The Abatement of Popish Brags Pretending Scripture to be Theirs

O H well met once again! where have you been that I never saw you since we talked about Pope Joan? Are you the same man for Religion, that you was then?

Yea truly, or rather more resolute, and confident.

What new arguments have you lighted on to increase your resolution and confidence? for my part, I am every day further out of love with your Religion, then other.

The Arguments which have doubled my resolution and confidence are diverse, whereof the first is this: That I find sentence given for us Catholics against you Protestants in all the Tribunals of God's Church, I find that all the Writings of the Saints in Heaven profess for us.

What? the Writings of the Prophets and of the Apostles? and of the Fathers in the Primitive Church? and of the Councils? Do you find that all profess for you?

Yea, all of them: Quaecunque vel opera, vel fragmenta supersunt eorum qui disiunctissimis terris Euangelium seuerunt, omnes nobis vnam fidem exhibent quam hodie Catholici profitemur. There is not a book, nor a piece of a book extant, written by the first Preachers of the Gospel, whensoever, or how far so ever they lived one from another, but it gives witness to the Catholic Faith which we profess at this day.

Can you make proof thereof unto me, and I will be of your Religion?

That I can; and I will first begin with Scriptures: for I am of Doctor Saunders opinion, That there are most plain Scriptures in all points for the Catholic Faith, and none at all against the same. And of Doctor Bristoes mind, whose words these are; Most certain it is, that from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Apocalypse there is no Text that makes for you, nor against us but all for us.

Say you so? Verily, and if the Scriptures be for you, I will be with you: for I like well of Saint Basils motion to one with whom he had a controversy; Stemus arbitratu inspiratae à Deo Scriptura, & apud quos inueniuntur dogmata diuinis oraculis consona, illis omnino veritas adiudicetur sententiae. Let us stand to the arbiterment of holy Scripture, and let them be thought to have the truth on their side whose opinions are found to be agreeable to Scriptures. But let me tell you a word or two by the way, and they are these▪ viz. That you are not more thoroughly persuaded of the truth of your two Doctors speeches, then I am of a Gentlemuns speech of our Religion, who being importuned by an idle Questionist of your side, to tell where our Religion was before Luther's time, returned him this answer▪ That our Religion was always in the Bible, where your Religion never was. In which persuasion I am the more confirmed by this, That there are of yourselves (no fools I wisse) who write, that some among you, Poene peceatum putant Scripturas legere, ne sic siant haeretici: Do think it almost a sin to read the Scriptures, least by reading of them they should prove heretics. For if your Religion were in the Bible, and that in so plain manner as you brag, why should any of you be so afraid of opening a Bible▪ why did one of your Jesuits confess, that Lectis Bebliotu • t cicius haereticum Lutheranum, quam Catholicum Romanum facit: The reading of the Bible makes rather Heretical Lutherans, then Romau Catholics? Why suffer you this marginal Note, Nunc ex •• udit haresies, to be set over these words of Chrysosta •• , • g • oratio scripturarum peperit heresies.

I mean not to take upon me the justifying of every man's private conceits or speeches; but what I myself have said, all that shall be made good. I will prove unto you the troth of our Religion by the Bible.

Now (indeed) I am afraid you are bewitched with that damnable opinion, which of later years hath run currently among you, viz. Sunt scriptura V • lut nasus cereus, qui se her sum, illorsum, & in quam volueris partem trahi, retrahi, fingi{que} facile permittit, & tanquam plumbea quadam Lesbi • • disicationis regula, quam no • 〈◊〉 difficile accommodare ad quiduis volueris. The Scriptures are like a nose of wax, which may be writhen this way, or that way, backward, or forward as a manwould would have it. And with that of Quintinus the Parisian Doctor, commended by Pamelius, who writes thus. Tam facile est, im • facilius est adres profanas & impias pr • bandas detorquere sanctam scripturam, quam facile est & pedibus, ac semi-pedibus aut penthememeribus Virgilianis Epithalmia, sen quiduis aliud in vnum congerere. It is as easy, yea it is more easy to wrest the Scripture to the proving of any villainy or impiety: then to make a Love Song, by snatching here a patch and there a patch of a Verse out of Virgil. And that in confidence hereof you hope to make a show of somewhat out of the Bible for the proving of your Religion: otherwise I know not what should move you to begin with Scripture. You have forgotten (I believe) that Doctor Bristow describing the means to make plain demonstration, that Heretics have no evidence, but you all, adviseth his Agents to labor still to get the Heretics out of their weak and false Castle of holy Scripture, into the plaint fields of Councils and Fathers. For all his bragging of the Scriptures, he put but a little trust in them: he was loath to have them in the foreward.

But I am content they match in the foreward, if you will believe me.

