Richard{us} de media villa and others, but Alexander Ales expre • sly will have by (hoc) the bread to be demonstrate, and thereafter to be transubstantiated by the words of consecration.

8. They controvert no less likewise, in the next words ( corpus meum or my body) as Gabriel Biel showeth in his 37. lecture on the canon of the Mass, Whether that body which Christ gave to his Disciples was his mortal and passable body or that which was immortal and impassible, to these who say the first, it is objected that then (saith he • it is not the same body which is now given in the sacrament which is immortal and impassible, and that the Mass is therefore called an unbloodie sacrifice, Again, in the contrary to these who hold that it was his immortal and impassible body, it is likewise objected, that, this co • ld not be, because his Body did afterward suffer and die, being yet unglorified, and therefore was mortal and passable. Therefore (saith Biel) Hugo Cardinalis being straitened 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 profess (saith he) that I will rather reverence than dispute such secrets, and in simplicity of faith. I think this sufficient, if we say, that Christ gave them such a body as pleased Him to give, because He was Omnipotent. And so leaveth the matter in doubt which of them it was, and useth a short & easy way to solve all questions.

9 In the words also that followeth (which is broken for you) as they are set down 1. Cor. 11. 24. They are again like the Midianits, Judge. 7. 22. Every man's sword against his fellow, For 1. Pope Nicolas the 2. with his Council at Rome, as we may see (decret. 3. p. d. 2 cap. 42) affirmeth, That it is Christ's Body sensuallie that is broken & torn in pieces with the teeth of the receivers, which yet (saith Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 24. §. quartum) cannot be spoken of Christ's body or flesh without great blasphēie. And which a little after that time, made that great phycisian & 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 (saith he) and I never saw a worse & more foolish • ect than that of the Christians is, because with their teeth they devour that God whō they worship, & which I may say is at this day the greatest scandell to Turks, Jews and Pagans that scarreth and debarreth them from embracing Christianity, as sir Edmund Sandys showeth in his speculum Europae p. 230. Next, their master of sentences Lombard (l. 4. dist. 12.) telleth us that this definition of the Pope and his Council is false & erroneous, seeing Christ's body is now incorruptible, immortal, and impassible, & that Christ rebuked the carnal understanding of his Disciples (saith he) who thought that his flesh was to be divyded in parts, or torn in morsels as other flesh is, therefore saith he (dist. 11.) because it is nefarious to devour Christ with our teeth, he hath recommended his flesh and blood to us in a mystery. 3. Others again (saith he) affirmeth that there is no real 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 magic tricks or Jugglers, who by delusion deceiveth men's eyes (saith he) that they seem to see, that which is not (a right comparison indeed of mass priests) 4. Others again (saith the same Lombard) affirm that by the wonderful power of God, there is a breaking there, where notwithstanding nothing is broken. (a gross contradiction) and this Durand. in his rationale divinorum. lib. 4. f. 36. maketh to be the fourth miracle of the eleven, that is daily wrought by the mass Priest, to wit, That in the Mass that which is indivisible yet is divyded, and though it be divyded, (saith he) it remaineth whole. 5. Biel also on the canon of the Mass, lect. 36. faith, that, That which Christ brake, and the Priest now breaketh, is the sacramental species, as whytnes, roundnes, but neither Christ's body, nor yet anything that is white and round. (a strange Chimera indeed.) The like saith Lombard lib. 4. d. 12. That it is neither Christ's body that is broke, nor bread (though the Apostle saith, 1. Cor. 10. 16. the bread which we break) but this fraction is of the form only and shape of the bread, sacramentallie done (saith he) which was also the opinion of Pope Innocent the 3. And so speaketh Cardinal Cameracensis in 4. q. 6. saying, That this is the common opinion, that the accidents of the bread which remain without any subject ar only that which is broken. Than which Assertion there can be no greater absurdity.

10. No less digladiation is amongst Romanists, concerning what is eaten in the sacrament, according to Christ's words, Take, Eate, For 1. (as hath been said) according to pope Nicolas judicial defyning, It is Christ's body & flesh that is eaten with the mouth and torn with the teeth, (which Bellarmine calleth blasphemous, and Lombard heretical.) But on the contrary, Alexander Ales) p. 4. 11. memb. art. 2. (as also Bonaventure) in 4. sent. d. 12. art. 3.) Affirme that the eating of Christ's body is mystical, and not oral or corporal and giveth this as a reason thereof, that whereas three things are implied in corporal eating, to wit, 1. a masticatiō or chewing with the teeth. 2. a trajection into the stomach and belly. And 3. a Conversion of the thing eaten into the substance of the eater, this last which is most essential in eating, cannot agree to the body of Christ, which is not turned into our substance, but rather in a mystical manner turneth us into itself (say they) to which they might also added that which our Savior • peaketh of that which goeth in at the mouth, that it likewise goeth out in the draught. Math. 15. 17.

Again, if a Mouse or Ratt, or any such beast happen to eat the consecrated Hostie, it is controverted what is eaten by such. 1. then in the Roman missal and cautel's of the Mass, it is affirmed that they eat Christ's body, for these ar the very words, Item •• corpus Christi a muribus vel araneis consumptum vel corrosum fuerit, &c. that is, If the body of Christ be consumed or gnawne by Myce or spiders, if these vermin 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 Lombard in the contrary{us} (lib. 4. d. 13.) saith, That Christ's body is not eaten by such beasts, though it would seem that it were, and if any will ask (saith he) What is it then which is eaten by such? he answereth very bl • ntlie, saying, Deus novit, that is, God knoweth, not he. But Durand. in his rationale divinorum. lib. 4. f. 63. telleth us that Pope Innocent the 3. resolveth the matter otherwise, and saith, That as the substance of the bread is miraculously turned into the body of Christ when it beginneth to be in the Sacrament, so doth bread miraculously return whē Christ's body ceaseth to be there, and therefore, that the mouse or any such beast eateth only 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 Gregory did laugh when she heard the Pope affirm, that to be Christ's body which she knew to be bread that herself had baken, whereupon the Pope to cōvince her of her error, by his prayer he converted the hostie visibly into a finger of flesh, & when here on she was converted, he prayed again, and turned the finger of flesh into bread again. And so here were three pretty cōversions, si credere fas ect. The first, of the Hostie into Christ's body invisiblie, the next, of the Hostie into a finger of flesh visibly, & the third, of the finger of flesh back again into bread visibly. Quis talia fando temperet. &c,

11. Here again in the other Element of the Sacrament, they contend one against another, concerning the mixture of water with the wine, & the Transsubstantiatiō of both. 1. Then Cardinal Aliac • (in 4. sent. q. 5.) telleth us that Scotus did hold That water is not simply necessary at all to be used in the sacrament, seeing there is no mention thereof in the institution, but only that it is the precept of the Church (saith he) and that the Grecian and Eastern Church useth it not to this day. But others again pleadeth the necessity of the mixture of water, and therein placeth a mystery. Next, Whether the water mixed with the wine be both converted in Christ's blood, it is controverted (saith Biel on the canon of the Mass, lect. 35.) and of this (saith he) there are three opinions. 1. That the water remaineth still in it own kind and substance, taking only the color and Taste of the wine. 2. That the wine is turned into Christ's blood, and the water into that which came out of Christ's side on the Cross, but to that it is answered (saith he) that the words of consecration extendeth not themselves to the conversion of water at all, & specially into that which came out of Christ's side, The third opinion (saith he) is, that the water is turned into wine in the mixture thereof, and then, that both together are turned into Christ's blood, and so that there 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 conditional, as also their disagrement in every other point of popery, beside the dissensions and divisions between the Scotists and Thomists, the Dominicans and Franciscans, the Sorbone and the Jesuits, and all, in weighty matters, but studying to brevity, these shall suffice, wherein I da • e challenge all the Priests and Papists in the world to instance the like amongst us, especially 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 ceremony, nor in any point of fundamental doctrine and substance, so that these Pharisee-like papists, should first take the beam out of their own eye, before they spy the mote in their neighbors, and hence-forth cease to brag of their Catholic unity, & frō all which disagrements and digladiations amongst themselves. I shall only conclude in Bellarmins own words (lib. 4. de Eccles. cap. 10. §. add.) That it is a most sure Note of false doctrine, that heretical authors agree not therein amongst themselves.

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

WHich he saith is contrary to Math. 10. 2. where Peter is first named, and therefore concludeth that he was first not only in order, but in power and jurisdiction above the rest. Which is an absurd inference, that of twelve persons of one equal function, because such an one is first named, therefore he hath authority and jurisdiction over all the rest, for so, Gal. 2. 9. where James is first named before Peter, it would follow that James had jurisdiction over Peter. Whereas all were alike in power and jurisdiction, as Cyprian (de unit. Ecclesiae.) saith, The rest of the Apostles were the self same that Peter was, endued with alike fellowship both of honor & power, And we know (saith Cardinal 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. Upon this rock I will build my Church. Which he adduced before for the Popes infallibility, and to which I have already answered in the sixth Assertion. And now he bringeth it to prove the Popes supremacy, whereas beside Cardinal Cusanus forecited words on this place, their learned Ferus saith thus, It is proper only to Christ to be called this rock, as Peter himself calleth him. 1. Pet. 2. 4. and whereby it is evident (saith he) that Christ built not his Church on Peter, or any other man, for there is no man so firm and constant, who cannot be moved, which in Peter himself we manifestly see, therefore Christ himself is that rock whereon 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 give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, Wherunto I answer, that not only all the fathers (except Origen) declareth that all the disciples received the power of the keys as well as peter (as Maldonado on this place confesseth) but also Cardinal Cusan{us} (lib. 2. concord. cath. cap. 13.) and with him Ferus and others, say, that Peter received no more power hereby from Christ, than did the others. John 20. 23.

The fourth place is, 1. Cor. 3. 4. where one saith, I am of Paul, another I am of Apollos, another I am of Cephas, another I am of Christ, where Peter is named next to Christ, ascending from the lesser (saith he) to those whom he would have esteemed greater. To whom I answer, 1. from nomination in order (as hath been 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 Paul who is named here first, is less • (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 confirm thy Brethren, that is (saith he) practice & exercise greatness & dōinion over thē. I answer, that this is a strange gloss indeed, for to confirm, is a duty of Ministration, but not a dignity of Donation, as is said Act. 15. 32. That Judas and Silas exhorted the brethren with many words and confirmed them, which is not that they excercised greatness & dominion thereby over thē, but far otherwise, as Theophylact on this place teaches (and with him Beda, Lyra, Stella, and Maldonado) Our Savior showing that Peter having after his denial gotten such mercy from God, and restoring to his dignity of Apostle-ship, he should from this experience confirm thē that were 〈…〉 of mercy and not to despair, if thorough frailty they should fall, and did there-after repent (saith he) which duty also we see David in the like case promiseth to perform. Psal. 51. 13.

The sixth place is, Luke 22. 26. where Christ saith, He that is greater amongst you let him be as the younger, which showeth (saith he) that amongst the twelve one was greater thā another even in Christ's account. To which I answer. 1. The Evangelist Matthew, cap. 20. 16. shows, that it was not, that amongst the Apostles one was greatest or chief in Christ's account, but that some would have been so, as we see in the mother of Zebedes sons petition, Math. 20. 21. Next their own Lyra Carthusian & Stella, showeth that here the Apostles wer taxed of ambition by Christ, because of the contention of some for preeminence above the rest. Which was equally forbidden to all, and not adjudged to be in the person of one. Therefore also saith Ambrose on this place, Unto all the Apostles is given one plat form of interdiction, that none of them should brag of preeminence.

The seventh place is, John 21. 15. where Christ saith to Peter Feed my sheep, that is, (saith he) govern my Church. whereunto I shall answer only in Cardinal Cusanus words (lib. 2. de concord. Cath. cap. 13.) saying, If it was spoken to Peter, feed my sheep, yet it is manifest (saith he) that this feeding was but by the word and his holy example, and that according to S. Augustine in his Commentary on these words, the same was commanded likewise to all the others, in saying, go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature, so that nothing is spoken to Peter (saith he) which importeth any other power, and therefore we conclude rightly (saith the Cardinal) that all the Apostles were equal 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.

His last place which he bringeth, is, Math 12. 25. Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and if Satan cast out Satan &c. whence he most ridiculouslie reasoneth thus, Satan hath a kingdom whereof he is chief, if then there be not only 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? (saith he) risum teneatis amici. A goodly conformity indeed! But as he would ha • e the Church to have a visible vicar head on earth, as well as a chief one in heaven▪ so he should let Satan also have a visible vicar head on earth, as well as he is the chief head in hell, and indeed we 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.

As for Testimonies of Fathers which he citeth as of Theophy lact, who calleth Peter the prince of the disciples, this importeth no more supremacy 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 whereas Eusebius calleth him, The first Bishope of Christians, this importeth only primacy in order, but no supremacy of power. As for Chrysostom his 55. Homile on Matthew, where he allegeth that he is there called, The head of the church, there is no such title there, which (as I shall show here-after) Pope Gregory calleth proud and profane. Lastly, he citeth one Euthymius a late Monk, 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 Apostolical commission, Math. 28. 19. Go teach all nations, &c. And the last is, Pope Leo's testimony, in his own behalf, calling Peter, Head and chief of the Apostles in the sense forenamed, and yet all these prove only what Peter was personallie, but nowise that the Pope is the same successivelie.

But before I leave this so pleaded for papal supremacy, I will batter this loftiest tow • e of mystical Babylon, with a battery furnished only by a Pope himself. Gregory the great, thus Bellarmine (lib. 2. de pont. cap. 31.) proveth the Popes supremacy by these two titles given to him to wit, that he is called The Head of the Church and Universal Bishop. Of the first whereof, saith Gregory (lib. 4. indict. epist. 36) It is Sa • anicall pride by any such title of Head, so to subject all Christ's members to one man which cohereth to one Head only & alone, Christ Jesus. And of the second, he saith, Any one so to mount above others, to such an hight of singularity, as that he would be under none, but he alone would be above all, (as Pope Boniface thereafter claimed Extrav. lib. 1. Tit. 8. cap. 1. (to be acknowledged by all, under pain of damnation,) It is a most proud and profane usurpation.

And lest that Gregory should seem to oppose these titles in the person of John Bishop of Constantinople, who first obtained the same from the Emperor Manriti{us} as a wrong done to him, or his sea, to whom these titles wer due. Therefore 1. he cleareth himself of this, saying to the Emperor, Epist 32. In this matter (most religious Lord) do I defend any cause of mine? or do I challenge herein any wrong done to me? No. And yet the more to clear this, he saith epist. 36. None of my Predecessors would ever consent to use such a profane 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 (saith he) was not called the universal Apostle. And in the same Epistle to Eulogi{us} B. of Alexandria, he showeth that himself would no wise accept of any such style when it was offered to him. And therefore he saith to Eulogius, Let not your Holiness in your letters style any man whosoever universal Bishope, yea morover (saith he) epist. 38. I confidently affirm, that whosoever calleth himself universal 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 (saith he) and maketh shipwreck thereof, (a sad doom against all papists) all which made Cardinal Cusan{us} to say thus. (lib. 2. de concord. Cath. cap. 13.) while we defend this, that the Pope is not universal Bishope, but only the first above others (to wit in place or primacy) in so doing we defend the truth (saith he) Thus doth a great Pope and famous Cardinal plead against papal supremacy, as much as any Protestant can do.

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

WHich is contrary (saith he) to Tim. 2. 11. where it is said, Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection, but I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, and again, 1. Cor. 14. 34. Let women hold their peace in the Churches. whereunto I answer, that none of these Texts proveth any other thing, but only the subjection of a married wife, to her husband, and that no woman whosoever should usurp the public & pastourall office of preaching, and thus do Aquinas, Lombard, Cajetan and other Romanists expound, & their late Est • {us} especially.

And as for that Religious & late Queen of happy memory, She was Supreame Governesse of the Church within her Dominions, in causes Ecclesiastical, no otherwi • e than as we read David was in every matter pertaining to God, as we see 1. Chron. 26. 32. and as Hezekiah was, 2. Chron. 29. 15. & 31▪ and Josiah 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 practice (as Uzziah 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 employed chiefly for God, as nursing Fathers and mothers to his Church, and as no scripture debarreth Princes and Magistrates frō meddling with such causes in the manner forenamed, but admitteth them to be Governors therein, so likewise doth antiquity, as we may see in the person of Constantine the first Christian Emperor, as Eusebius in his third book of his life, c. 13. reporteth, and of his carriage in the first Council of Nice, and decision of matters of faith, wh •• meddling the Emperors also • ad in such causes, Socrates likewise declareth in the p • oeme of his fifth book of ecclesiastical history. Augustine also contra Cresconium, lib. 3. cap. 51. and de Civit. Dei lib. 5. c. 24. & Athanasius in his second Apology, p. 797. Graecolat. appealing to the Emperor Constantine against the unjust proceedings of the Council of Tyre, in his behalf. As Flavianus in the like case did to the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian.