Why, but I pray you then place the best foremost. And if we fall into dispute with Saint Peters Supremacy, trouble me not with such Texts as some of your Rabbies allege for it. Tell me not that our Savior Christ said unto S. Peter only, Duc in altum: Launch into the deep. No • potuisti vna hora vigilare mecum? Couldst thou not watch one hour with me? Sequere me, Follow me. Neither tell me in way of proving the same, That S. Peter cut off Malous care. And if from that we fall to argue about your Popes omnipotency, allege me not the first verse of the first Chapter of Genesis for it, as your Pope Boniface the eight did: neither yet the sixteenth verse of the said Chapter, as another of your Popes, even Innocentius the third did. Nor that in Jeremiah, Chap. 1. v. 10. as the same Innocentius did. Let me notheere out of your mouth, as making to that purpose, That the spiritual man judgeth all things, and himself is judged of no man. Loe: Two swords here. Return thy sowrd into his place. Know you not that we shall judge the Angels? which are the special Texts whereon your Boniface rested. Neither would I willingly hear of Baronius Text, Act. 10. Kill and eat. For that which Polidore Virgil observed to be the trick of Popish Canonists is found practiced by those whomake▪ these Arguments. viz. Non secus ists aliquoties de ••• quent sacr as scriptur as quo volunt, ac sutores for did as solent dentibus extendere pelles. These Canonists do • now and then stretch the Scriptures to their purpose, as shooemakers do their greasy over-leathers with their teeth.

Some of these Texts afford Arguments good enough for the conclusions for which they are brought. Yet fear not you: for I mean not to trouble you with any of them.

Neither, if we ahue occasion to talk of Communicating in one kind, will you (I hope) allege unto me, for proof of your practice, the words in our Pater Noster, Give us this day our daily bread. Nor tell me, That our Savior Christ, John. 6. multiplied l • aues, but multiplied no drink. Nor cite 1 Cor. 5. 7, 8. Our Pasch Christ is immolated. Let us therefore feast in the Azymes of sincerity and verity. And if we fall to argue by case, whether it be meet that boys and wenches should make Monkish vows of obedience, poucrtie, and chastity: you will not press me with such Texts as Bellarmine stands upon, where he disputes the point. You will not tell me, It is written by Jeremiah, Lament. 3. 27. It is good for a man to bear the yoke from his youth. And that our Savior Christ said, Matth. 19. 14. Suffer little children to come unto me. Neither will you in way of proving, That boys and wenches may enter into Monasteries against their parents minds: allege that Text in Gen. 12. Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy fathers 〈◊〉 Nor that in Deut. 33. 9. He that said unto his father and to his mother, I know you not, &c. Not that in the Psalm 45. 10. Forget thine own people, and thy fathers house, and the King shall have pleasure in thy beauty. Nor that in S. Matth. 10. 37. He that loveth father or mother more then me, is not worthy of me. Nor that in S. Luke 9. 60. &c. Let the dead bury the dead. Which are the only Scriptures alleged by Bellarmine in that Controuersie. For these Texts are so far from proving any such couclusions, that a man may truly swear, He and his with had made a fray who alleged them.

I will not trouble you with this neither.

Nor with that, Matth. 7. 6. Give ye not that which is holy to dogs, in way of proving: That ignorant persons may not read the Scriptures. Nor with that in Genesis. God for Adams sin cursed the earth, but not the water, in way of proving. That it is lawful for a man to eat Fish in Lent, but not Flesh. You will make me no such Conclusions as these. Our Savior Luke 4. opened the book and read a few verses in it, and afterwards closed it. Ergo, Divine Service is not to be said in a known language. Be ye holy, for I am holy. Ergo, Ministers of the Gospel may not lie with their wives. God said unto Job's friends, Go unto my servant Job. Ergo, Scripture affordeth a particular precept, binding men to Invocation of Saints. God told Job's friends, That Job should pray for them. Ergo, the Scripture affordeth a particular example of praying to Saints. God promised Job's friends, That he would accept of Job's prayer, &c. Ergo, The Scripture affordeth a particular example of blessing to such as pray to Saints. S. Peter condemneth the unlawful service of Idols, 1 Pet. 4. 3. Ergo, some Idolatry is lawful. S. Paul commands to set the contemptible in the Church to judge. Ergo, The ancient Christians might, if their abilities had served, have deposed from the Empire both the Heathen and Heretical Emperors.

The Conclusions which I will make shall arise naturally from the Text: for they shall be drawn from the express words, which are one thousand times more clear for us, then they are for you, as Cardinal Allen affirms. Yea, very many of the Texts which I will cite, shall be so open and evident, that unless you deny them to be text of Scripture, you shall not be able to avoid them, and the rest shall be such as you cannot shift without glozes and fond interpretations of your own.

Perhaps you will take them to be open and evident for your purpose, which neither seem to me: nor are indeed such in themselves. You know the Proverb; As the fool thinketh, so the bell ringeth. I doubt not but those Puritan Monks, who made themselves wooden Crosses, and carried them on their backs continually, making all the world laugh at them, thought the Text, Matth. 10. He that taketh not a Cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me: a plain and worthy Text for the approving of their practice. And it may be that the French-men, who for the proof of their Salike-Law, alleged the words of our Savior, Luk. 12. 27. Considerate Lilia quomodo crescunt: non laborant, ne que nent. Consider the Lilies of the field how they grow, they labor not, neither do they spin: concluding thereon, Lilia Francorum non deberi nisi nebilibus qui non laborant: nec deberi nisi masculis qui non nent. That the Flower-de-luces of France (meaning the Crown of France) belongs to none but Nobles, who work not for their living; and those men, not women (who are Spinsters) thought they had a good text in hand for their purpose. Certainly your lousie S. Francit, was not ashamed to say, that the words of our Savior, Matth. 25. 40. Quod vni ex minoribus meis fecistis, mihi fecistis. Whatsoever you have done to one of these little ones, you have done it unto me: were spoken by him specialiter, yea ad literam, of his Frier-Minorits. And your Pisanus Writer of that lousie Friers Alcaron will needs threaten us down, That the words of S. Paul, Galat. 6. 16. As many as walk according to this Rule, peace shall be upon them and mercy: were meant of Francis his rule. Have you not read that a Sorbonist finding it written at the end of S. Paul's Epistles, Missa est, &c. bragd he had found the Mass in his Bible? And that another reading in S. John 1. 42. inuenimus Messiam, x drew thence the same conclusion. In Salaminca a Frier took upon him to prove, That the name of the Virgin Mary was spoken of Gen. 1. where we read, that God called the gatherings together of the waters Maria. I doubt not but he thought it an open and evident text for his turn. In another place, another Frier speaking of the words, Ge. 14. 18. Rex Salem panem ac vinū pertulit: fell into a long discourse of the nature of Salt.▪ the nature of Salt. • believe he could hardly have been persuaded that Salem there, had not signified Salt. Your D. Poynes who writes, That it was foretold in the Old Testament, That the Protestants were a malignant Church, alleging for proof thereof, 2. Chr. 24. 19. where, according to our vulgar Translation we read thus, Mittebatque prophet as vt reuerterentur ad Dominum, quos protestants illi audire nolebant, thought an hundred for one, that the text was plain. And it may be that Parish Priest of years, who being at controversy with his Parishioners about pauing some plot of ground, and alleging the words in Ier. 17. 18. to prove that he was not bound to pave any place, saying: Paueant illi, ego non paueant: was not in jest, but in good earnest, thinking the letter of the text made evidently for him. Verily I am persuaded, that that Painter, whosoever he was, who first painted Moses with a pair of horns: making him, as the Jews say, like a devil: thought the text in Exod. 34. 30. where you read, Faciem Moses esse cornutam, Moses face was horned; a plain warrant for his picturing him so. And I make no question, but d they who make the world believe they have the two keys of S. Peter at Rome, showing them sometimes that they may be adored: if they were urged to make proof how S. Peter came by those keys, would allege the words of the Evangelist, To thee will I give the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, as an open and evident text for that matter.

What ado make you about had I wists? I tell you once again, The Scriptures which I will allege shall be plain, and the expositions such, as you shall take no acceptions against. For, for the the truth of our expositions of holy Scripture, we have the continual tradition of the Church: and the testimony and suffrage of all the holy Fathers, and of thousands of Saints and learned men, whoever expounded it as we do, and out of it gathered the self same doctrine and belief.

No marvel if this be so, that you swear thē whole College of your Cardinals: all your Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Abbats, Priors, Friers, Graduats, that they shall never take the Scriptures in other sense, or interpret it to others in other sense, then that which the Fathers gave thereof with joint consent. But I meruell as much that you blush not in saying as you do: as that they tremble not who administer and take such an oath: for as they wittingly give occasion of perjury, who administer such an oath, and they periure themselves who take such an oath: so you apparently speak over. Yet seeing you are so confident, let us fall to our work roundly: And first let me hear by you, what the Scriptures are which are so plain for the proof of your opinions: and when you have done, you shall hear by me what plain texts may be alleged for proof of our opinions.

Take then that for the first; Host est corpus meum, Hic est sanguis meus: This is my body; This is my blood.

For what opinion of yours is this Scripture so plain?

For the Real presence in the Sacrament, which you deny.

We believe as well as you, That Christ's flesh and blood are truly present, and truly received of the faithful at the Lord's Table. We teach the people, that Christieorpus datur, accipitur, manducatur in Caena. The body of Christ is given (indeed and verily) and taken and eaten in the Lord's Supper. The question between us and you is de modo: about the manner of Christ's presence: and not de obiecto, whether he be present or no. You say, Christ is in the Sacrament really, substantially, corporally, carnally, naturally. Yea, you say, He is there sensualiter, sensibly: vt manibus sacerdotum tractari, velfrangi, aut fidelium dentibus atteri possit: so that the Priests may handle him and break him with their hands, and the faithful may tear him with their teeth. Now this manner of presence we deny: and the letter of the words which we allege proves not that. For Christ said, This is my body; and not, This is my body in such a manner. Cajetan your Cardinal confesseth, Non apparere ex Èuangelio coactivum aliquid quo possimus conuincere-haereticos ad intelligendum verba haec, Hoc est corpus meum, proprie: sed tenendum hoc esse solùm ex authoritate Ecclesiae quae ita verba consecrationis declarat. There is nothing in the Gospel whereby an Heretic may be enforced to expound the words, This is my body, properly: but men are to believe so, because the Church teacheth so. And Fisher Bishop of Rochester confesseth, Neque vllum hîc (viz. in Matth.) verbum positum est, quo probetur in nostra Missa veram fieri carnis & sanguinis Christi praesentiam. There is not a word in S. Matthews Gospel whereby it can be proved, that Christ is really present in your Sacrament. Your second instance had need be plainer.