But I cannot marvel enough that this pamphleter should so touch upon a woman's government of a particular national Church, in a civil way within her Dominion, while as a crafty & vile Strumpet, named Pope John the eight did govern the whole Roman Church which they cal Catholic as Christ's vicar and head thereof, two years, a month and four days, till going in procession and surprysed by pains of child-birth, being upon the public street delivered, She thereafter died, for which cause in detestation of the fact, (as Platina the Popes Secretary & all ancient Romanist histriographers speak) No Pope ever since went that way in public procession, as Martinus, Polonus, Sigebert, Fasciculus temporum, Marianus Scotus, and many others ancient Records do testify, whom I can produce.

And as for any testimonies of Fathers which he bringeth, as Damascene's where he saith, I consent not that the Church of God be governed by Kings, and in Theodorets history, that one Eulogius said concerning the Emperor Valens commanding by his officer what did belong to a Bishop, What? was he made Bishope (saith he) that day when he was crowned Emperor? and Ignatius who commandeth all men, even the Emperor himself to be obedient to the Bishope, all these (I say) makes nothing against that which I have said before, but only against civil Princes their usurpation of what belongeth properly and only to the Ecclesiastical office and persons vested therewith, in doctrine and discipline.

And if we will look to Antiquity, we shall find that in this point, popish doctrine debarring princes or the civil Magistrate from any meddling in Ecclesiastical effaires, (as Bellar. teaches lib. 1. de clericis, c. 28. & 29.) joineth hands with the ancient heretics the Donatists, who did contend in likemanner, that the cognition, trial and meddling with Ecclesiastical effaires, belongeth nowise to the Magistrate. And therefore this was the speech of Donat{us}, Quid est Imperatori cum Ecclesia? or What hath the Emperor ado with the Church? as Optatus Milevitan{us} declareth in his third book against Parmenian, and Augustine likewise, lib. 1. contra epist. Parmeniani, c. 7. & epist. 166. Whereas the harmony of confessions of faith, and ours in particular 1581. art. 24. saith, Moreover to Kings, Princes, Rulers a • d Magistrates, we affirm that chiefly and most principally the conservation and purging of Religion appertaineth, so that not only they are appointed for civil policy, but also for maintenance of the true religion, and for supressing of idolatry and superstition, as in David, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah and others highly commended for their zeal in that case may be espied, & in our later confession 1647. cap. 23. That for the better effecting whereof, they have power to call Synods, to be present at them▪ and to provyde that whatsoever is transacted in them, be according to the mind of God.

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

WHich he saith is contrary to 2. Thess. 2. 3. where he is called, That man of sin, &c. and therefore a particular man only. Whereunto I answer in the Jesuit Ribera's words on Revel. 17. 10. That it is not unusual in Scripture, that by one man, many the like and of the same incorporation are signified, (saith he) 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 individual and one only person is signified, but the whole succession of these Kings one after another. likewise by the consent of all Romanists, that speech 2. Thess. 2. 7. where 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 individual Roman Emperor only, but of the whole succession of the old Roman Emperors then resident at Rome, in their full integrity. Yea, the papists even now, when they say, that the Pope is Christ's vicar, they mean not this or that Pope only, 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 he concludeth That Antichrist shall be one only individual man. To which I answer, that from the number of a man, 666. to argue to the singularity of a person, is a bad consequence, but by this number the Jesuit Ribera teacheth us better, that Irenaeus who lived near to the Apostles times, according to the cōputation by the greek letters, found it out, to be Lateinos or Roman, as their Church is called at this day, Ecclesia latina seu Romana, and the Pope Papa Romanus, &c.

The third place is, 1. John 2. 22. That Antichrist denieth the Father & the Son, which the Pope doeth not. Whereunto I answer 1. That the word (Antichrist) is sometimes taken generally, for all these who openly & avowedly oppose Christ and his truth, and of such the Apostle John speaketh verse 18. That even in his time there were many Antichrists. And sometimes it is taken more strictlie, as 2. Thess. 2. for that great Antichrist to come, & whereby is signified the succession of such, who under the profession of the Christian name. shall notwithstanding oppose Christ's truth, by all deceavablnesse of unrighteousness, and in deepest hypocrisy working in a mystery, and therefore is said to be herned like the lamb, but to speak like the dragon. And in this sense we say, that the Pope is Antichrist. 2. He who denieth the son, is said to deny the Father, as we see, 1. John 2. 23. Now the Son is denied either directly and in express words, or indirectlie, by consequence or in deeds (as Augustine speaketh, lib. contra Donatistas) & that this way the Pope denieth the son in the verity of his human Nature by their transubstantiation, and in all his three offices, as sole King of his Church, sole Priest and sole Prophet, by many learned divines hath been clearly proven, the Pope also claiming all these three▪ a▪ Monarch of his Church on earth, high Priest, and infallible Prophet thereof.

The fourth place which he bringeth is, 2. Thess. 2. 4. where it is said, That Antichrist shall exalt himself above all that are called gods. To which I answer, 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 practice, that the Pope exalteth himself above all such, as we may see (Extravag. lib. 1. tit. 8. cap. Unam S • nctam.) to the very making them kiss his feet, deposing them, and treading on their necks, as Alexander the third did to the Emperor Frederick, and as I have shown at large in my late Treatise Of Antichrist, painted and pointed out in his true colors.

The fifth place which he brings, is, 2. Thess. 2. 8. which saith, That our Lord Jesus shall kill him with the spirit of his mouth at his coming, which agreeth no more to the Pope he) then That Christ is come the second time. To which place I answer, 1. That this deceatfull Seducer dealeth most falsely and fraudfullie in citing these words, as if they were the words of our Bible, whereas the words of our Translation according to the original are these, Whom our Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, & destroy with the brightness of his coming, and in the Reims translation, it is thus, whom our Lord Jesus 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 lingering disease, whereby one wasteth away piece and piece. And this is by the spirit of God's mouth, whereby is signified God's Word, as we see Gal. 3. 5. 1. Tim. 4. and 1. 1 John 4. 1. And this consuming of Antichrist by this mean, by the preaching of the everlasting gospel 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 brightness, or (as the Rhemists speak) by the manifestatiō of his coming. which we hope in God also is drawing very near.

The last place which he bringeth, is John 5. 43. I am come in my Fathers name & ye receive me not, if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. To which I answer, 1. That our Savior speaketh not of Antichrist strictlie taken, and by way of eminency, as he is described by Paul, 2. Thess. 24. who was to come and appear after the dissolving of the ancient Romā Empire, but of false Prophets that were shortly after Christ's ascension to arise, to deceive the incredulous Jews, (as histories report) because they did not believe, but rejected the true Messias. And this their own Ferus declareth to be the meaning of the place, and diverse other Romanists.

2. We see that the jewish Nation only were to receive these of whō our Savior speaketh. But Antichrist (of whō the Apostle speaks 2. Thess. 2.) was to be an universal deceiver of multituds, of people's, of nations and tongues, which (Revel. 17. 15.) are called the waters whereon the Whoore sitteth, and whereunto the papal title of Universal Bishop doth therefore properly agree.

14. THat none but God cā forgive sins.

WHich he saith is contrary to John 20. 23. where it is said, Whose sins ye forgive are forgiven them, and Math. 9. 8. where it is said, When the multitude saw it, they marvelled & glorified God which had given such power to men. To which I answer, that this place of John, proveth only a Ministerial power given by Christ to his Apostles and their successors, which we deny not, and which his own words also on Math. 9. 8. doth only grant unto them, saying, Which though they (to wit the multitude) knew to appertain to God only by nature, yet they perceived that it might be done by man's Ministry on earth.

Wherefore we say 1. with Ambrose (lib. 3. desp. Sancto c. 19. Men (says he) doeth only afford their Ministry to the remission of sins, but they exercise not any right of authority. Istirogant, Divinitas donat (saith he) that is, They seek it, but God giveth it, 2. Lombard also their Master of sentences teacheth, how God only forgiveth sins properly, & men Ministeriallie, saying, lib. 4. sent. dist. 18. God only remitteth and retaineth sins, and yet he hath given power to the Church to do so, but He remitteth and retaineth otherwise than the Church. For he remitteth sins only by himself (saith he) because he purgeth the soul from the inward spot thereof, and delivereth it from the debt of eternal death. But he hath not given this power to Priests, notwithstanding, he hath given them power of binding and loosing, that is, (saith he) of declaring that men ar bound or loosed, as the Priest declareth the Leper to be clean, whom first the Lord had cured and made clean. And therefore this is their Commission to preach repentance and remission of sins in Christ's Name. Luke 24. & Act. 13. 38. And this Ministerial power is that only which the Fathers whō he citeth doth prove as out of Ambrose I have already shown.

15. THat we ought not to confess our sins to any man, but to God alone.

FIrst for confession of sins, I will show what we hold, and and 2. what we oppose. 1. then we hold that ordinarlie it sufficeth to confess only to God, according to that Psal. 32. 5. I said I will confess my transgressions to the Lord, but if any persons for any secret or hid sin, or his sins otherwise, be weyghted in conscience, and cannot find of themselves comfort or counsel, concerning such, these a • the words of Calvin (lib. 3. instit. cap. 4. num. 12. Let every faithful man remember that this is his duty, if privilie he be so distrest and afflicted in conscienc, thorough the sense of his sins that without the help of others he cannot be comforted see that he neglect not the remedy that the Lord offereth to him, to wit, that for his relief, he use private confossion to his Pastor, and for giving him comfo • t, he privatlie implore his help, whose office is both privatlie and publictlie by the doctrine of the gospel to comfort God's people.

We oppose not then private confession altogether to man, being voluntary, free & occasional, but that politick picklock of popish sacramental auricular confession, whereby everyone is forced to confess to a Priest all their sins which they can remember with all the agravating circumstances, else to expect no forgiveness of them from God, which (as their own Ferus on Math. 11. 28. saith) (by the confession of the learned) is nihil nisi carnifi • ina conscientiae, that is, nothing else but a torturing of the conscience (saith he) when men are forced to auricular confession, and may not make it, but to their own Priest, though he be unlearned, naughty and inconstant. And truly (saith their own Cassander, consult. art. 11.) I believe there should be no controversy in this, if this wholesome medicine of confession had not been insected and defiled by many unskillful and importunat soul-physicians, whereby they have laid snares upon their consciences, and as it were by certain tortures, tormented them whom otherwise they should have eased and relieved.

Next, to come to answer to his scripture Arguments, which he bringeth for his popish auricular confession, the first is Math. 3. where it is said That Jerusalem & all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan went out to John the Baptist, and • er baptized of him confessing their sins. To whom I shall answer only in the Jesuit Maldonats words on this place, saying, What Catholic was ever so unlearned that he would prove the sacrament of confession by this place? seeing as Cardinal Cajetan showeth on act. 19. 18. This their confession was but general and public, any other being by all probability impossible, that he could hear in particular and in private, such a huge multitude, as out of all the forenamed places came to him to be baptized 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 Paul and confessed and show their deeds. To which place also I answer in Cajetans words, which are these, As they did flock together (saith he) to the baptism of John, confessing their deeds, without doubt generally, or their public sins, so here. For none of these confessions were Sacramental, but a profession only of repentance for their former life (saith he)

The third place which he adduceth is, Numb. 5. 6. Then shall they confess their sins which they have done. To which I answer 1. That hereby sacramental confession cannot be proven, because they hold it to be a sacrament of the gospel, & which was not instituted (as Bellarmine granteth, lib. 3. de pont. c. 20) till after Christ's resurrection. 2. Bonaventure (lib. 4. d. 17. art, 1) citeth Augustine, saying, That the offering of sacrafices was the legal confession of sins, whence he inferreth, That it appeareth that there was no other confession under the law, but the oblation of sacrifices. 3. Their own Lyra on Levite. 16. 21. showeth, That the Priest did not hear in particular the confession of the people, but in general, for the other had been impossible (saith he)

But I wonder how he omitteth that which usuallie they object, & is Bellarmins main argument for auricular confession, to wit, Jam. 5. 16. which saith, Confess your sins one to another. To which I cannot answer better than in Cardinal Cajetans words, and by adducing his reasons, saying, Ther is here no speech of sacramental confession, for sacramental confession is not one to another, but to the Priest only (saith he] wherefore this confession is that, whereby we mutually confess ourselves to be sinners, that one may pray for another, or for reconciliation, where wrong is done (saith he.)

As for Fathers which he citeth, they are either false & counterfit, as Clements Epistles which Bellar. in his book of Ecclesiastical writers, declareth and proveth to be spurious, or else they are falsely alleged, as Irenaeus and Tertullian, who as their Beatus Rhenanus testifieth speaketh only of public confession, and not of private, saying, (in Tertul. de poenit) Let none-marvel that Tertullian speaketh nothing de clancularia illa admissorum confession, that is, of that secret confession of sins. Neither is there any such thing in Origen, or any alleged works of Ambrose that makes for popish sacramental and auricular forced confession, nor any such work of his, as, in muliere peccatrice, in all the Catalogue of his works set down by Bellarmine de scrip eccles. and though there were such a work and such words, As confess freely to the Priest the hidden secrets of thy soul, this were but only as one stood in need of comfort and counsel, upon distress of conscience (as hath been said) but I wonder most of his citation of Chrysostom and Augustine, both of which are against any such forced confession. Chrisost. (conc. 4. de Lazaro) saying, Do I say confess to thy fellow servant who may upbraid thee? No. Confess unto God who can cure thee, & Augustine lib. 10. confess. c. 3. saith thus, What have I to do with men, that they should hear my Confessions, as if they could heal all my diseases.?

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

WHich he saith is contrary to 2. Cor. 2. 10. where the Apostle saith, To whom ye forgive anything, I for give also. To which I answer, 1. That this showeth only the Apostles consent to the releasing of the incestuous Penitent from the Church censure of Excommunication, formerly pronounced 1. Cor. 5. 3. and this (saith Estius) is the exposition of all the latin Fathers, and so maketh nothing for papal indulgences or pardons. Which their own Prierias lib. cont. Cath. de indulg. and Cajetan opusc. lib. 5. cap. 1. granteth to have no ground in scripture, though this Pamphleter would wrest scripture for them. Yea moreover (saith Cajetan) none of the ancient fathers greek or latin have brought any such to our knowledge. which makes that Bellarmine bringeth not 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 only of late.

The second place which he bringeth, is, 2. Cor. 2. 6. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, whence he concludeth, that it lieth in the hand of the spiritual Magistrate to measure the time of such censure or punishment that is imposed. To which I answer; That these his words confirmeth what we have said before, showing what ancient indulgences were in foro Ecclesiae, & which we practice in the exercise of our discipline towards pēitents, as we see cause, but this maketh nothing for papal indulgences, which they extend not only to the living, but also to the dead in purgatory, and wherein, what is their unity, or rather huge division of tongues and pen's, we have shown in the answer to the tenth Assertion.

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

WHich he saith is contrary to Coloss. 1. 24. where the Apostle saith, I now rejoice 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 answer, The true meaning of these words in their own Aquinas words, on this place is this, saying, These words according to the superfice might have an ill sense, as if Christ's 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 heretical (saith he) for the blood of Christ is sufficient for the redemption of many worlds, himself being the propitiation for our sins, but it is to be understood (saith he) that Christ and his Church make up but one mystical person, whose head is Christ, and all the godly are his body & members thereof, this then was wanting, that as Christ had suffered in his natural body, so he was to suffer in Paul's person as a member of his mystical body, Christ's sufferings in his body, 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, (saith he) where we see that the sufferings of the saints serve to the church for comformity & confirmation, but not (as this Pamphleter would have them) to be a treasure for papal indulgences to bring in a treasure of money to the popes coffers.

The second place which he brings is, Philip. 2. 30. wherein Paul exhorteth the Philippians to receive Epaphroditus with all gladness, because for the work of Christ he was near to death, to supply their work of service towards him, which as Aquinas says, They were not able in their own persons to perform to him. which words of Paul no more proveth the Pamphleters point whereat he aimeth, of the benefit of popish indulgences, then that Rome is in Utopia, but showeth both his usual impertinencie, impudence and ignorance.

18. THat no man can do works of supererogation.

WHich he saith is contrary to Math. 19. 21. where our Savior saith 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, whence it plainly appeareth (saith he) that a man by the assistance of God's grace may do somthings counseled, which are of more perfection than are things commanded. To whom I answer 1. in their own Ferus words on this place, saying, In these words is implied that which is necessary & commanded to all, to wit, Poverty of spirit, which is nothing else, but with the heart to cleave to no creature, neither doeth the kingdom of heaven belong to any but to such as do so (saith he) 2. This command to this young at this time to sell all. was a personal command, given for this end to discover this young man's covetousness and hypocrisy, in saying he had keeped the whole law from his youth▪ like that personal command given to Abraham of sacrificing Isaac, to discover his great faith and obedience to all after ages. And we know that such personal commands for trial or discovery doth not tie all. 3. The perfection of Angels is to do God's Commandments, as we see Psal. 103. 20. and in that petition of the Lord's prayer, Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Yea Christ's own perfection was in this, the doing of his Fathers will, & shall wretched sinful 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 have no Commandment of the Lord, yet I give my judgment (we read counsel, saith he) and to do that which is counseled is not necessary, because one nevertheless may be saved (saith he) To which place I answer 1. Not only the origin • ll hath the word, judgment 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , & not counsel, but also Cardinal Cajetan acknowledgeth the same on that place ingenouslie. 2. By command, the Apostle meaneth a general command, obliging all persons & at all times, as the precepts of the Moral Law do, and concerning such special commands of living single and keeping virginity, he showeth that he hath no such Cōmandement of the Lord, but in regard of the present condition of Christians liable to daily persecution, he declares his judgment only, that to live single, & in the estate of virginity, it is better then to live in a married estate, for their own good, but not that thereby they could supererogat at God's hands, & therefore leaving it in the mean time free to everyone to do, as God hath distributed to everyone his gifts, as he speaketh 1. Cor. 7. 17.

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 attain to as great hight of perfection living in marriage, and possessing riches (as we see in Abraham & Job) as they who live single, or in the estate of poverty. As also Jansen in his concord. on the Evangelists cap. 100. alleging the authority of Aquinas teacheth, That the perfection of a Christian life consisteth essentiallie in keeping of God's Commandments. Aquin. 2, 2. q. 184. art. 3. and as we see Philip. 4. 8. beyond which in performance can no flesh go.

Lastly, We find in scripture God's counsel to man & his command to be all one, as these places testify, psal. 73. 24. Prov. 1. 25. 30. Jer. 49. 20. Act. 20. 27. and Revel. 3. 18. How soever with man it may be said, as it is proverbial, Counsel is no command.

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

For answer 1. Let him hear the Jesuit 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 elsewhere he useth to speak of any grave matter, saying, he that hath ears to hear, let him hear (saith he.)

2. These Eunnchs that made thenselves such, that is, lives as Eunuchs chastlie and in a single life, the text saith that they did it for themselves, to attain to the kingdom of heaven, (which everyone is bound to do) and not to supererogat for others.

As for Origen's words which he allegeth on the 1. Rom. 15. saying, These things which we do over & above our duty. I find nowise in that place, and though they were, yet we must distinguish between duties to which we are bound, by a general precept common to all (as hath been said) & duties to which we are not so bound, but left to the performance thereof, according as everyone findeth himself gifted or not, which answer serveth also to that place alleged out of Chrysostom, that we may do more than we are commanded. Next for this he citeth Gregory Nissen. 1. Moral. cap. 5. whereas Gregory Nissen. never wrote such a book, but he seems to mistake Gregory Nissen. for Gregory the great, who lib. 21. Moral. cap. 15. quite overthrows works of supererogation.

19. THat by the fall of Adam we have lost our freewill, and it is not in our power to choice good, but only evil.

WHich he saith is contrary to 1. Cor. 7. 37. and Prov. 23. 26. where the Lord requireth us▪ To give to him our heart, which if we have not freedom of will, why doeth the Holy Ghost require this of us? (saith he) To which I answer, that all such precepts are the Rules of our duty, but not proofs of our ability by nature, which when we see we are not able to perform of ourselves, it is to drive us by prayer to him who only can enable us, and (as is said Philip. 2. 13.) Who worketh in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure, & as we see the proof thereof, Joel. 2. 12 compared, with Lam. 5. 21. as also Ezek. 18. 31. Where, though the Lord saith, Make you a new heart, yet cap. 36. 26. he saith, I will give you a new heart &c. For as Augustine speaketh (tom. 7. de gra. & l. arb. c. 16.) To the Pelagians of old who objected such places, That God commands us to do what we are not able, (to wit of ourselves) that we may know what we should seek 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 (saith their Cassander. consult. art. 18) They ha • e ascribed to Divine grace, in place of the rest, Bonaventure doeth witness, saying, This is the profession of all pious minds to ascribe nothing to themselves, but all to the grace of God.

Next, as to that 1. Cor. 7. 37. where it is said, That he that standeth steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virginity, doth well. This Text (I say) maketh nothing for man's natural freewill, a-like to good as to that which is morallie evil, nor was there ever any learned Romanist (to my knowledge) that alleged this place to prove freewill. For Cardinal Cajetan, Aquinas, Catharinus and others upon this place, showeth that the Apostle here speaketh only of a fathers power over his child, and that as he willeth or pleaseth he may dispose of his virgin, either to marry her, or keep her unmarried, as he should find her inclination, or the fitness or unfitness of times. As we have the like speech Act. 5. 4. of Peter to Ananias though in another matter.

The second place which he bringeth, is John. 1. 11. 12. which saith, That Christ came to his own and they received him not, but as many as received him, he gave them power to become the sons of God. which plainly implieth a liberty of will, (saith he) To whom I answer. 1. That this Text implieth no liberty of will by nature in them who received Christ, to receive him. but that he that gave them power to become the sons of God, gave them grace also to receive him, while 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 anything as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God, whereon saith their own Estius (and with him Lyra) The Greek Commentators as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and O Ecumenius, explicating the Apostles meaning, speaketh after thi • manner (saith he) That there is not something on our part, and something on God's part in the first work of our conversion, but plainly, that there is nothing on our part, no not the least thing, but all to be ascribed to God.

The third place which he brings is Deut. 30. 19. where Moses having set before the people life & death, &c. he biddeth them choose life. To which place my former answer to Prov. 23. 26. sufficeth, Therefore also saith their Hugo de S. victor, (Miscell. 2. lib. 2. Tit. 137.) That for doing good there is a threefold grace, a preventing, a cooperating, and a following grace. The first giveth us the will to choice, the second, the ability to do, and the third, the perseverance to continue. Estius likewise on 2. Cor. 3. 5. To this purpose citeth the words of the council of Orange, whereby they decreed, That he was deceived with an heretical spirit, who will say, that a mā by the power of nature can but think as becometh him any good that belongeth to eternal life, let be to choice the same.

The fourth place is Luke 13. 34. O Jerusalem, Ierusalē, how oft would I gathered thy children, as an Hen does her brood under her wings, but ye would not. Which Text showeth indeed the perverseness of man's will by nature, and the opposition thereof to the will of God, but no freedom thereof by nature, to will that which is morallie good & tendeth to salvation.

As for the testimonies of fathers. He bringeth first Hilary, saying, That he would not that there should be a necessity for men to be the sons of God, but a power. To which I answer 1. That Hilary wrote 12. books of the Trinity, but he telleth not which of them. 2. Hilary speaketh of a manichean necessity or coaction, which we also deny to be in man's will at all, or in his first conversion, and by power, he means not the power of freewill by nature, but that power or efficacy of grace which our Savior giveth, John 1. 11. Therefore also of this power, & against the forenamed coaction, Prosper speaketh thus, (de vocatione gentium) We both believe & feel by experience (saith he) that grace is so powerful, that yet we conceive it not to be any ways violent.

The second testimony which he bringeth is, Augustine's, saying, To consent or not to consent to God's calling, lies in a mans own will. To which I answer 1. That he cites, l. 1. ad simpl. q. 4. whereas in that whole book there ar but two questions. 2. I answer to the words of August. out of Augustine himself in his 107. epistle to Vitalis. That not only, not to consent to God's calling lies in man's will which is perverse by nature, but also to consent to God's calling lieth also in a man's own wll, for grace takes not away the liberty of the will which is by God's creation, but the pravity thereof which is frō man's 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 Cyril speak whom he bringeth, saying. W • e cannot any ways deny freedom of will in man. And Augustine also speaking against manichean coaction, and saying, How should our Savior reward everyone according to their works if there were not freewill? conform whereunto saith the haromnie also of the confessions of the reformed Churches, & ours in particular, 1647. cap. 9. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to do good or evil. So that we acknowledge the will to be free, as freedom is opposed to coaction, but not free, as able of itself to choice the good that tendeth to salvation, or that it is equally propense to good as to evil, as the Pelagians of old, & now papists maintain. Therefore (said Bernard de gra. & lib. arb.) Let no man think that therefore it is called freewill which we have, because it hath an equal power & inclination to good as to evil, seeing it could fall by itself, but not rise but by the holy Ghost.

20. THat it is impossible to keep God's Comandements, though assisted with his grace and the holy Ghost.

WHich he saith is contrary to Philip. 4. 13. where the the Apostle saith, That he can do all things through Christ. that strengtheneth him. Whereunto I answer, That the word (all things) is not of further extent, than these things whereof he speaketh in particular in the preceeding verse, where he saith, In all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, to abound and to suffer need. Thus doth Sedulius and their own canonized Aquinas expound this text, as also their late Esti{us}, saying, The meaning is, all things before rehearsed, & what else I am to suffer I am able to do thorough Christ who enableth me, so that he speaketh no • of his perfect fulfilling of the Law in general, the contrary whereof he confesseth, Rom. 7. 23.

The second place which he bringeth is, Luke 1. 5. 6. where it is said of Zechariah & Elizabeth, That they walked in all the commandemen • s of the Lord blameless. To which I answer 1. That this was the old Pelagian objection which they called their impenetrable Buckler, as Jerome witnesseth, lib. 1. cont. Pelag. with whom the papists herein agree. And to whom I answer in his words to the Pelagian. That where it is said, that they are called righteous, this is (saith he) as many others are called so, in the holy scripture, as Io • , Jehoshaphat and Josiah, not that they wanted all fault, but are commended so, because for the most part they wer virtuous, for Zacharias himself was punished with dumbnes (saith he) and Io • by his own speech was rebuked, and Jehoshaphat & Josiah are reported to have done things which greatly displeaseth God. Next, where it is said that Zechariah and Elizabeth walked in all the Commandments of God without blame, that is, without any gross wickedness (saith he) but that they walked without sin, I deny (saith he) that any man can do so, for that is cōpetent only to God. Their own Carthusian also (& with him their late Stella) showeth, That this is spoken according to that measure which is agreeable to human conditiō, but that there walking was not without sin, for there is none so righteous in this mortal life (saith he.)

The third place is, Luke 11. 27. where Christ saith, Yea rather blessed are they who hear the word & keep it. To which I answer, and to all such places that speak of keeping God's word or commandments, that such a keeping thereof is here meaned (as there Carthusian saith) Which is agreeable to human condition in this life. For as Jerome saith lib. 3. cont. Pelag. If thou can show me but one man who hath fulfilled the Commandments, Thou may show me a man that needs not God's mercy (saith 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 own Carthusian also expoundeth, That this is, readily, reverendlie and sincerlie, Q • antum nostra fragilitas permittit, that is, as far as our frailty permitteth (saith he) so that the word (as) hath relation not to that degree of perfect obedience which Angels perform in heaven, but to the manner of doing the same, as hath ben said by Carthusiā, & as our frailty permitteth, which sufferes us not to be free of sin, & of not doing God's Will perfectly, and therefore in the same prayer we are also taught to crave daily forgiveness, which we needed not, if we could obey God's will perfectly as the Angels do.

The last place is, 1. John 5. 3. For this is the love of God that we keep his Commandments, which is coincident with the third place, & therefore already answered.

As for any testimonies of Fathers, he bringeth the words only one of Basil, saying, That it is an impious thing to say that the Commandments of God, are impossible. To which I answer, Though he telleth not where Basil speaketh so, that it is impious indeed to say that God's commandments are impossible to be keeped in any measure, for we see the contrary in Zechariah and Elizabeth, but to say that in this life they may be keped perfectly without sin or any breach of them, that is likewise impious, & plain Pelagianism or heresy, therefore in this sense saith Ambrose on gal. 3. (which Aquinas citeth on the same place) The Commandments ar such that it is impossible to keep them (sayeh he) but I admire how he citeth Hilary in psal. 118. whose words are these on the 39. verse in his contrar, saying, The Prophet being in the body speaketh, and knoweth that no living man can be without sin, except one whom he remembereth, who had no sin, and in whose mouth was found no guile, to wit, Christ. As also I have shown how opposit Jerome is to him, l. 3. cont. Pelag. whom notwithstanding he citeth as for him. As Origen and Cyril, who no wise patronizeth him.

21. THat faith only justifieth, & that good works are not absolutlie necessary to salvation.

WHich he saith is contrary to 1 Cor. 13. 2. Though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, & I have not charity, I am nothing, therefore faith only doth not justify (saith he) To which I answer, 1. That there is no word in this Text of Justification, but of the necessity of charity to be joined with faith in a Christian profession, which no protestant ever yet denied. 2. The Apostle speaketh not of a justifying faith, but (as the words importeth) of a faith of working Miracles, which their own Estius acknowledgeth, saying, (on 1. Cor. 12. 9.) The Greek Fathers do rightly understand that faith here, of which is spoken, cap. 13. 2. which they call the faith of signs and miracles, which faith (saith he) is of itself a grace only given for the benefit of others. And so not a justifying faith for a man himself, as we may see, Math. 7. 22.

The second place is I am. 2. 24. where it is said, Ye see therefore 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 own 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 answer (saith he) that to justify may be taken two ways, either 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 be just, or it is taken for the infused habit of righteousness, and this way no man is justified by works (saith he) Likewise saith Doctor Paes a Portugal 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 (saith he.)

The third place is, I am. 2. 14. where the Apostle saith, What doth it profit though a man say, he hath faith, & not works, can that faith save him? I answer, 1. That the Apostle saith not, Though a man have faith, but, Though he say he hath faith, showing thereby that an alleadgance only of faith availeth not to salvation, 2. A • their Estius with us showeth, it is said there, that a dead and fruitless faith only 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 anything, but faith which worketh by love. which place is coincident with the former, and doeth nowise militat against our doctrine of Justification, as the words of our confession, anno 1581. and 1647. c. 11. testifieth, saying. That faith receiving and relying only on Christ and his righteousness is the only instrument of our Justification, • 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 love. And that this is also the doctrine of all other reformed Churches, their own Cassander witnesseth, consult. art. 4. As also Bellarmine (lib. 1. de Iustif. cap. 14.) saying, John Calvin in his Antidote of the Council cap. 11. Sess. 6. saith, That it is faith only that justifieth, but yet not faith which is alone, as the heat of the sun is that only which heateth the earth, yet heat is not alone in the sun, but their is light also joined with it. the same also (saith he) doth Melanchthon. Brenz, & Chemnitz teach with others.

And as for Fathers whom he citeth, or whose words he setteth down, such as Ambrose, saying, That faith alone sufficeth not, & Augustine that faith only saveth not without observing God's Commandments, they militat nowise against out doctrine as we see confessed.

But I admire at the impudence or ignorance of this Pamphleter, who in the next place ascribeth to us, that we hold That good works are not necessary to salvation. whereas in the contrary, These are the words of our Confession of faith. cap. 16. concerning their necessity, That they are the fruits and evidences of a true and livelie faith; and by them Believers manifest their thankfulness, strengtheneth their assurance, edifieth their brethren, adorneth the profession of the gospel, stops the mouth of the adversaries: and glorisieth God, whose workmāship they are, created in Christ thereunto, that having their fruit in holiness, they may have the end, life eternal. being as Bernard speaks▪ via Regni, non causa regnandi.