My second instance is plain enough: for we have expressly, The bread which I will give, is my flesh, John. 6. 51.

For what opinion of yours are these words so plain?

For the former point: even for the Real presence in the Sacrament. And yet you expound them, as if no more were meant by them, then that we should have given us the sign of his flesh only.

We do not expound them so: We say, That the words are meant of Christ himself, the word that was made flesh, John. 1. 14. We expound them not of the sign of his flesh. We teach, That the true bread, the bread of God, which came down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world, is Christ, even the flesh, the very flesh of Christ, that is, Christ incarnate: and that he gave us this bread to eat, not in the Sacrament, but upon the Cross. And this exposition of ours is approved for good by Gabriel Biel, Lect. 84. super Canon. Missae. By Nic. Cusanus Epist. 7. ad Bohemos. By Cajetan in 3. part. Tho. 9. 80. Art. vlt. By Ruard. Tapperus in explicat. Artic. 15. Louan. To. 2. By Hessels, lib. de Communione sub vnicaspecie. Tract. 1. By Iansen. Concord. Euang. cap. 59. as Bellarmine acknowledgeth, lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 5. And yourself cannot with any reason maintain the contrary, if you will be tried by the express words. For you deny that Christ gave bread at the celebration of this Sacrament. He gave shows of bread, not bread indeed, according to your learning. What is your third instance?

We have expressly, touching the Apostles inequality, He that is great among you, let him be made as the younger, Luk. 22. whereas you say, There was none greater then other among them.

Here is some little show, and no substance. For it is plain by the express words of our Savior, Matth. 20. 25. and Mark. 10. 41. That no more is meant by the words you cite then this, viz. He that would be great among you, let him be made as the younger, which makes nothing for you, nor against us. What is your fourth instance?

We have expressly, A man is justified by works, and not by faith only, I am. 2. 24. which is directly opposite to that which you hold, Man is not justified by good works, but by faith only.

We do not deny, that before men, and with men: A man may be justified by works. We deny only, That before God a man may be justified by works. Now Saint James speaks of Justification, which is before, or with men: not of that which is before God, whereof Saint Paul speaks, from whom we gather our assertion. And that this is so, Tho. of Aquin confesseth, for Jacobus hîc loquitur de operibus sequentibus fidem, quae dicuntur iustificare, non secundum quod iustificare dicitur institiae infusio; sed secundum quod dicitur iustitiae exercitatio, vel ostensio, vel consummatio. S. James speaks here of Justification, as it is taken for manifestation and approving of justification, saith Thomas. And so, these words do neither make anything for you, nor against us. What is your fifth instance?

We have expressly, Whose sins ye forgive, are forgiven: Whose sins ye retain, are retained, John. 20.

And what of this? make these words against us?

Yea, for you say, Priests cannot forgive, or retain sins in earth.

You say truly. We believe that Ministers (Priests as you call them) have power to forgive and retain sins on earth. The difference between us and you is about the manner, which is not determined by those words, and about which you agree not among yourselves. What is your sixtinstance?

We have expressly, The doers of the Law shall be justified, Rom. 2. 13. Yet you say, The doing thereof justifieth not Christians.

We say, That if a man can bring the Justice which the Law requires, he shall be justified thereby. But who can bring that, seeing in many things we sin all? I am. 3. 2. What is your seventh instance?

We have expressly, Vow ye, and render your vows, Psal. 75.

And how then? makes this against us?

Yo • , for you teach; We should not vow, or if we vow, we ought to break our vows.

We do not; A man, according to our Religion, may vow in some cases, and upon some occasions, as is plain by our books, and acknowledged by Bellarmine himself: and, by our Religion, he needs not vow; for vouere nusquam est praeceptum. Its nowhere commanded that we should vow, saith one. And Fateor quia Deus non praecipit, sed tantum consulit nobis vt aliquid illi v • ueamus, I confess that God commands us not, but only counsels us to vow unto him, saith an other of you. Again, we teach, That when a man hath vowed a thing lawful, honest, and possible, he ought inviolably to observe it. And how then makes this text more for you, then for us?

We have expressly, Keep the traditions which you have learned either by word, or by Epistle, 2 Thes. 2. 15. yet, you say, The Apostles left nothing to the Church unwritten.

We say indeed, That the Apostles left no necessary tradition to the Church unwritten: but we do not say, That S. Paul left no traditions to the Church of the Thessalonians unwritten by him to them. We grant, that he delivered to the Thessalonians traditions, which he did not write in his Epistles which he writ to them. But what he delivered by word to them, and not by way 〈◊〉 Epistle, that was written either by other holy men of God, or by himself in the Epistles which he sent to others. So that though he delivered to the Thessalonians traditions, which he writ not in his Epistles sent to them: it follows not thereon, that he left some unwritten [necessary] traditions to the Church in general. What is your next instance?