22. THat good works are not meritorious.

WHich he saith is contrary to Math. 16. 27. where it is said, That Christ at his second coming shall reward everyone according to his works. To which I will answer only in the words of Pope Gregory (in psal. 7. poenit. & verba, fac auditam) who saith thus, If the felicity of the saints be mercy and not acquired by merits, where is that which is written, who shall render to everyone according to his works? If it be rendered then according to works, how shall it be esteemed mercy? but it it one thing (saith he) according to ones works, and another thing to render for the works themselves. For in that it •• said, according to his works, the quality of the work is understood, that whose works are seen to be good, his reward shall be also glorious, as whose works are evil his reward shall be contrary; but as to that eternal life, which we have of God & with God, no labor can be equalled (saith he) no works can be compared. Therefore also says 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 (saith he.)

The second place is Math. 5. 11. Rejoice and be glad for great is your reward in heaven. As also Math. 10. 42. That a cup of cold water given to one of Christ's, shall not want it reward. Whereunto I answer 1. That we deny not but that good works have their reward abiding them, for so saith 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 accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections. But we distinguish and say that there is a reward in mercy whereof Hosea speaketh 10. 12. saying, Sowe in righteousness and reap in mercy. As also the Apostle 2. Tim. 1. 16. 17. And there is a reward of merit called wages Rom. 6. 23. Where the Apostle saith, The wages of sin is death, but (by way of opposition) he saith, Life eternal is the free gift of God. upon which place therefore saith Cardinal Cajetan according to Augustine's like words, de gra. & lib. arb. cap. 9. The gift of God is Eternal life, that we may understand (saith he) that it is not for our merits, but of the free gift of God that in end we attain to eternal life. So also speaketh Lombard, That we may understand that God bringeth us to eternal life (saith he) for his own mercy sake and not for our merits. So also speaketh their Ferus on John 3. and Math. 20 & Gabriel Biel on the the Canon of the Mass, lect. 47. • nd others, yea, Bellarmine himself, lib. 5. de Iustif. cap. 19. confesseth That this hath been the common and constant judgment of Divines in the Roman Church, as Thomas, Bonaventure, Scotus, Durand▪ a • d others, that God rewardeth good works of his mere liberality above any condignity. Flat cōtrar to that blasphemous speech of the Rhemists on Heb. 6. 10. saying, That our good works are so fully worthy of eternal life which God of his justice oweth to the workers • f the same, that he should be unjust if He rendered not heaven for them.

Lastly, Where he saith that the holy Fathers unanimouslie affirm the same, but setteth down none of their words, Let their own Cassander witness the contrary, (consult. art. 6.) saying, This doctrine is not to be passed by, which with a full consent all the ancient Fathers deliver, That our whole confidence of remission of sins, and hope of pardon and Eternal life, is to be placed in the only mercy of God and merit of Christ, which made Bellarmine also conclude (lib. 5. de Iustif. cap. 7.) saying, for the uncertantie of our own unrighteousness, and the danger of vain glory, it is safest to place our whole confidence in the only mercy and bounty of God.

23 THat Faith once had, cannot be lost.

WHich he saith is contrary to Luke 8. 13. Where the seed on the rock, are th • se who when they hear, receive the word with joy, and for a while believe, but in the time of temptation fall away. To which I answer, That by the believing of such, no true saving faith is meaned. But a temporary assent only to that which is spoken, as their own Carthusian & late Stella showeth, because their hearts (say they) are hard and rebellious, and destitute of the moisture 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 gospel only, which ofttimes in scripture receiveth this title, as 1, Tim. 4. 1. and Act. 13. 8. where it is said, That Elimas the Socerer sought to turn away the deputy 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 some, which receiveth the same answer with the former. And which the very words of the preceeding verse cleareth, calling this overthrow, Their erring from the truth. As the forenamed, Lombard, Aquinas and Estius also showeth.

As for Fathers, he saith that they affirm the same frequently, but citeth only Augustine in two books. but telleth not what chapter, whereas there are 24. in the one, and 16. in the other.

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

WHich he saith is contrary to 1. Tim. 2. 3. 4. Where it is said, That our Savior will have all men to be saved To which I answer 1. That Augustine in his Enchiridion, cap. 103. expoundeth this place thus, That God will have all to be saved that are saved, and that none can be saved but such as he will. And next, that by all men he 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 Savior's Will, is not meant that which is called Voluntas beneplaciti, or his secret Will, whereby from all Eternity, he hath elected some to salvation, and reprobated others, but Voluntas signi, or his revealed Will. whereby he offereth to all the means of salvation. And their late Estius telleth us, that by (all men) a part only by the whole is understood, as Philip. 2. 21. where it is said, All men seek their own, not the things of Christ.

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

And as for the words of Ambrose. That he will not refer 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. affirm, That the sinfulness of men or Angels proceedeth only from thenselves, and not from God, Who being most Holy and Righteous, neither is, nor can be Author or Approver of sin. And as for other Fathers whom he citeth only, he doth this so looslie as none can know at what words he aimeth, for example he he citeth Augustine 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 are which he allegeth, whereas there are ten in that book. And as for others, none of them ar against us, yea, they are clearly for us, as also Cardinal Cajetan and Aquinas on Rom. 9, 20. As likewise their late Estius on Rom. 9. 13. 20. & 21. goeth as far in this point of Election and reprobation with us, as any Protestant writter whosoever, and citeth Lombard, Aquinas Hugo▪ de S. victor, Lyra, Cajetan, Prierias and others as of the same mind with him, and us.

25. THat everyone ought infalliblie assure him • elf of his salvation, and believe that he is of the number of the predestinat.

WHich he saith is contrary to 1. Cor. 9. 27. where the Apostle saith, I keep my body under in subjection, lest by any means when I have preached to others, I myself should be a Castaway. To whom I answer 1. To the point of our doctrine, that we say no further herein than their bishop Ambrosius Catharinus, as Bellarmine testifieth (lib. 3. de Iustif. cap. 11.) That a godly man may have assurance of his Justification and salvation without doubting, by the certainty of divine faith, but yet as our Confession of Faith speaketh, cap. 14. That saving faith is different in degrees, weak or strong, and may be often and many ways assailed and also weakened (to wit by doubting) but in end it gets the victory, & grows up in many to the full assurance thorough Christ, yea, saith their own Cassander consult. art. 4. That there is none of the Schoolmen who doth not teach and diligently urge (saith he) that confidence & assurance of the grace and mercy of God and glory to come, should be opposed to doubting and distrust. Therefore though the godliest may have their own 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 duty, the doctrine whereof is as contrary to the nature of faith, as light is to darkness, as we may see Rom. 4. 20.

Next, to answer to the place forecited 1. Cor. 9. 27. 1. The word rendered (Castaway) or as the Rhemists translate, Reprobat, is not in opposition to (Elect) but is as much as (reproved) as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth. 2. This place proveth not that the Apostle doubted of his salvation, whereof by papists own confession he was sure, as Rom. 8. 38. 2. Tim. 1. 12. 4. 8. and gal. 5. 20. showeth. But in his person he showeth the sutablenes of the practice of mortification with his doctrine thereof, and the like necessity of conformity in all other Pastors, as they would eschew the danger here mentioned. And this to be the true meaning of the place both Aquinas and Lombard doeth show.

The second and third places are Rom. 11. 20. Of not being high minded but fear, and Philip. 2. 12. Work out your own salvation in fear and trembling. To which I answer, That there is a twofold fear, the one which is called, Timor incertitudinis, or a distrustful fear, condemned, Isai. 35. 4. Luke • . 74. 12. 32. and Revel. 21. 8. And another, which is called Timor solicitudinis, or a fear of holy carefullnes, suspecting their own infirmity and corruption, and causing godly watchfulness, which is therefore called, Godly fear, Heb. 12. 28. and they are pronounced blessed who have it, psal. 128. 1. and this is that fear which is commanded in both these forcited places, as Cardinal Cajetan showeth on Philip. 2. 12. As also Estius, saying, With fear and trembling to work out our eternal salvation, is to work it out, magna cum solicitudine, that is, with great carefulness.

As for the testimonies of fathers, he citeth Ambrose in psal. 118, Ser. 5. where 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 Chrysostom, and as for Augustine's words on psal. 40. (which should be 41) where he saith, Whether his own justice remaineth or not, he knoweth not, for the Apostle terrifieth me (saith he) saying, he that standeth, let him take heed lest he fall. To which I answer, with Bernard, who citeth this same place, ser 2. de Septuagesima. That this is the fear of an holy solicitude, which everyone should have to keep him humble (saith he) as Augustine likewise showeth in the words that followeth the former, that he speaketh not against assurance of salvation, which the godly may have, but against self confidence and presumption.

The second Testimony that he bringeth is Bernard's 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 anxiety of doubting (saith he) for this cause are given to us signs and evident marks of our salvation, that it may be put out of doubt (saith he) that he is of the number of the Elect, in whom these signs remain. Even as against such anxio{us} doubting that excellent speech of Cyprian is remarkable. Ser. 4. de mortalitate, pag. 317. That if we do believe an ho • est man's promise, much more should we the Lord who hath promised life and immortality.

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

WHich he saith is contrary to Math. 18. 10. where it is said, That Children have their Angels that behold the face of God. And psal. 91. 11. He shall give his Angels charge over thee &c. To which I answer, That these places speak not of one only Angel guardian appointed for everyone, but of Angels in the plural, which we deny not to to be sent forth (as the Apostle showeth Heb. 1. 14.) As Ministring spirits for the good of the Elect, sometimes many, as Gen. 28. 32. to attend Jacob. and 2. King. 6. 17. to protect Elisha, and sometimes fewer, or one as Act. 12. 7. As it pleaseth God to direct & dispose. So that I know not any great controversy between Romanists and us herein. Which Bellar. therefore never toucheth in all his book of Controversies.

27 THat the holy 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 Lord's only prerogative, as we see 1. King. 3. 36. and Rom. 8. 27. And as Theophilact. showeth on Luke 5. 22. And their own Jansen acknowledgeth, concord. cap. 32. Neither is this the Controversy, what Angels do in heaven in praying for the Church in general, 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 Bellarmine calleth, That most excellent sort of worship which is prayer (pref. de sanctis) but because he wresteth some Texts of scripture to prove that the Angels pray for us in particular, therefore we shall free these from the wrong sense which he would put upon them.

First then he bringeth Zach. 1. 9. (which should be verse 12.) where the Angel saith to God How long will thou not have mercy on Jerusalē? To which I answer 1. That this Angel 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 only Mediator for his Church 1. Tim. 2. 5. And 2. Though this wer a created Angel, yet he prayeth for mercy only to the Church in general.

The next place of Canonical scripture which he bringeth is Revel. 8. 4. And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended from the hand of the Angel before God. To which I answer in likemanner, That Andreas Caesarensis & many others (saith the Jesuit Ribera) expoundeth this Angel to be Christ, as Ambrose and Beda likewise expound, Lyra also & Carthusian, who affirmeth moreover, That this is the exposition of all Catholic

As for the testimonies of Fathers, he bringeth one of Hilaries saying, That God needeth not the intercession of Angels, but our infirmity needeth.

The first part whereof maketh against him. And in the last, howsoever he saith that our infirmity needeth, yet this doth not positivelie prove that they do interced, especially for particular persons, and in particular cases. As for other fathers whom he only citeth, to wit, Ambrose and Victor Uticensis they speak nothing which is contrary to our doctrine, or for him.

28 THat we may not pray to them.

WHich he saith is contrary to Gen. 48. 16. The Angel who redeemed me from all evil bless the Lad's To which I answer, That by the Angel (saith Cyril of Alexandria lib. 3. Thesaur. cap. 1.) He understandeth the word of the Father, for He was not ignorant, that he was called the Angel of the great Counsel, (saith he) Likewise saith Athanasius (cont. Arian, ora. 4.) As also Procopius. It is clear that the patriarch Jacob coupled no other in his prayers with God, but his word, which he therefore calleth the Angel, because (saith he) he only revealeth his Fathers will.

The next place of canonical scripture which he brings is, Hosea 12. 4. Wher Jacob is said to have had power with the angel & made supplication to him. To which I answer, That by this Angel the text showeth clearly that God is understood. 1. seeing it is said of Jacob verse 3. That by his strength he had power with God. 2. He telleth us v. 5. that this Angel was The Lord of Hosts. 3. The change also of Jacob's name to Israel, Gen. 32. 28. and the reason thereof showeth this, For as a Prince thou hast prevailed with God (saith he who wrestled with him.) And 4. the name of the place proveth this, being called Peniell, for I have seen God face to face, (saith Jacob)

As for testimonies of fathers, he bringeth only Augustine on Job. 19. 21. where he faith That Job speaking thus. have pity on me my friends, he addrest himself to the Angels. To which I answer 1. That he wrongs Augustine's words, which are these only, That Job seemeth to desire the Angels or-else the saints to pray for him, which exposition Pineda a Jesuit condemneth, and expoundeth it of Job • own friends. 2. The scripture itself in the ve • ie next verse maketh against any such exposition, which saith, why persecute ye me (to wit, by reproaches) which the good Angels abhor to do to the godly. 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 professor in the University of Paris.

29. THat the Angels cannot help us.

FOr answer, This calumny is most impudentlie and maliciouslie imputed to us, for on the contrary, we grant that both they can and do help the godly, seeing (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.

FOr answer, This likewise we nowise affirm nor are we contrary to Math. 27. 52. That after Christ's 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 holy city and appeared to many, nor to Math. 17. 3. That Moses and Elias appeared at Christ's transfiguration to to the three disciples. But this Pamphleter herein showeth his ignorance, saying, That they talked with them▪ whereas Thy talked only with Christ. And as for Samuel's apparition to Saull. 1. Sam. 28. Tertullian lib. de anima prope finem. Justinus 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 own Decretal, causa 29. cap. 14. All these declare that it was not Samuel, but the devil that appeared like him to Saull. But the intention of this Pamphleter in all the places adduced, is for establishing that lucrative error of Purgatory, and of the apparition of souls being there, and desiring by soul-masses to be freed therfrom. To which I will answer only in Chrisostoms words. Hom. 29. on Math. These voices that say, I am the soul of such a one, proceedeth (saith he) frō the deceat of the Devil, for it is not the soul that departed that saith that, but Satan, who that he may deceive the the hearers, feigneth himself to be that sonle (saith he) As likewise thus • peaketh their own Lyra on Dan. 11. People being thus deceived by mi • acles feigned by Priests and their adhe • ents for their gain (saith he) as • he people of old were deceived by the Priests that worshipped the dragon and God permitting this (saith their Gabriel Biel in canone Missae lect. 49.) and men's infidelity so deserving the same. Against which sort of juggling tricks and apparitions their own famo{us} Valla mightily exclaimeth, in his book of Constantins donation about the end thereof.

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

WHich is contrary (saith he) to Luke 16. 29. where Abraham knew that they had Moses books on earth. when he said to Dives concerning his brethren, they have Moses & the Prophets. which himself had never seen while he was alive. To which I answer, 1. That this is a parable as Theophylact saith expressly on Luke 16. and Justin Martyr, q. 60. As also Chrysostom Hom. 1. de Lazaro, and their own Arboreus showeth that others affirm the same, as Erasmus doth (and parabolical speeches are not argumentative by consent of all.)

The second place is, John 5. 45. where our Savior saith There is one that accuseth you, even Moses in whom ye trust To which I answer, 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 Satan's accusing the brethren before God▪ ergo (saith he) he must know whereof, and who without shame can deny that to saints, which must needeth be granted to devils? To which I answer, That this is an absurd inferēce, for glorified saints remain only in heaven. And therefore (as is said Job 14. 21. and Isai. 36. 16.) know not men's effaires on earth, whereas the Devil compasseth the earth to and fro walking in it (Job. 1. 7.) being the Temper, and therefore may know men's 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 answer, That from one extraordinary act of God's revelation to his Prophet, and of one thing only on earth, to argue to an ordinary revelation to his glorified saints of all things in heaven, is as absurd a consequence as was the former.

As for Fathers, he citeth only three, Euscbius, Maximus and Jerome, but none of their words, and so lo • sly also, as 14. chapters being in that book of Jerome's he telleth not in which of them.