We have expressly, If thou wit enter into life, keep the Commandments, Matth. 19. 17. Yet you say, The Commandments cannot be kept; yea, you say, We are not bound unto them.

We confess that we are bound to keep the Commandments; And if any be desirous to have life everlasting, by doing some good thing, as this young man was, to whom Christ spake these words, He must keep the Commandments. Yet we say, It follows not. He that would have life euerl • sting by doing some good, must keep the Commandments. Ergo, the Commandments may b •• kept: for by▪ God's Commandments we learn what we should do.

Yea but we have expressly, That when the young man said, he had already kept the Commandments; it was said unto him, • f thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all things thou hast, and give to the poor, and follow me. Which shows there is one degree of life perfecter then another.

Nay, not so: It rather shows there is but one degree of life which is perfect, even that which consists in keeping the Commandments; and (which is more) Counsels. For upon the young man's asse • eration, that he had kept all the Commandments from his youth, it is not said: If thou wilt be more perfect; but, If thou wilt be perfect, as though there were no perfection attained unto by keeping the whole Law. But indeed the young man lied in saying, he had kept all the Commandments from his youth. Else our Savior must be thought to have spoken over, when he said, John. 7. 19. Did not Moses give you a law, and yet none of you keeps the law? Have you any moe instances?

Yea, many: for we have expressly, work your own salvation with fear and trembling.

And what gather you of that against us:

s That a man should not make it of his belief, that he shall be saved without all doubt and fears.

Why▪ may not a man fear to offend God, unless he doubt that he shall finally fall away from God? Are not those wives most fearful to offend their husbands: and those children most fearful to offend their fathers: who are best assured of their husbands, and parents constant love unto them? Fear of God's anger against us, by reason of our sins, may well stand with assurance of salvation. Else, why did David require, That we should serve the Lord in fear, and rejoice in trembling? May a man tremble, and yet rejoice? and may he not fear to offend, and yet be assured of favor?

Well, we have expressly, That every man shall be judged according to his works, A poc. 20.

Good: And so have we.

Nay: you teach, That men shall be judged only according to their faith.

That is not true: We teach, that seeing it is most fitting for the nature and condition of judgments, to take the evidence whereupon the sentence shall be pronounced, from such things as are most notorious: the works good or evil being known both to Men and Angels, whereas faith, which hath her seat in the heart is only seen of the Lord: it is most convenient for justifying the truth of the Judge before the world, that those things should be given in evidence, which fall into the knowledge of the standers by; especially when the godly themselves shall be admitted into part of the honor of our Savior Christ's judicial sentence against the reprobates. And for this cause it is (as we say) that our Savior at the latter day will say, Come ye blessed of my Father—For when I was hungry you gave me meat —rather then, For that you have believed in me. Have you anymore to say?

Yea: We have expressly, That there remains a retribution, stipend, and pay to every good work in heaven, Mark. 9. 1 Corinth. 3. Apoc. 22. Psal. 118.

And do we deny it? We believe no good deed shall be lost: no not the bestowing of a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple. Wherefore this makes nothing against us.

Yea, but you teach, Good works done in Christ merit nothing.

Yea, but it is one thing to teach, That good works done in Christ find retribution and payment in heaven: and another thing to say, They merit some things: for retribution and stipends, and pays are as well given of courtesy, as of debt or merit. Wherefore we teach the former, and deny the latter. What is your next instance?

We have expressly, That the affliction which Daniel used upon his body was acceptable in the sight of God, Dan. 10.

And what is that to us?

Much: for you teach, That such voluntary corporal afflictions are in vain.

But we do not. We teach with S. Paul, 1 Tim. 4. 8. that Corporal exercise (voluntary corporal afflictions) are profitable to little. There is some good use of them. Not a man of us teacheth, that such voluntary corporal afflictions as Daniel used, and to such end as he did use them are in vain. Have you not done?

No: we have a plain text, Gen. 48. God who hath fed me from my youth up even to this day: The Angel who hath delivered me from all adverse • ie bless these children. Which implies as much as if we would say, God and our Lady bless them.

By the Angel, which is here prayed unto, is not meant any created Angel: but the Angel of the everlasting Covenant, Christ Jesus; as it is plain by the circumstances of the text, and by that testimony of the Fathers. And therefore this prayer doth not justify your prayer, God and our Lady bless them. No man ever conceived a prayer after this manner; Det tibi Deus & Angelus, that is in effect, God and our Lady bless them, saith Athanasius.

We have expressly: It is an holy cogitation to pray for the dead, 2. Mach. 12.

Yea, but the Book of Maccabees is not Canonical Scripture, as I shall prove unto you ere we part. Now I look for proof at your hands out of the Canonical Scripture.

Why then, if I should tell you, we read expressly in the same Book, that Jeremiah the Prophet after he was dead prayed for the people of Israel: whereby is proved Intercession of Saints; you would put me off with this, That the Scripture alleged by me is not Canonical Scripture.

I might do so: yet I need not, for we deny not that Saints make intercession for us in general. And your Bellarmine alledgeth this to that purpose only. He alledgeth it not either to prove Invocation of Saints; or the intercession of Saints in particular.

And what would you answer me if I urged, That we have an express example of an holy man that offered sacrifice for the dead, 2 Mach. 12.

I would answer you to it; That the holy man you mean of, offered sacrifice for the living and not for the dead. And for the full proof thereof, I would refer you to Doctor Reinolds Readings upon the Apocrypha, praelect. 158.

And what answer should I look to receive of you upon mention, that Tobit. 12. we read expressly, That an Angel did present Tobias good works and alms deeds before God.

My answer to that should be, That the book is Apocrypha.

And is not the Book of Ecclesiasticus Apocrypha, in which we read expressly thus: Omnis misericordia faciet locum vnicuique secundum meritum operum; Mercy shall make a place to every man according to the merit of his works?

Yes: but I will use the exception in this case. The exception which I take is, that the words are cited out of a corrupt Translation: for in the Greek, wherein Ecclesiasticus was first written, there is no mention made of merit. To every pitlifull act of goodness give place, for everyone shall find (not according to the merit of his works, but) according to his works, saith the Greek.

Indeed I confess, the word merit is not in the Greek: for the word merit is not Greek, but Latin; yet the Greek words are well translated by the word merit, no man can deny who knows the rudiments of Greek: for in the Greek it is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which in Latin signifies as much as pro meritis operum.

Indeed you fit it: for our Savior Christ, warning his disciples how they should carry themselves towards the Scribes and Pharisees: Do not ( saith he) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (not meaning after the merit of their works, but simply) after their works. Your great M. Cardinal Bellarmine, of whom you had this, was deceived.

And is that proof, which we fetch for merits out of Heb. 13. 16. fetched out of a corrupt translation, Beneficence and communication forget not; for with such sacrifices God is promerited.

Yea verily: for according to the Greek the Apostle saith no more, but: That with such hosts God is well pleased. And that may appear unto you by this, that both S. Augustine, and Beda read so; and your own Translator else where translates so.

Yet Primasius S. Augustine's Scholar reads it as it is in our vulgar Latin: With such hosts God is promerited.

Yea, but how know you that that Commentary is Primasius his own? for it is the self same which is fathered on Haymo, who lived after the year 800. whose credit is nothing answerable to Primasius.

Well, let both these places pass. Is not a plain text for extreme unction, which is in S. James, Infirmatur quis in vobis —If any among you be dangerously sick, let him send for the Priests of the Church, and they to pray over him, anealing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

Of whom learned you to translate Infirmatur quis in vobis. If any man be dangerously sick, &c. I thought the word Infirmatur, had signified any infirmity, great or small growing upon a man. And if so, then the text makes as much against you as us. For first, you aneale not all such persons as are infirm, but only such as you suppose to be desperately sick, sick unto death. Secondly, you send not Presbyters, Priests: but any one bold Priest to anoint them, and pray over them. Thirdly, you intend principally in anealing them, the forgiveness of sins: whereas by the text is principally intended, the curing of them of their infirmities. Which is so plain that a Cardinal of your own renounceth this text as not making for you.

What Cardinal is that?

Cajetan, whose words these are: Nec ex verbis, nec ex effectu verba haec loquuntur de sacramentali vnctione extreme vnctionis: sed mag is de vnctione quam instituit Dominus Jesus in Euangelio à discipulis exercendam in agr • tis. Textus enim non dicit: Infirmatur quis in vobis ad mortem sed absolute, infirmatur quis. Et effectam dicit, infirmi alleuiationem: & de remission peccatorum non loquitur nisi conditionaliter: quum extrema vnctio non nisi prope articulum mortis datur. Et direct (vt eius forma sona •• tendi • ad remissionem peccatorum: praeter hoc quod Jacobus ad vnum agrum multes presbyteros tum orantes, tum vngentes mand • t vocari, quod ab extrema vnctionis rit • alienum est.

But is not that a plain text for proof of satisfaction, which is alleged by Doctor Harding, out of 2 Cor. 7. 1.

What are the words?

Seeing then we have these promises dearly beloved, let us cleanse our selves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, making perfect our satisfaction in the fear of God.

These are plain words I promise you. But I do not remember that I ever read such words, either in the Greek, or in any translation. Your Doctor (I believe) hath shown a piece of cunning, and chopped in the word satisfaction, for sanctification, and quite altered the Apostles meaning.

God forbid he should have dealt so naughtily: But what say you to the text alleged by Cardinal Hosius out of Rom. 6. 19. for the same doctrine of Satisfaction. Is it not pregnant to his purpose?

How cites he it?

Exhibeamus membra nostra seruire iustitiae in satisfactionem. Let us exhibit our members to serve justice unto satisfaction.