32. THat the Saints pray not for us.

TO which point I answer first in general, That the controversy is not (as I spoke of Angels) what the saints in heaven out of their charity do for the Church & their fellow brethrē in general, but what our duty is, & if it be lawful for us to pray to thē in particular. Next I answer to the wrested places of scripture which he bringeth to prove that they pray for particular men ordinarlie and in particular cases, known unto them (as he said before) The first whereof is Revel. 5. 8. where, The twenty four Elders in heaven are said to fall down before the Lamb, having every▪ o • e harps and golden vials full of odors, which are the prayers of the saints. to which I answer, That Haymo, Beda, Aquinas, and Richard de S. victor, all expound these Twentie four elders to represent the church militant, said to be in heaven (as that woman Revel. 12. is said to be) because of their heavenly disposition and affections, & because that this was represented in a heavenly vision to John, and are said to have Harps and golden vials, the speech being borrowed frō the Levitical Ministry, as the Jesuit Ribera showeth, to express the spiritual worship of Christians praises & prayer under the gospel, as we see foreprophecied, Mal. 1. 11.

The second place of Canonical scripture which he bringeth, is Ier. 15. 1. Tho Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my mind could not be towards this people. To which I answer 1. That the speech is hypothetical or by supposition, & therefore nowise concluding, as our Savior's like speech showeth John 21. 23. 2. This cannot prove that Moses and Samuel did pray for the people Being then till Christ's Resurrection in Limbus Patrum, as Bellarmine saith, (lib. 1. de sanctis, cap. 20) and so not enjoying God's sight or presence, and therefore they neither prayed for men, nor wer prayed unto by men. And 3. This their prayer is meant for the people of God only in general, and not for any one in particular.

The third place is, Revel. 2. 26. He that overcometh and keepeth my words to the end, to him I will give power over the nations, and he shall rule them with a rod of iron. Therefore (saith he) seeing Christ imparteth his power to them upon the nations, they may pray for them over whom they are s • t. To which their own Jesuit Ribera answereth thus, Our Savior alogether speaketh here of power (saith he) that the saints shall exercise in the day of j • dgement, upon all nations that have not obeyed Christ, judging them with Christ, and giving them over to the p • nishment of eternal death, signified by ruling them with an iron rod, as we see cap. 19. 15. Thus we see that they are so far frō praying for them being alive, that they are to adjudge them to eternal 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 (saith he) that the damned in hell should have greater charity than the saints in heaven. To which I answer 1. That this is a parable (as hath been proven) and therefore not argumentative. 2. The damned in hell have no charity or Christian virtue at all, and therefore this Rich glutton did it not out of charity to his brethrē, but to eschew the augmenting of his own torment, by their continuance in these sins, wherein he had given them ill example or inducement, when he was alive with them. 3. To argue from the practice of a damned Wretch in hell, which had so bad a success, as not to be heard, to alike practice which Christians should use on earth, is a bad inference, and a worse directory.

As for fathers, he citeth only Augustine, Hilary and Damascene, but not their words, of whom Augustine maketh nothing for him in that place, neither Hilary, for what he speaketh is only of Angels, grounded also upō an Apocryphal book only, Tobit. And as for Damascene (as I show before) as he is not of so great antiquity, so also he is noted by Sixtus Senensis in his Bibliotheck (lib. 6. Annot. 187.) to be heretical specially concerning the procession of the Holy ghost.

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

WHich he saith is contrary to Exod. 32. 13. where it is said. Remember Abraham, Isaac and Israel thy servants. To which I answer, That this was to remember his own free promise which he made to them, that he should be their God, & the God of their seed after them, as the very following words showeth, saying, To whom thou swearest by thyself, and said, I will multiply your seed, as the stars of heaven, as their own 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 Jacob we see utterly 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 Israel, keep with thy servant that which thou hast promised him. Where we see again clearly, no mention of merit on David's part (which he everywhere also disclaimeth) but only of the free promises of mercy made to David on God's part, as we said before.

The third place is, Exod. 20. 5. I will show mercy to thousands of them that love me and keep my Commandments, which place maketh clearly against merit, where the Lord speaketh only of mercy, which he will show on the godly and their offspring, as the Apostle speaketh, 2. Tim. 1. 16. The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus for he oft refreshed me. And where mercy is only, it excludeth merit.

34 THat we ought not expressly pray to them, to pray or intercede to God for us.

WHich he saith is contrary to Luke 16. 24. Where the Rich-glutton in hell prayeth to Abraham to have mercy on him. To which I have already answered, That it is parabolical and therefore proveth not.

The second place is, Job 5. 1. Call now, if there be any that will answer thee, and to which of the saints will thou turn? To which I answe • e, That Cardinal Cajetan setteth this down as the meaning of the words. That hereby Eliphaz would show Job that his innocence which he so much maintained, would get none of the saints that would maintain so bad a cause, & to plead such innocence as he did, or who would approve his speeches. The intention of Eliphaz being only to convince Job that none wer ever so sharply punished as he was, except he had ben wicked or an hypocrite, (which was Eliphaz error) & therefore he biddeth him show any of the saints or godly before him that ever were so punished. 2. Their own Lyra also expoundeth this place thus, That Eliphaz tells Job, That seeing God answereth him not in his sad affliction, to whom other can he have his recourse? For thou shalt not have the saints (saith he) to be thy helpers, so that this place rather maketh against prayer to saints, nor for it. As for the Fathers whom he citeth only (as his use is) but setteth not down their words, they make nothing for him and he 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 only to saints to pray to God, or intercede 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 show how deceatfullie they deal with simple souls, and that their practice is quite contrary, & that they seek these things from them whereof God only is the giver, as Mercy, pardon of sins, grace, and other good gifts. And shall instance this only in these places of their own old printed books, against which they cannot except, & which I have beside me to show to any who desireth. The first is that idolatrous invocation of the virgin Marie in the Romā Missal, the words whereof are these, O felix pure pera, nostra pians sce • era, jure matris impera redemptori. tua sēper ubera nostra sanent vulnera. That is, O blessed Mother who expiateth-our sins, by the authority of a mother, command our Redeemer. and let thy pape milk heal our wounds. Which is so gross, that Bellarmine is ashamed thereof and most shamleslie denieth it, saying, (lib. 1. de sanct. beat. cap. 16.) Who ever of us spake so▪ why do they not prove it by some instance? To the same purpose it is said and worse, in their psalter of the virgins Marie printed at Rome▪ 1588. psal. 35. Coge illum peccatoribus nobis misereri, that is, compel him to have mercy upon us sinners. In which book also, which is a rapsodie of horrid blasphemies, all the psalms of David are turned from the Lord to our Lady, and psal. 50. it is said. Have mercy on me our Lady, who is the Mother of mercies, and according to the bowels of thy mercies clange me from my sins. And again psal. 71. it is said, O God give justice to the King, and give mercy to the queen his mother, whence it is that their Gabriel Biel on the Canon of the Mass, lect. 80. says thus, As Ahasuerus promised to Esther even to the half of his kingdom, even so, seeing our heavenly Father hath Justice and mercy, as the best things of his kingdom, reserving justice to himself, he hath given mercy to his mother the virgin Marie (saith he) whence (saith their Bernardin de busto in Mariali part. 3. ser. 3.) It is lawful to appeal from the Sons justice to the mothers mercy. Hence it is also, as Sir Edvin Sandys observed in his European travails, and speculum Europae, p. 4. That the honor which they do to her is double for the most part (saith he) to that which they do to our Savior, and where one professeth himself a devoto or peculiar servant of our Lord, whole towns, as Siena by name, are the devoti of our Lady, & where one voweth to Christ, ten vow to her, and not so much to herself, as to some peculiar image of hers, which for some select virtue or grace, together with greater power of working Miracles they chiefly worship, as the glorious La • ie of Loreto, the devote Lady of Rome, the miraculous Lady of Proven Zano▪ and the annunciata of Florence. And as their vows are such are their pilgramages and rich offerings. Yea their devils in exorcism are also taught to endure the conjuring of thē by the name of God or the Trinity without trouble or motion (saith he) but at the naming of our Lady 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 Missal for grace, pardon and glory, whereof God is the only giver, as to S. Maurus fol. 51. S. Martha fol. 56. & S. Francis &c. And yet (saith Bellarmine 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 Relics of saints are not to be keeped, no virtue proceeding from them after they be once dead.

WHich he saith is contrary to 2. King. 13. 21. where it is written, That the bones of Elize • s being • o • ched by one that was dead, they did revive him. To which I answer 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 virtue proceeding not from the bones of the Prophet, but frō God, who for confirming these that wer then present, that he was a true Prophet, wrought this miracle, but we read not that thereupon they raised his bones, & inshryned them as Relics, to be carried about in procession or adored, as the Popish practice is.

The second place is, Act. 5. 14. 15. where it is said, That the sick were brought forth to the streets in their beds, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might over shadow them. To which I answer, as to the former, but in their own Gabriel Biels words on the canō of the mass, lect, 47. saying, S. peter by his shadow healed the sick, as we read in the acts, but (saith he) who will say that the virtue of that healing was in his shadow? which is no existent thing, but a privation of light, whereunto no activity can be competent, therefore it was God himself (saith he) to manifest the truth of that faith which Peter preached. And so let any judge, if this proveth that the bones or Relics of saints are therefore to be keeped above the earth, and that virtue proceedeth from them after they be dead, and if argueing here for this from a shadow, be not mere shaddowish itself, having no solidity.

The third place is Act. 19. 11. That God wrought sundry miracles by the hands of Paul. To which I answer, Who denieth this? or who can say that this proveth that the bones of his hands, as holy relics should therefore been keeped above the earth, set on altars, and adored, or that they wrought miracles after he was dead? But seeing in all this he dryveth at the adoration of Relics, we would gladly know, amongst such a multitude & variety of forged Relics, how to discern the true from the false. Seeing as their own Cassander speaketh (consult. art. 21. printed at Paris, 1616.) That thorough the avarice of Priests to deceive simple people false Relics ar obtruded for true, and feigned miracles are taught unto them, by which their superstition is fostred, and sometimes by the deceat and delusion of the Devil, abusing men's superstitious credulity by dreams and visions new Relics (saith he) have been revealed, and by the same working of Satan, miracles seemed to be wrought. Examples of which sort their own Erasmus on Math. 23. 5. mentioneth, saying. You may now everywhere see held out for gain, Mary's milk, which they honor as much almost as Christ's own body (saith he) also so many pieces of the Cross, that if they were all gathered together a great ship would scarce carry them. Here also S. Francis hood is set forth to behold, there the Wastcoat of the virgin Marie in one place, Anna's comb in another, Joseph's stocking in a third place & Thōas of Canterberries shoe, in another place Christ's foreskin, which they worship more religiouslie than Christ's own person. Neither do they s • owe these things (saith he) as things that may be borne with, and to please the common people, but they place all religion in them. And of which foreskin of Christ's, one is shown 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 Burgundy, a fourth in the town of Aken, & a fifth in the abbay of Poytiers in France.

The like also may be said of the nails which nailed Christ to the Cross, which from three ar multiplied to near threescore. As also the spear that pierced Christ's side, to the image whereof 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 blasphemy & idolatry?

As for Fathers whom he only citeth but sets not down their words, never one of thē proveth any adoratiō of Relics, yea Jerome epist. 53. ad Ripariū, saith, We are so far from worshiping the Relics of Martyrs, that we will not worship the Sunn or moon, Angels nor archangels. And as for Ambrose his alleged words, which he telleth not where they are to be found, yet I answer to them, that they prove nothing, for he saith only, that He honors the wounds and ashes of the Martyrs, which is only the memory of their constant sufferings.

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

WHich he saith is contrary to 1. Tim. 4. 4. where it is said, That every creature of God is good, if it be received with thanksgiving. To which I answer 1. That this proveth nothing against us, for their own Estius, as also Lombard, on this place showeth, that the Apostle speaketh only of the sanctified use to believers of meat and drink, being received with prayer and thanksgiving. 2 This place maketh rather against popery, to wit, their prohibition of certain sorts of meats, at certain times, for conscience sake, which is contratie altogether unto Christian liberty. As for Math. 23. 17. and 19. Himself confesseth That the Altar is said to sanctify the gift, and the Temple the gold, as things separate from a common, to a holy 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 their bells, (which they also baptize) as also of their beads, holy water, and agnus Dei &c. by plain socerie conjuring the dead & senseless creatures, & speaking to thē, as if they both heard and understood, & ascribing to thē divine & miraculous operatiō, one example or two whereof, instead of many, I shall instance of their conjuring their holy water, as is set down in their own Missal, saying, I conjure thee, thou creature of water, in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, that thou become a chosen water, to take away all the power of the Devil, & to drive him away, with all his wicked angels. The like they speak to the salt which they mixe with the water. And which doubtless driveth away the Devil from the priests breast that conjureth the same, as far as a hungry dog would flee from a fat morsel, the sprinkling also of which holy water, might have been a good mean to have driven away the devil from pope Sylvester the second, when he came to him, and rent his body in pieces. as Platina, and all other Roman Historians record. And what equal virtue to Christ's blood, and miraculous operation they ascrive in likemanner to their hallowed Agnus Dei, which they carry about with them, may be seen by these verses which Pope Urban sent with one of them, to the Emperor 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 the sacrament of baptism.

WHich he saith is contrary to John 3. 9. Except a man be borne again of the water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. To which I answer 1. As their own Ferus expoundeth, by this water, Baptismal water is not to be understood, but metaphoricallie the purging virtue of the spirit of Regeneration (saith he) Therefore also saith Lombard (lib. 4. d. 4.) God hath not tied his power to sacraments, so that the want doth not damnify, but the contempt for, that some have 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 own Cassander concludeth, (consult. art 9.) saying. That it is agreeable to the judgment of the primitive Church, and to the holy scriptures (as Bonaventure on the 4. of the sentences, & Lōbard dist. 4. c. 2. shows) that Infants dying without baptism may be saved, for if they cannot get baptism, being prevented by death, as the faith of the Church and of these who offer them unto baptism, is reputed as their own (saith he) so the will and desire of the Church, and specially of the parents to have them baptized, is accepted for baptism, by that merciful Father who accepts the will for the deed, and tieth none (saith he) to what is impossible, nor his own grace simply to the external sacrament. As Bellarmine 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 mercy of God that infants should perish without their own fault.

The second place is Tit. 3. 5. where it is said, That according to the mercy of God we ar saved, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the holy Ghost. To which I answer, That this place speaketh only of the work of Regeneration or renovation, as absolutlie necessary to salvation, which sometimes is compared to washing by water, as Ezek. 36. 25. and sometimes, to purging by fire, as Math. 3. 11. And which without baptismall washing the thief on the Cross found available to salvation, (as this text speaketh) according to the free mercy of God.

The third place is, Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned▪ To which place Bernard worthily answereth, epist. 77. saying, Mark, when Christ said, he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, warilie and well, be saith not, but he that is not baptized shall be damned, but only he that believeth not shall be damned. Therefore saith their Carthusian on John 3. 5. It is to be understood, that Baptism is necessary if o • casion serve to receive the sacrament of Baptism, otherwise the baptism of the spirit sufficeth, else the believing Thief on the Cross had been excluded out of Paradise.

The fourth place is, Gen. 17. 4. The uncircumcised child shall be cut off from his people, but Circumsion was no more necessary to the Isralits (saith he) than baptism is to Christians. To whom I answer, That it is the contempt of that Sacrament that is meant, and not the want thereof, if occasion served not to receive the same, as Lombard and Carthusian forecited showeth, for many children amongst the Isra • lits died in the womb, some in the birth, and others after, before the eight day, as well as the children of Christians do, and it were a cruel doctrine to say that all such were damned, as also during forty years in the wilderness there was no circumcision used, and yet we must not yield, that therefore all infants who died then without it, were damned and cut off from their people.

As for Fathers he citeth only Augustine, Pope Leo, Irenaeus, & Cypriā, but setteth not down their words. But he may remember (as Maldonado witnesseth on John 6. 53.) that Augustine and Pope Innocent 1. were as much for the necessity of infants receiving the Eucharist, which opinion (saith he) generally continued in the Church 600. years.

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

WHich he saith is contrary to Act. 8. 14. where it is said, That Peter & John having laid hands on them that were baptized, they received the Holy Ghost. To which I answer 1. We deny that confirmation is a sacrament at all, seeing that the Council 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 affirm, that confirmation was not instituted by Christ, as Bellarmine testifieth, lib. de sacramentis in genere, c. 23. 2. Suarez and Bellar. likewise granteth that the imposition of hands Act. 8. was not sacramental. (Suarez disp. 33. sect. 3. and Bellarmine lib. 2. de confirm. cap. 9.) 3. Neither will Romanists themselves say that everyone that is confirmed by popish confirmation receiveth the Holy Ghost (especially 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 baptized. Beside that there is neither the matter (as anointing with Chrism, nor form as signing with the Cross, 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 Baptism and the laying on of hands. And as for Cyprians testimony it speaks only of two sacraments, but mentioneth not that popish confirmation was one of these two, and giving that it were, yet Bellarmine lib. 2. de effectu sacram. cap. 24. and Cassander consult. art. 13. confesseth that both in scripture, & other Authors, the name of sacrament is given to many things, which by consent of all are not sacraments properly and indeed.