In good earnest this is a plain text: but it is none of Saint Paul's. It is one of your Cardinals own making. As Harding in the former, so your Cardinal in this hath chopped in the word satisfaction, for sanctification, and made a proposition of his own, different from S. Paul's: I wish it were no Argument of their sanctification to deal so falsely with the Scriptures: they had need to make satisfaction (though not to God, because they cannot,) yet to his Church for such bad dealing.

But are there not express words for the supremacy of S. Peter, Matt. 16. where we read thus: Thou art a rock, and upon this rock will I build my Church. M. Walsingham saith. That the Author of the answer to M. Charks book gives this for one instance, in way of proving that express Scripture is for us.

I know no such text in S. Matthew, as; Thou art a Rock—I find there, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church: but, Thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church, is not in any book, nor in any Bible that I have seen.

Are these words; Dies prima erit sancta & septima eadem Religion venerabiles, The first day shall be holy, and the seventh day with like religion shall be venerable: whereby Cardinal Bellarmine would prove, That every holy thing is to be religiously worshipped: in your Bible me thinks they are plain to prove his purpose.

Yea, but those are not in my Bible: nor in yours, I think, your false Cardinal hath most irreligiously chopped in a word religiously in the Text: make search, and trust me worse another time if it be not so.

I will, I warrant you. In the mean let me hear what plain Text▪ you can allege for proof of your opinions.

Content: Do not these words in Deutronomy 4. 15, 16: Take heed unto yourselves, for ye saw no Image in the day that the Lord spake unto you in Hereb—that ye corrupt not yourselves, and make you a graven Image, &c. plainly prove, That the Scriptures forbid the representing of God by any Image? And yet do not ye represent God the Father by the Image of an old man? and the most of you maintain, That he may lawfully be represented in such an Image?

I confess with Vasquez, That in the words you cite, plane indicat Scriptura, &c. The Scripture speaks plainly, that God did forbid the Jews to represent him by any Image. But you must know, that Licet in lege veteri prohibitae fuissent lege d • u • na imagines visibiles, nedum ipsius Dei, sed qu rumcunque sanctorum hominum, nec de post in Scriptures sieve veteris sieve Noui Testamenti concessa licentia eius faciendi aut fabricandi reperiatur; nihilominus Ecclesia Catholica edocta à spiritu sancto, nedum permisit, imo statuit & ordinauit, vt venerabiles Imagines Christi, glory • sissimae suae matris, & caeterorum sanctorum fierent, &c. Though in old time the visible Images of God, yea, and of his Saints, were forbidden by the Law of God: and no liberty granted since, either in the Old or New Testament to make any such: yet the Church, which is taught of God, hath not only permitted, but decreed and ordained, That the Images of Christ, and his blessed Mother the Virgin Mary, and the rest of the Saints may be made for sundry good purposes.

What? dare you say, The Church hath decreed contrary to that which God commanded in holy Scripture? If so, you must needs grant, That the Scripture in this is for us, and against you. The pretended Church, not the Scripture, is for you only. Wherefore to go on.

The Scriptures forbid expressly, The adoring or serving of any similitude or Image, Exod. 20. 4. yet you teach, That Similitudes (Images of Christ and his Saints) may be adored and served.

I confess with Vasquez here also, That the Law given to the Jews forbad, Non solum cultum Idol • latri • , sed quamuis adorationem & vsum imaginum: Not only that adoration and service which was due to God; but all manner of adoration and serving Images. But the case is now altered.

Yet in the main it appears, That in this the Scripture is for us also. And is not Exod. 21. 14. so too, wherein we find an express commandment, binding us to take the willful Murderer from God's Altar, that he may die: seeing you have sanctuaries out of which no malefactor, no murderer, may be taken that judgment may pass on him?

I confess with Polidore Virgil, Sunt in orbe nostro Christiano passim Asyla, qua non in insidias timentibus, sed quibusuis sontibus etiam Maie statis reis patent. There are many sanctuaries amongst us, which are receptacles not only for such as are afraid of mischief towards themselves, but to all malefactors, even to Traitors. And I for my part confess further with him, Quod templa nostra vbique gen • ium istiusmedi sceleratis hominibus instar Asylorum sunt, & id contra quam Moses constituer at, Exodus 21. That our Churches in all places serve for sanctuaries to all manner of wicked persons, though God by Moses did forbid the same, Exod. 21. To tell you truly, I think it is plain, that Nihil immunitatis sac • r prestaret locus, The holiness of the place should not privilege willful murderers: though it be to true which Hieronimus ab Olea stro writes, nūc sacra loca homicidarum & id genus peccatorum, speluncae factae sunt: Holy places at this day are made refuges for murderers, and such like wicked persons.

Well then, the Scripture in this is ours▪ and so I doubt not, you will confess, that Scripture is, wherein the Stews and Brothel houses are expressly condemned, viz. Deut. 23. 17. for they are tolerated and defended by you.

I know they are tolerated in some Catholic Countries, and defended by some Catholics. But I am of Nauarrus mind, Magis expediret non permittere: It were better they were not tolerated. I think Espenceus had just cause to say, Huius permissionis nos non semel pudurt, Christianam scilicet Remp. eo carere non posse, quod tandiu, hoc est, annis plus 1500. non admisit M • saica. I have been often ashamed to think of the toleration for Stews: That the Christian Common-wealth should not be able to stand without admission of that which the Common-wealth of Israel by the space of 1500. years and upward, would never admit of. What other instance have you?