39 THat the bread in the Lord's supper is but a figure or remembrance of the body of Christ received by faith, and not his true body.

WHich he saith is contrary to Luke 22. 15. where he saith, with desire I have desired to eat this passover with you. To which I answer 1. in general, that we never did hold that the bread in the supper of the Lord is but a bare figure or remembrance of Christ's body, and therefore saith the confession of our faith anno 1581. art. 21. We utterly damn the vanity of these that affirm sacraments to be nothing but bare & naked signs, and in our late Confession anno 1647. fitted for the whole three kingdoms, positivelie we say, Wherein as really but spiritually, the Body 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 soul is spirituallis fed) the bread is transubstantiated into Christ's body, and received by the bodily mouth, this we deny as most erronius and heretical. 2. As to that place of Luke which he bringeth to prove the same. 1. the man's ignorance and impertinencie is to be admired, wherein Christ only expresseth his great desire to eat the typical passover with his disciples, whereof himself was the substance, 1. Cor. 5. 7. And which lamb being called the passover (it being but a sign and memorial of the Lord's passing over the houses of the Isralits, as we see, Exod. 12. 13. and 13. 9. maketh against papists, who will not admit in the Eucharist such a sacramental speech.

The second place which he bringeth is, Luke 22. 16. where Christ saith, That he will not drink anymore of the fruit of the vine, till it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. Which words (saith he) cannot be understood figurativelie, more nor the former of eating the passover. To whom we answer 1. That never any of us said any such thing, that the words of eating the Passover were to be understood figurativelie, nor yet that these words are to be understood figurativelie but properly, which Christ speaks here of drinking the fruit of the vine, which pope Innocent the 3. declareth to be spokē of the sacramental 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 far from proving Transubstantiation, as that they quite overthrow the same, seeing that which out Savior drank at his last supper, he calls 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 saith Chrysostom (hom. 83. in Math.) speaking against some who used water in this sacrament in place of wine, When our Savior celebrated this mystery (saith he) he gave unto his disciples wine, calling it the fruit of the vine which produceth not water. For as Theodoret saith (dial. 2.) The mystical signs departeth not after consecration frō their own nature, but remaineth in their former substance, form and figure, and may be seen and touched as they were before.

The third place is, John 6. 51. where Christ saith, I am the living bread which came down from heaven, & being granted to be living, what else is it but his body (saith he.) To whom I answer 1▪ as Bellarmine witnesseth (lib. 1. de. Euch. cap. 5.) all these Romanists, to wit, Gabriel Biel, Cardinal Cusanus, Thomas Aquinas, Cardinal Cajetan, Ruardus Tapperus, Joannes Hesselius, affirms, and Cornelius Jansen especially (concord. cap. 59.) unanswerablie proveth, p. 387. & 389. That this chapter meddleth nowise with any sacramental eating of Christ's body, or drinking his blood. 2. This Text maketh rather against Transubstantion, for though Christ saith I am the living bread, yet it followeth not that therefore his flesh was transubstantiated into bread, & consequently no more doth it follow, that when Christ said of the bread, This is my body, that therefore bread was transubstantiated into His body.

The fourth and main place is, Math. 26. 26. Take, eat, This is my body. To which I answer 1. with the forenamed Theodoret dial. 1. That our Savior hereby honored the visible signs with the name of his body and blood, not changing their nature (saith he) but adding grace to nature. And so likewise speaketh Pope Gelasius against Eutyches. (de duabus Christi naturis) 2. Augustine 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 body, that is, a sign and symbol thereof. 3. The Popes own canon law, & Gratians gloss theron (dist. 2. de consecra. c. hoc est) expoundeth these words thus. The heavenly sacrament which truly representeth Christ's flesh is called the body of Christ, but improperlie, wherefor it is called so after the own manner, not that it is so truly, but in a signifying Mystery, so that the meaning is (saith the gloss on the former words) it is called the body of Christ, that is a sign of Christ's body.

As for the testimonies of Fathers, he citeth Ambrose, where he saith, It is bread before the words of consecration but after, of bread it is made the flesh of Christ. To which I answer 1. That he perverteth Ambrose words, which are these. It was not Christ's body before consecration, but I say to thee, that after consecration it is Christ's body. 2. In the same place be explains 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, Therefore (saith he) Christ's blessing is of that force, ut sint quae erant, & in aliud commutentur, that is, that the Elements they remain 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 consecrate, thou began to be a new creature. Now I hope, no man will say that by regeneration, or our consecrating to God's service, we are changed in substance, but in quality, from a sinful di • position to a more holy. And in his fourth book of the sacraments. cap. 5. he therefore calleth the consecrated bread The figure of Christ's body, whereby 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 testimony is out of an obscure and late Monk, whom he calleth S. Remigius, saying, That Christ's flesh & the consecrated bread are one body, but telleth not where he speaketh so, neither doeth it prove any conversion of the substance of the bread into Christ's flesh, but that these two are one by a sacramental union. As for other fathers whom he only citeth, but setteth not down their words, none of them proveth any popish transsubstanciation, yea, Justin Martyr whom he citeth, apol. 2. his words overthrows the same, saying only, That the sacramental bread is not common bread, whereby our flesh and blood is nourished, which is not done by Christ's body, it being only the food of the soul.

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

WHich he saith is contrary to John 6. 51. where Christ saith, If any man shall eat of this bread, he shall live forever, here (saith he) life ever lasting is promised to him that eateth of the bread only. To whom I answer 1. as I show before in my answer to the same place, a number of famo{us} Romanists declareth, that there is no speech of sacramental eating in that chapter, and in particular Cardinal Cusanus (epist. ad Bohemos p. 858.) when he hath affirmed the same, and that the spiritual feeding only on Christ by faith is there set down, he concludeth thus, Et • aec est necessaria omnium Doctorum sententia (saith he) 2. If this were spoken of sacramental eating, then all who receive not the sacrament, as childrē before ripe age who die, should be damned, because our Savior saith verse 53. Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood. ye have no life in you. 3. We see here drinking of his blood as necess • rie requi • ed as the eating of his flesh, which is against their depriving of people of the sacramental cup.

The second place is, Luke 24. 30. Christ at Emmaus (saith he) communicated his disciples under one kind. To which I answer, That the Evangelist speaketh there only of ordinary refection, as he did Mat. 14. 19. which is here called The breaking of bread, Therefore saith their own Carthusian, He took bread and blessed it but did not convert it into his body (saith he) but only as his custom was to bless meat. whence also saith their own Jansen (concord. c. 146. p. 249) Ther ar s • me who from this place would take an argument (saith he) to prove that it is lawful 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 (saith he) And as for the n • v • l • ie of this half communion, which Pope Gelasius calleth sacrilege (part. 3. decret 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 (saith he) until this day. Wherefore we conclude in Bellarmine's words (lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 7. §. quia vero) That it cannot be doubted, but that it is best to be done which Christ did, and we know that Christ said to his disciples, representing (saith Cassander) the persons of all faithful Communicants (drink ye all of this) as the Apostle also speaketh accordingly 1. Cor. 11. 28. And therefore as for their fiction of concomitance, whereby they would elude these words. I will ove • throw the same only by their bishop Jansen words (concord. cap. 59 p. 389.) saying, It doth not easily appear how the outward taking of the bread alone can be called drinking, for it is rightly called eating, because there is something taken there by way of meat, but how can that be called drinking (saith he) where there is nothing taken by way of drink?

41 THat there is not in the church a true and propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass.

WHich he saith is contrary to Malachi. 1. 11. where the Lord saith, That in every place incense shall be offered to his Name & a pure offering To which I answer, 1. That Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 20. and Tertullian lib. 4. adv. Marcion. As also Theodoret on this place, expoaes this pure offering to be the spiritual sacrifices of prayer & thanksgiving. 2. Hugo Cardinalis▪ as also their own lyra, shows that the Lord would hereby give the jewish priests to know that spiritual sacrifices were to succeed thereto which were carnal and in particular devote prayer is this pure offering (saith Lyra.)

The second place is, Psal. 110. 4. where Christ is called A Priest after the order of Melchizedek, whose sacrifice was made in bread and wine (saith he) as the Mass is now. To whom I answer, 1. That Melchisedecks sacrifice was not in bread and wine, for that was the refreshment only which he brought forth to Abraham and his followers, as Clemens Alexandrinus witnesseth, & therefore their own vulgar hath the word protulit. he brought forth. and not the word, obtulit▪ he offered up▪ 2. Cardinal Cajetan (and with him Andradius) saith, there is nothing in that story (Gen. 14. 18.) of any sacrifice or oblation that Melchizedek-offered up to God (saith he) but that be caused bring forth bread and wine (as Iosep • us reporteth) for the refreshment of the victors. And thereafter, when he cometh to these words (And he blessed him) behold here (saith he) is his Priestlie action, according to Numb. 6. 23. which therefore the Apostle mentioneth Heb. 7. 1. and proveth him thereby to be greater nor Abraham, and consequently his Priesthood to be greater nor Levi's who was then in Abarhams loins, because at that time Levi was both tythed and blessed by him.

The third place is, Luke 22. 19. This is my body which was given for you. To which I answer, That of these words I have already spoken, by which here they would make Christ to have been a Mass-priest, and to have sacrificed himself the night before he was sacrificed on the Cross. And so, (contrary to Heb. 10. 14. That by one only offering he hath not perfected forever them who are sanctified,) but contrar to Heb. 7. 27.) That He offered himself up twice, whereas it was necessary (saith Paul Heb. 9. 25.) That he should not offer himself up ofter than once, for then (as he saith) he must have suffered ofter than once. which the Apostle counteth a most gross absurdity.

As for the testimonies of Fathers which he bringeth, who calleth that which Christ instituted at his last supper, An unbloodie & mystical venerable sacrifice. I answer 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 a sacrifice and oblation because it is the remembrance and representation of that true sacrifice and holy real oblation which was made on the Altar of the Cross, which only was bloody. In likmanner saith 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 Lord's passion & sacrifice on the Cross. So also speaks Gabriel Biel on the canon of the Mass, lect. 85. calling the Eucharist a sacrifice because it is a representation and memorial (saith he) of that true and holy sacrifice offered on the Cross. And subjoineth this reason, for as Augustine (saith he) writeth to Simplician. the Images of things useth to be called by their names whereof they are images. as we say this is Cicero, when it is but Cicero's picture (saith he) So in likmanner speaketh Lyra on Heb. 10. and many more Romanists. So that it is false that Bellarmine saith 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 Idol of the Mass, which they adore, therefore I will labor to overthrow this Dagon by some few arguments furnished by themselves, as 1. A sacrifice and Priesthood are relatives (saith Bellarmine, lib. 1. de Missa. cap. 2.) so that to a sacrifice properly so called, a Priesthood also properly called must be correspondent (saith he) whence it will follow, that if the Mass be a sacrifice properly so called, the Priest must be a Priest also properly so called, and if this be, he must be either after the order of Aaron, which hath ceased, or after the order of Melchizedek, & this he cannot be, because Christ living, and being a Priest forever after that order, he hath no successor therein, as we are taught, Heb. 7. 23. 24. Next (saith Bellar. in the same chapter §. neque) Melchisedecks sacrifice was bread and wine, & so saith this Pamphleter, whence it will follow that in the Mass in likmanner that which is offered up by the Priest (giving that he were after the order of Melchizedek) must be bread and wine only, and consequently not the flesh & blood of Christ by transubstantiation 3. If they will say that it is notwithstanding Christ's own body and blood that is offered up. then out of Bellar. in the same place §. 6. I reason thus, in a sacrifice properly so called there must be some sensible thing that is offered (saith he) but this cannot be Christ's body, because by none of the senses, as sight, taste, or touch, can it be discerned to be there, and as for the accidents of the bread, as shape, color 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 (saith he) that it cease to be what it was before. Which to affirm of Christ's body offered up in the Mass, wer most horrid blasphemy.

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

WHich he saith is contrary to I am. 5. 14. where the anointing of the sick with oil is commanded. To which I answer in Cardinal Cajetans words on this place, saying, Neither by these words themselves, nor by the effects, doth these words speak of sacramental extreme unction, but rather of that unction (saith he) which the Lord Jesus did institute in the gospel to be exercised on the sick, for the Text saith not, if any be sick unto death, b • t absolutlie, if any be sick (saith he) and further the effect is the raising up of the sick, whereas extreme unction is not given but at the point of death (saith he) besides this James biddeth call many elders, and many anointers to one sick person, which is altogether disagreable to the manner of extreme unction (saith he)

The second place is Mark 6. 13. And they anointed many with oil who were sick, and healed them. whereunto the same Cardinal answereth thus, This unction (saith he) was not sacramental, for it is evident that they used oil here, for healing, not for ministering any sacrament (saith he) as also it is clear that thereupon followed health, otherwise the virtue of healing oil (which was miraculous) had not been known, & this effect is not found by extreme unction (saith he) And of this same judgment with Cajetan were Ruardus, Jansen, & Dominic{us} a Soto with others, as witnesseth Bellarmine, 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 here of any unction. And 2. The effect of the laying on of the Apostles hands was recovery, which is not the effect (as Cajetan speaketh) of extreme unction.

As for the fathers whom he only 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 Augustine in speculo: for therein are insert some verses of Boetius, who was long after Augustine.

43 THat no inward grace is given by impositiō of hands, in holy orders, & that ordinary vocation & mission of Pastors is not necessary in the Church,

FOr answer 1. The last of these Assertions, That ordinary vocations and mission of Ministers is not necessary in the Church, is so impudent & gros • e a calumny, as I cannot enough wonder how he could vent or invent such a lie. Seeing both in our Confession of faith 1581. art. 22. and in our later 1647. the contrary thereof may be seen. And as for the first which he saith is contrary to 2. Tim. 4. 6. where it is said, Wherefore I put thee in remembrance, that thou stir up the gift of GOD which is in thee by putting on of my hands. and 1. Tim. 4. 14. where it is •• d, Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, and laying on of the hands of the presbytrie. I answer, 1. There is here 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 wherewith he was endued to gain souls, or the Episcopal order or degree whereunto for that end he was called and advanced, as Cajetan and • ombard also expoundeth. Their late Estius also expoundeth this gift to be That ability that was given him of God to execute his charge of teaching, exhorting & convincing &c. not that he received the gift of all and sindrie of these upon a sudden, when he was ordained (saith he) for he ought not to have been ordained a Bishop, except he had been endued with these gifts before (saith he) or that by this imposition of hands (saith Aquinas) Ministri dant gratiam, The Ministers or presbyters cōferres grace on him that is ordained, but that this signified only the grace that was conferred upon him before by Christ. And whereby (saith the ordinar gloss) was confirmed to him that authority which he did receive, to wit, of the public exercise of the holy Ministry.

As for his citation of some Fathers, the same is either so looslie, as Augustine l. 4. quest. super num. but tells not what questiō, whereas there 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 religio{us} persons who have vowed chastity to God, may frelie marry notwithstanding of their vow.

WHich he saith is contrary to Deut. 23. 22. where it is called A sin to vow and thereafter to break it. To which I answer, That this place speaketh only of vows free, lawful, and possible to be performed which popish forced & mōasticall vows of perpetual single life and the like annexed to holy 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 entangle himself. The unclean fruits whereof may be seen in the lives of the Popes themselves, & frō them downward to the lowest skirts of their clergy, as is notour to the world, & as I have particularly shown by their own famous historians in the 16. chapter of my late Treatise, called Antichrist pointed and painted out in his true colors. Which made their own Ferus on Math. 19. 12. to say, You may see hereby how unwarily & uncircumspectlie they do, who close within Monastries their children being but young, whilas they know not what sort of persons they will be, whereby how great evils do arise (saith he) Who is he that seeth not?

And of the rest of the popish clergy▪ thus also speaketh their own Cassander (consult. art. 23.) The matter now is come to that pass, that ye shall not find scarce the hundredth man who abstaineth from the company of women (saith he) And again, this is to be remarked, as these who would enter in holy orders at restrained frō that which by God's institution is permitted, and is a remedy against lust, to wit, marriage, which is called The Bed undefyled, & honorable in all. Heb. 13. 4. So on the contrary, whoredom, which is forbidden by God, and whereof 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) where it is said, That it is cōmonlie held, that one ought not to be deposed for simple fornication. And remark the reason, because (saith the gloss) very few ar found without that fault. And therefore 1. we affirm that no such enforcement of such vows should be 2. That being made, if t •• y • end to the prejudice of a man's soul, by exposing him to the unavoidable danger of sin, as fornication, adultery & the like, therefore they do not bind, but are better broken than keeped.

The second place which he bringeth is 1. Tim. 5. 11. But the younger widows refuse, for whē they have began to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry &c. To which I answer. That this place is a direction only not to admit to the office of diaconesses (as Phebe is styled Rō. 16. 1.) which at that time required unmarried women any that were young under the age of 60. years at least, because howsoever they will profess a single life, or continency (but their is no word of vows) yet they will not be able to perform the same, and so will make but a rash and an unlawful profession, from which sort he therefore dissuadeth younger women, verse 14. & willeth that they rather marry and bare children, not to profess continency, & yet thereafter (as verse 15.) to turn after Satan by whoredom and lust. This place then is rather against the making of such vows or profession of perpetual continency in religious persons that are young, the evils whereof in the Popish Church (as their Ferus speaketh) who is he that knoweth not? to the great provocation of God's wrath, stain 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 already turned aside after Satan. To marry then after the vow of chastity once made, is here termed by the Apostle a turning aside after Satan (saith he.) To which I answer 1. That Primasius expoundeth this, That they are turned after Satan, either by denying the faith of God, or by committing fornication (saith he) 2 Their own late Estius saith 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 (saith he) for hereby a greater occasion of speaking evil against the profession was furnished to enemies as v. 14. As also (saith 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 incontinency, was a sufficient reason to the Apostle for refusing such, so like wise should the woeful experience of so many whorish Priests, Friers, Nuns and others, teach, that no young person should be forced in their admission to holy orders, to vow and make profession of perpetual continency. which moved Cardinal Cajetan to say on 1. Tim. 5. 12. As Paul had learned by experience the forenamed inconvenients, by admitting young widows under 60. years to a profession of continency, so would God (saith he) that we would learn by such experience, whither the solemn vows of persons o • both sexes in their youth, that have entered into holy & religious orders, hath done good i • the Church or not.

But it seemeth strange to me that against the marriage of religious persons he should allege scripture, seeing in the Popes canon law (causa 28. q. 2.) and by Bellarmine himself (lib. de clericis cap. 18.] it is acknowledged That the marriage of Priests is not forbidden by Law or gospel nor any Apostolical authority, but by a later Church constitution, for repealing whereof Pope Pius the second (as Platina reports) used to say, that there was greater reason & cause to repeal it, than there was for making the same. The fruit of which decree their own Cassander setteth down (consult. art. 23) saying, We see by this decree that chastity is so far from being established, that a window is seen to be opened to all lust & villainy. Therefore also did Gerson Chancellor of the universitie of Paris deplore (de vita spirituali animae lect. 4. coroll. 14) That the places of the holy Ministry were possessed by Adulterers, whoremasters, Sodomites and such like Monsters, and that the number of this kind was so great, that there was no proceeding against them. yea, Whoredom was of so little account amongst them, & authorised, that it is said in the gloss on the canon Law (dist. 81. cap. Maximianus) That for simple fornication a Priest is not to be deposed, Seeing as hath been said, Few were to be found who were free of that vice. So likewise to the very same purpose, (causa 2. quest. 7. cap. Lator) it is again said, That single fornication is not worthy of deposition. So that as Bernard speaketh serm. 66▪ in cantica. Take from the Church honorable marriage, and the Bed undefiled, you shall fill the same with whoredoms, incests, filthy issues, effeminat and Sodomitical Monsters, and in a word with all sort of uncleanness.

And what opposition was made against this decree of forced single life made by Pope Gregory 7. alias Hildebrand, anno, 1074. by the whole Clergy almost. Their own Sigebert declareth in his Chronicle, saying, Pope Gregory having convocated a synod, removed from their office all married Priests, and inhibit all Laics to hear their Mass by a new example, whereupon did arise so great a scandal, that in the time of no heresy, the church was rent with a more grievous schism, many thereby joining also with incontinency, perjury and manifold Adulteries. Which made that noble poet in his time Chaucer, Esq. of woodstock▪ anno 1341. to say in his plowmans tale. They live not in lecherie, but haunt Wenches, Widows & wives, and punisheth the poor for poultrie, Themselves using it all their lives.

45 THat fasting and abstinence from certain meats is not grounded on holy scripture, nor causeth any spiritual good.

FOr answer, 1. That fasting is not grounded on scripture, nor causeth any spiritual good, we disown, for our Confession of faith, 1647. cap. 21. art. 5. testifieth the the contrary, where solemn fasts in their several times and seasons, used in an holy religious manner, are declared to be a part of God's religious worship, according to the scriptures there alleged. So that we admit both private & public fasting for humiliation, as the same is joined with prayer, and fitteth us the better for devotion, as also tendeth to spirit • all good many ways, as we see Act. 13. 3. Math. 17. 21. &c. But as for enjoining abstinence from certain sorts of meat at set times, & for conscience sake, joined with opinion of merit or satisfaction. This we oppose as a doctrine of devils, so called 1. Tim. 4. 3. contrary to Christian liberty, and to God's word, 1. Tim. 4. 4.

As for the example of the Rechabits which he bringeth, Ierm. 35. 5. of forbearing the drinking of wyne forever, It was a singular case, and a particular human injunction only 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, temporary only, & relating to some only, as also meerlie ceremonial.

46 THat Jesus Christ descended not into hell nor delivered • hence the souls of the Patriarch's out of the same.

WHich he saith is contrary to Ephes. 4. 8. where it is said, That when Christ ascended on high he led captivity captive, which Captives (saith he) were the souls of the fathers which Christ delivered out of Limbus. To whom I answer 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 soul, signifieth any place appointed for the godly, but for the wicked only & damned forever. 2. By Captivity led captive, Christ's enemies & ours are only meant, & not his friends or the fathers, which is clear, first by the alike speech, Judge. 5. 12. where Deborah after the victory over Israel's enemies, saith to Barack, Arise Barack and lead thy Captivitie captive. That is, thy vanquished enemies. 2. The fathers also so expound these words, therefore saith Tertullian lib. 5. contra Marcion. He led Captivitie captive, that is death & that slavery under which man was. Haymo also & Theophy lact on Ephes. 4. 9. saith, That this captivity was the Devil, death, the curse of the Law & sin And so also speaketh Augustine (on psal. 67.) 3. So also do their own Doctors 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 leave my soul in hell. To which I answer, 1. Their Arias Montanus in his interlineall Bible approven by the University of Lovan, and printed at Antuerp 1572. 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 soul is put for the body, which he was not to leave in the grave. And Bellarmine, lib. 4. de Christo. cap. 12. grantes that the hebrew word nephesh or anima, is a general word which sometimes signifieth the body, as is clear (saith he) by many parts of scripture. Wherof he instances one, Gen. 37. 21. where Reuben saith to his brehren concerning Joseph, Non interficiam{us} animā ejus where the word anima is not taken for the soul properly so called nor by a Trope for the man himself, but properly for his flesh or body (saith he) and as Nephesh sometimes signifieth the body, so in the same sense is the greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 used by the septuagint Levite. 21. 1. & 11. 2. The hebrew word Sheol, also, is taken two ways in scripture, to wit, either for the receptacle of the corporal part of man after death, and so it signifieth the grave. which is not only called in the greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as 1. Cor. 15. 55. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 O grave where is thy victory? orelse it is taken for the receptacle of the spiritual part or soul of man after death, and thus being taken, it is translated, Hell, and then only and ever it signifieth the place of the damned, out of which there is no delivery, as Augustine 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, In the hebrew (saith he) for INFERNUS is put SHEOL which doth not only signify Hell, but also the grave. as we 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 general under the power of death, whereof Peter speaketh Act. 2. 24. and thus doth their Jansen expound in Prov. 15. 11. and Genebrard in psal. 88. 48. Thus the words being cleared by Romanists thenselves, 1. then whither the meaning be this, Thou will not leave my body in the grave, according to Arias Montanus translation of psal. 16. 10. relating so to Christ's resurrection, which is the Apostles purpose to prove, or 2. whither the meaning be, Thou will not leave me under the power of death, as Jansen expoundeth, or 3. whither 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or soul be taken for the spiritual part of man, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 Limb{us}, or any descēse of Christ's soul thither, because the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Infernus (when it is taken for the grave, or that which is in place thereof, as Gen. 43. 38. and Jonah. 2. 2.) It ever signifieth the place of the damned, as both scripture showeth, and Augustine forecited, and I hope that papists themselves will never say, that the souls of the Patriarchs went down thither.

Moreover, concerning the descense of Christ's soul to hell. Romanists themselves disagree thus. 1. Scotus in 1. sent. dist. 11. q. 1. disclaimeth any warrant in the gospel for it. 2. Bellarmine (lib. 4. de Christo. c. affirmeth that Christ's soul descended locally to the place of the damned. 3. Aquinas denieth this (as Bellar. showeth in the same place) and saith that he only descended locallie to that part of hell, which is called Limbus. 4. Durand. mantaineth that Christ's soul descended to no part of hell locallie, but virtualie only and by effect, seeing the scripture (saith he) distinguisheth nowise the hell of the damned frō any other place, otherwise (saith Durand. in 3. sent. dist. 22. q. 3.) his soul had been in two places together, seeing he said to the thief on the Cross, this day thou shall be with me in Paradise. And which virtual descending of Christ into hell, Protestants likewise acknowledge, Chamier speaking thus (lib. 5. de Christo, cap. 3.) Moreover (saith he) when we say. He descended into hell, we signify thereby the efficacy of Christ's death, whereby he overcame hell. The fruit of which victory not only appertaineth to them who were to come after, but also to them who had long gone before (saith he.)

The third place is 1. Pet. 3. 18. Being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the spirit, by which also he went & preached to the spirits in prison. Which he saith wer the Fathers in Limb{us}. To which I answer, That this place proveth no descending of Christ's soul 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 days of Noab. 2. who were these spirits in prison to whom he went. & 3. The time when he went. First then the spirit by which Christ went and preached, was not his human soul, but his divine spirit, for so saith Augustine epist. 99. ad Evodium, as also Beda on this place. O Ecumeni{us} likewise and Athanasius, which exposition Estius saith agreeth well with 2. Cor. 13. 4. Aquinas likewise part. 3. q. 52. art. 2. saith that it was by the spirit of his divinity that he went & preached (saith he) by the mouth of just Noah. Lyra in likemanner saith, That it was by the holy Ghost in Noah and in other good men. So also speaketh Hugo Cardinalis & the Jesuit Salmeron on this place. Next, Scripture itself testifieth in the same place, That it was by that spirit by which he was quickened and raised from the dead, and that this spirit was his divine spirit, is witnessed Rom. 8. 11. by which also our mortal bodies shall be quickened, and which dwelleth in the Elect. And this is not Christ's soul, but his holy spirit, as v. 9. Next, the spirits to whom he went are descrived 1. That they wer disobedient, & who abused the long suffering patience of God that waited for their repentance in the days 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 itself declareth, & therefore wer not fred therfra at Christ's 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 days of Noah, and not after his death, which days were thousands of years before the same. Therefore saith Beda they were the wicked & carnal livers in the age that Noah lived in to whom Christ preached. And so saith Carthusian, and this he did (saith Aquinas) by the mouth of just Noah, & by the holy Ghost (saith Lyra) in Noah & other good mē. By all which it is clear that it was not after Christ's death, that in his soul he descended to any popish Limbus, to deliver the godly Patriarch's therfra. Seeing the Patriarch that was then alive in the days of Noah, was only Noah himself.

The fourth place is Heb. 11. 40. God having provyded a better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect, whence it followeth (saith he) that these holy souls were detained till then in a place distinct from heaven, and hell of the damned. To whom I answer, That no such thing followeth from these words, but that the glorifying both in soul and body of these holy pat • iarch's shall not be till the general resurrection, when both they and we shall be perfectly in both glorified together, which is the exposition of Aquinas, Cajetan and Lombard on this place, Calling the glorifying of their souls 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 body at the last day. This like wise is the exposion of their late Estius, which he showeth to be also Augustine's, epist. 99. and Evodium and 49. Treatise on John, as also Chrisostoms, and Erasmus in his paraphrase. And concludeth thus saying, The Apostle therefore speaketh of the perfyting which is to be at the general resurrection.

The fifth place is, Math. 12. 40. That as Jonah was three days & three nights in the Whales belly: so should the son of man be three days & three nights in the heart of the earth. which he expoundeth, Hell. To which I answer, This is only spoken of Christ's body in the grave, and not the being of his soul in hell witness Chrysostom hom. 44. in Math. 12. whose words are, He saith not in the earth, but in the heart of the earth, to wit, in the grave (saith he) Thus also doth Gregory Nyssen expound, epist. ad Eustachium. So saith Auselmus on Math. 12. He was in the heart of the earth, to wit, in the grave (saith he) Thus also doeth Ignatius expound epist. ad Trallianos Euth • mius in Math. 12. Jerome also and Tertullian with diverse others, & thus also saith their own Lyra, The son of man shall be in the heart of the earth three days & three nights, that is in the grave, & so speaketh their parisian Doctor Arboreus, & others. And which answer 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 answer, That here is a resurrection of the bodies of the saints: coming out of their graves, but no coming of their souls out of any part of hell o • a popish Limbus.

The seventh place is Zach. 9. 11. By the blood of thy Covenant I have let out thy prisoners forth of the pit wherein there is no water. That is, the Fathers out of Limbus (saith he) To which I answer shortly, omitting Augustine's exposition lib. 18. de civitate dei. cap. 35. Of the deep of man's misery by sin, out of which by Christ's blood we are freed, Bellar. himself answereth clearly for us, l. 1. de purg. cap. 3. and showeth That no such thing as Limbus patrum can be meant hereby, because their is water of comfort and refreshment in Limbus (saith he) whereas in this pit whereof Zechariah speaketh there is no water at all.

As for his last place, 1. Sam. 28. 14. concerning Samuel's apparition to Saull▪ we have answered it already, that it was not Samuel, but the Devil in his shape. And which place is most impertinently brought to prove Christ's descense into hell, by the apparition of any such spirit coming out of hell of the damned.

As for Fathers, whom he only citeth▪ Jerome explaineth himself on Ephes. 4. 9. what he saith on v. 8. Next, Augustine on psal. 171. hath nothing of Limbus patruū or Christ's descense there, and as for Gregory there is no such place as he mentioneth, lib. 3. Moral. cap. 20. For that book hath only 17. chapters in it.

47 THat there is no purgatory fire, or other prison wherein sin • s may be satisfied for, after this life.

WHich saith he is contrar to 1. Cor. 3. 13. 15. The fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is, if any man's work be burnt, he shall suffer loss. yet he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. To which I answer, or rather their own Estius on this place, saying, Sindrie expoundeth this place (saith he) of Purgatory, wherein after this life, and before the day of the last judgment the souls of the just are purged from their lighter sins, but it appeareth that this cannot be said (saith he) both because the words showeth that the day of particular judgment is not to be understood, but of the general judgment, whereas the purging of the souls pertaineth to the particular judgment, as also because the fire of purgatory doth not try every man's work (saith he) but punisheth only the evil works of good men. Bellarmine also lib. 1. de purg. cap. 5. saith, That the word (fire) in the 13. and 14. verses is to taken only allegoricallie, and that the fire of purgatory is not thereby to be meant, for of this fire the Apostle says it shall burn the work, not the worker (saith he) and therefore a purging or afflicting fire of persons is not meant thereby, only he would have the word (fire) in the 15. verse to be taken in another sense than in the other two verses, and thereby to be meant the fire of purgatory, but 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 speak of fire in so diverse significations, neither can any easily be persuaded (saith he) that in the third place a purgatory fire of souls 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 he doth, saying, Let none marvel that I have not followed these authors in all things, because that neither thenselves amongst themselves do always agree▪ Such is his testimony of their braged of unity.

The second place is John 11. 22. But I know that even now (saith Martha to Christ) Whatsoever thou will ask of God, he will give it thee. Ergo there is a fi • e of purgatory, 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 sorrows of hell, that is, loosing men one of their pains there (saith he) To which I answer 1. That he shamefullie perverteth the Text, for it is in the original, Thanatu, & in our translation, and their own interlinear, (the sorrows of death, & not hell) So that altho he pretended in the Preface, & promised to refute our doctrine by the express text of our own Bible, yet here he grosslie passeth therefra, and for establishing of his purgatory, he purgeth out the word (death) & putteth in (hell) in place thereof which is a bold corrupting. 2. The text speaketh only of Christ's own being loosed from the sorrows of death, and not of his loosing any other persons from the same, and far less from hell, or any other place of purgatory, which thing was done by his resurrection. Therefore saith Cardinal Cajetā on this place, The sorrows were the sorrows of death (saith he) by which is was impossible that he could be holden, to wit, Christ.

The fourth place is 1. Cor 15. 29. Otherwise what shall they do who are baptized for the dead? That is, afflict themselves & do penance for them that are in purgatory (saith he) To which I answer 1. That this cannot be said of voluntary afflicting thenselves, as by prayers alms and fasting undertaken for the help of the dead (saith their own Estius on this place) which if Paul had meant he had not said, who are baptized, as if it were by others, but who baptize themselves for the dead (saith he) The exposition then which he saith is worthiest to be preferred before all others, and which Epiphanius (haeres. 28.) received from them who wer before him as approven, is this (saith Estius) to wit, That these ar said to be baptized for the dead, who having no hope of longer life here, but as dead men, did crave & get baptism, really hereby declaring that they were baptized for the dead, that is, for this end that baptism (which witnesseth their faith in the trinity) might be 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 body at all, what fruit can they reap who are baptized? being about to die, or counted for dead, and who for this cause profess that they were baptized, in respect of that future estate that is after this life, and this meaning is most clear, pure and simple (saith Estius) and most • itt to prove what the Apostle intendeth, and which others also doth approve (saith he) Which exposition likewise the Jesuit also A-lapide approveth as most simple and plain, declaring also that it is Chrisostoms. And so it proveth no purgatory at all.

The fi • th place is Luke 19. 6. Make you friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, that when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations. To which I answer, That this place proveth nowise after death any fire of pu • gatorie, but rather the contrary, that when the godly and charitable persons fail, that is▪ die, they are received presentli • into the eternal habitations of heavenly glory. Therefore saith Bellarmine (lib. 1. de sanctis cap. 3. on 2. Cor. 5. 1.) The Apostles reasoning here is excellent (saith he) to wit, if this mortal life perish we have instantlie another far better in the heavens, for God is no read • er to punish saith he (lib. 1. de sanctis. cap. 6.) than to reward. whence it follows, that if the wicked after death presently go to hell, that the godly in likemanner after death presently go to heaven, and consequently to no fire of purgatory.

The sixth place is Luke, 23. 42. Lord remember me when thou cometh into thy kingdom. which showeth (saith he) that souls may be helped after death. Which indeed we grant, by Christ's receiving thē into his heavenly kingdom, as is here by the Theef petitioned, but no word is here of Christ's helping out of a hell •• sh purgatory. Thus we see by how weak arguments he would prove his Purgatory, which B Fisher (cont. Luth art▪ 18.) granteth was known but of late only, and after many ages believed. And therefore little or no mention is of it in the ancient fathers (saith he) and yet, which Bellarmine saith is a doctrine of faith of such consequence. That he that believeth not purgatory to • e shall never come there, but shall be tormented in hells fire forever. (saith he lib. 1. de purg. cap. 15.) and so he condemneth all the eastern or Greek churches to hell, (beside the Protestants) which notwithstanding the B. of Bitonto in his oration before the Council of Trent acknowledgeth to be the only mother Church of the Roman.

As for fathers whō he citeth, Ambrose in that place speaketh only of the fire of God's judgment. Jerome also speaketh nothing of a popish purgatory, & as for Gregory he says That the fire whereof 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 he speaketh only of the fire of affliction. yea, their B. Fisher cont. Luth. art. 18. saith, That there is little or no mention of it in the ancient fathers at all.

48 THat it is not lawful to make or have images.

WHich is contrary (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, and palm trees &c. Whence he inferreth that these graven Angels, were images of the highest order of Angels (one excepted) which S. Jerome witnesseth that the Jews worshiped. To whom I answer, 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 have not for making their Images of the blessed Trinity, and of saints, setting them up in public places of divine worship to be adored. And therefore worthy & 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 brazen serpent to whō Tertulliā (l. 1. de idololatria) replieth saying, One and the same God both by his general Law forebad any image to be made ( • aieth he) as also by his extraordinary and special command, willed an image of a serpent to be made, if then thou be obedient to the same God (saith he) 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 (saith he) and make no image against the Law, unless God command thee as he did Moses. Whose word is a Law.

Next, where he saith, that S. Jerome witnesses that the Jews worshiped these images of the Cherubims. I answer 1. That they wer not seen by them, seeing they were placed in the holy of holies, into which the High Priest only entered once in the year only. 2. Their own Estius on Heb. 9. 5. testifieth the contrary saying, Neither were the Cherubims placed in the Sanctuary to be worshiped (saith he) but both for the signification of things to come, as also for augmenting the majesty of the place.

His next place is, Hebr. 9. 1. 5. Where the images of the Cherubims ar called divine ordinances. To which I answer, That this confirmeth what hath been said, to wit, that those were made by God's special command, and what God commanded under the law to be done, as typical and significative of more spiritual things under the gospel, (as the Apostle showeth v. 8. 9. 10.) was a sufficient warrant, the like where of papists have not for their unwarrantable making of the images of the Trinity & others abused to idolatry.

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

WHich he saith is contrary to Exod. 3. 5. Where Moses is commanded to put off his shoes before he drew near to the burning bush, because the place whereon he stood was holy ground. To which I answer, 1. That it seemeth strange to me, that for adoration of images, he should bring any scripture, seeing their bishop Melchior Cano ingenouslie acknowledgeth (lib. 3. de Trad. cap. 3. fund. 3.)▪ That the worship of images is not contained in scripture, neither clearly, nor obscurelie. 2. As their Cassander testifieth (consult. 21.) the adoration of images was condemned in the Council of Frankfoord, as contrary to scripture. 3. This reverence that was done by Moses by putting off his shoes was not to the sense • es ground, called holy, because of God's holy presence at that time there, but to the Lord himself, who was manifesting himself there both by voice & vision, as Hugo de S. victor 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 footstool, for it is holy. By which literallie is understood the Ark, which was worshiped by the Jews (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 original, and their own interlinear hath) Adore ye at his footstool, for he is holy, so that it is God, & not his footstool that was to be adored, 2. In the same psalm v. 9. It is said, worship ye at his holy hill, for the Lord our God is holy, which justifieth the former exposition, and not, worship ye his holy hill. 3. his reason is both naughty & false. First, naughty, because the Jews (saith he) worshiped the Ark, because of the images, that wer set on it▪ whence it would follow that not only images thenselves were to be worshiped, but also the places wherein, or whereon they are set. 2. False, because, as their Estius on Heb. 9. 5. testifieth That these images of the Cherubims were placed in the sanctuary or Ark, not to be worshiped (saith he) but for the signification of things to come, and wer not to be seen by the people. And 4. suppose it were, Adore ye his footstool, yet Augustine on that place, • elleth us, that thereby is meaned Christ's humanity, which being • nited to his Deity in a personal 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 Doctors of Duay in their notes on this place likewise.

The third place is, Philip. 2. 10. At the Name of Jesus every knee shall • owe. whence he infers, that seeing words are representing signs, or images to the ear, as other images are to the eye, therefore also they are to be worshiped, as well as the former. To which I answer, that beside O Ecumenius, Theophylect, Sedulius and Haymo, also their own Aquinas, all of them testify, that the name is put for himself who is named, and so likewise saith their late Estius And that by bowing the knee is signified by a metonomie, subjection (saith he) therefore the meaning is, that all who are in any place, knowing that man who is called Jesus to be the son of God, and God himself truly, they shall submit themselves to him (saith he) as God and Lord over all.

The fourth place is Numb. 21. 8. Where the Lord saith to Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole, and it shall some to pass that everyone that is bit or stinged, when he looketh on it shall live. Whence he gathereth, that an image may not only 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 express divine precept, with a promise, which papists have not for making their Idolatrous images of the Trinity, and such like, but a precept in the contrary 2. For reverence or adoration, there is no such thing in the Text, but on the contrary we see the unlawfulness thereof, by that practice of godly Hezekiah in breaking the same when it became to be adored. 2. King. 18. because, as their own Biel showeth on the canon of the Mass lect. 47. This was gross idolatry, and that this godly king by breaking the same removed the occasion thereof, (saith he) 3. In his answer 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 impudency, beside his wresting of scripture, seeing their own Cassander (consult. art. 21.) faith, How much the ancient fathers of the primitive Church did abhor all veneration of images, Origen as one, declareth against Celsus lib. 7. (saith he) Whence also it was, that in the second Council 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 Emperor Charles, he indicted a Council at Frank foord (anno 794.) at which the Popes legats were present, wherein by the unanimous consent of all the western Bishops, the decree of that Nicene Council was condemned, as being contrary (remark) both to scripture, and to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers as also to the custom of the Romā Church (saith he) neither did that subterfuge▪ then prevail, which used to be alleged by some, that they give not the honor to the images thenselves, but to them whom they represent, for this excuse (saith he) was also given by pagans for their adoration of their Images, as we may see in Arnobius, as also in Augustine on psal. 113. 4. Or as we reckon, psal. 115. And yet he citeth Augustine & Gregory, 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 heathenish error, Neither is any such thing in Basil or Chrysostom whom he citeth, that maketh for the worship of images, and as for Damascene alleging it to be an Apostolical tradition only. This maketh against him, who cited for image worship, testimonies of scripture, beside, that Damascene is but late, & • ainted with gross errors, as the denying of the procession of the holy Ghost, (lib. 1. orthod. fidei) And to what hight of gross idolatry their worship of images is come, shall be evidenced, both by their doctrine, as likewise their practice, and both these only out of themselves. And 1. for their doctrine, all the schoolmen [saith 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, & therefore that the Images of God and of Christ are to be worshiped with that highest sort, which they call Latria, as Bellarmine also witnesseth, lib. 2. de imag. cap. 20. §. 2. likewise saith he cap. 21 That the images of Christ and of the saints are to be worshiped, not only by accident or improperlie, but also for themselves & properly, so that themselves terminateth the worship, as they are considered in themselves, and not only as they supply the place of them whom they represent, for if the image (saith 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 certainly (saith he) it might be denied that images were to be worshiped at all. So that for defense of this their doctrine, they ar forced to use most subtle distinctions, which scarce themselves understand, let be the unlearned people saith Bellarmine. lib. 2. de imag. cap. 22. §. quarto.

Next, for their practice, It is more manifest than it can be by many words expressed (saith 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 (saith their Gabriel Biel in canone Missae, lect. 49 • ) That they believe a certain Deity, grace or holiness 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 obtain some of the former things frō them, whence it is also (saith he) that they vow and oblige 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 virtue than that in another, and to be more famous for miracles & of greater power. And if at any time miracles be wrought, upon men (saith he) who have recourse unto them, this is not by the virtue of the image, but sometimes by the operation of the devil to deceive such idolatro{us} worshippers, God so permitting, and their infidelity so deserving (saith he.)

And which idolatrous adoration of images (saith that learned knight and great traveler, sir Edmund Sandys in his speculum Europae, p▪ 228. and 230.) is the greatest scandal of all others, for which both Jews & Turks calleth us idolatrous Christians, and therefore the Jews say, when they come to the Christians sermons, 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 & Savior, to kneell to it, to embrace and kiss it & to weep upon it (as the fashion of Italy is) this is preaching sufficient for them (say they) & persuadeth thē more with the very sight thereof to hate Christian religion, than any reason that the world can allege to love it.

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

WHich is contrary (saith he) to Gen. 3. 8. Wher God appeared to Adam walking in the garden in a corporal form, and to Gen. 28. 12. where he appeared to Jacob standing above the ladder which he saw. To which I answer, That he shameleslie belieth Scripture: for there is no such thing that Adam saw God in any corporal form, but only heard his voice, as it is said likewise, that at the giving of the Law, Deut. 4. 15. 16. The people heard a voice only, 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 above the ladder, and that Lacob only heard a voice, but not that he saw any shape. Therefore says the Prophet Isai. 40. 18. To whom will ye liken God, or what liknes will ye compare to him? whereupon saith Perusin an augustin Frier and professor of divinity, by these words is refuted and rejected the rashness of men, yea their madness and ignorance (saith he) who dare be bold to represent God by any image, therefore also their own 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 commandment. As also Bellarmine himself witnesseth (lib. 2. de sanct. cap. 3.) that Abulensis, Durand. & Peresius do teach plainly That the image of God is nowise lawful to be made. And specially to represent him by a three headed Monster, as they do the image of the Trinity▪ as I have to show in their own Missal.

The third place which he brings is, Exod. 33. 11. where it is said, That Ged appeared to Moses face to faee, whereunto their own bishop Lipomanus answereth out of Augustine l. 4. de symbolo ad Catechumenos, cap. 3. Moses did see God (saith he) not with his bodily eyes but with the eyes of his mind, & because that perpetual light which God is, had in lightened him more than others, therefore it is said that he spake to him face to fate, as if it had been 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 shown, that none can see God with his bodily eyes (saith he) Therefore also saith Cajetan, he saith not that God was seen face to face, but that he spake to him face to face, for God manifesteth himself only by speech, nor is he perceived but by hearing only (saith he.)

The fourth and fifth testimonies 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 white as snow, & the hair of his head like pure wool. Whence he gathereth, that as he was seen, 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 form of fire, and yet their own Richeom (tract. 3. c. 9.) saith To picture him so, wer to favor the pagās, who worshiped the fire, & so may we say that to picture God as an old man (as the papists do) is to favor heretics called the Anthropomorphits, who made him to have the shape and members of a man. Therefore Augustine (de fide & symbolo cap. 7.) giveth this reason why it is not lawful to any Christian to make any such image, Lest we fall into the same sacrile • ge (saith he) whereby the Apostle maketh them execrable who turn the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of a corruptible man Rom. 1. 23.

51 THat blessing or signing with the sign of the Cross is not founded on holy scripture.

WHich he saith is contrary to Revel. 7. 3. Where it is said, Hurt not the earth nor the sea, nor the trees, till I have sealed the servants of GOD in the foreheads To which I answer, 1. That there is no word here of signing, & far less with the sign of the Cross, but (as the original hath) of sealing, and what this sealing is, is expressed 2. Tim. 2. 19. The foundation of the Lord standeth sure, having this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are his, & let everyone that nameth the Name of Christ depart from iniquity. So that it is sanctification & departing from iniquititie, which manifesteth their election, & that such ar the Lord's. 2. If this were the signing with the sign of the Cross, then none that did sign themselves so, would perish, for none of these that were sealed here did perish.

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

As for Fathers, he setteth down none of their words, Therefore we pass by thē, yet with this answer, that none of them proves his point.

52 THat the public service of the Church ought to be said a language that all the people may unstand.

WHich he saith is contrary to Luke 1. 8. where it is said, That Zacharte was burning incense in the temple, & the whole people were praying without where (saith he) he 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 marvel that they did not understand, in what language he had spokē. whereas 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 directiō, for saith Cajetā on that place, out of this doctrine of Paul it is gathered [saith he) That it is better for edifying of the Church, that public prayers which are said in the people's hearing, be said in the vulgar tongue known to the people & Clergy, nor in latin, or an unknowē language. And that this was the practice 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 (saith he) in the vulgar tongue.

The second place is Levite. 16. 17. where 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 holy place, till he (to wit the High-priest) come out again. Which maketh no more to prove that public divine service before the people should be done in an unknown tongue to them, then it proveth Rome to be in Utopia. For 1. This place speaketh only of the High-priests entry into the most holy place with blood to make attoniment, once only a year, which was an action between God and him, and no mention of speech in whatsoever language. 2. Which was to be performed in that place, when there should be no man in the Tabernacle of the Congregation, and therefore private, without any assistance, or presence of any who might either hear or see him. 3. This was a jewish and typical service abrogate, frō whence to draw this consequence. Ergo the public service of the Church under the gospel ought to be said now in a language that people understands not, is as coherent as fire and y • e, or followeth as well in Logic, as to say, that the Author of this Touch-stone is an Animal. Ergo, Bos cornutus.

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