The Scriptures forbid expressly, The marrying of a man's Aunt; and of a Brothers wife; Levite. 18. v. 14. & 16. Yet you approve the Nephews marrying his Aunt: and of any man's marrying his Brothers wife, if the parties have your Popes dispensation. Do you think that your Popes dispensations will stand good against the Scriptures?

Yea; in things forbid • 〈◊〉 positive, proprio Iudaeorum: By some positi • e Law peculiar to the Jews: though not in things forbidden, iure naturae, by the law of Nature. Now these kinds of marriages were forbidden, not by the law of Nature, but by a positive law peculiar to the Jews, as you may see in Card • nall Bellarmine.

These marriages were forbidden by the law of Nature, and not by a positive law peculiar to the Jews: for the Heathen, who lived in Canaan before the Jews, and were not punishable for breaking of positive laws peculiar to the Jews, but for breaking of the laws of nature; by these, and such like marriages defiled the Land▪ and for such marriages the Land did spew them out, as you may see, Levite. 18. 27, 28. and of which you may read more in your learned Frier Hieronimus ab Oleastro Exposit ad literam in Levite. 18. Wherefore to proceed.

In the Scriptures it is expressly written, That a man cannot lay his hand upon the Lord's anointed and be guiltless, 1. Sam. 26. 9. Yet you teach contrary.

In Scriptures we read expressly, That a Prince deposed even the high Priest: but nowhere that a Priest deposed a lawful Prince. Yet by your I • suiticall Religion, A Pope may depose a lawful Prince: but a Prince may not depose a Priest.

The Scriptures require expressly, That they who vow, should vow unto the Lord, Psal. 76. 11. and testify as expressly. That all the vows recorded in them were made unto the Lord: insomuch that your Cardinal Bellarmine was forced to confess, Cum scriberentur Scripture Sancta, nondum coeperat vsus vouendi sanctis, When the Scriptures were written, it was not the use to vow to Saints. Yet you do ordinarily vow to Saints, and take upon you the Justifying of vows to Saints.

The Scriptures require expressly, That when men pray, they should pray unto the Lord, Psalm 50. 51. Matt. 6. 9. and testify as expressly, That all the prayers of holy men recorded in them were made unto the Lord: insomuch that some of your greatest Clerks confess, Orationes esse ad sanct • s faciendas, neque express, neque impress, & inuolute sacra liter • docent. The holy Scriptures neither teach expressly, nor impliedly, that prayers may be made to Saints. Yet you do ordinarily pray to Saints, and justify your practice of praying to Saints.

The Scriptures require expressly, That men should believe in God, 2 Chro. 20. 20. and as expressly commend them who believe in God, 1 Pet. 1. 8. yet you of later years have begun to teach, That we may believe in men.

Why say you, That of later years, we have begun to teach, That men may believe in men: Did not our Church teach always so?

No: five or six hundred years ago such doctrine went not for currant in your Church; for when the Waldensians in a Council holden at Rome, under Alexander the third, were asked by one Gwalther Mape, whether they believed in the Mother of Christ: they answered, that they did so, Ab omnibus sunt multiplici clamore derisi. They were laughed to scorn by the Pope and all the Council. Which shows that the doctrine of believing in Saints, was then a ridiculous doctrine even in your Church.

The Scripture requires expressly, That men should trust in God, Psal. 115. 9, 10, 11. and as expressly curseth them who trust in man, Ierem. 17. 5. yet you like well, that men should trust in men: else would you burn the Virgin Mary's Psalter made by Bonaventure, in which there is so often mention of trusting in our Lady, as hereafter I shall show you.

The Scriptures teach expressly, That sacrifices are due to God only, Exod. 22. 20. and testify as expressly, That holy men did sacrifice to God only. Yet you do sacrifice to Images; for you burn Incense to them.

I confess we burn Incense to Images: but I deny, that that is to sacrifice to them.

They who burnt Incense to anything, but God, are reproved in the Old Testament, even they who burnt Incense to the Brazen Serpent, though the Serpent was a figure of Christ: And it belonged to the Priest only to burn Incense. Which argues, That to burn Incense, was to sacrifice in old time; and that you in burning Incense to Images, do sacrifice unto them.

To burn Incense was a sacrifice in old time, but so it is not now; for we see such as are no Priests burn it in our Churches.

So some who were no Priests took upon them to burn Incense in the old Law. And therefore, if because it is burned now by them who are no Priests, it follows: Ergo, it is no sacrifice now. Surely by the same reason we must deny, that it was a sacrifice in old time. But see I pray you, at leisure, how fully this foolery is discovered by D. Rainolds, and let us proceed.

In the Scripture Priests are expressly forbidden to shave their heads, Ezech. 44. 20. yet the Religious sort among you must have their heads shaven.

In the Scripture it is expressly written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve, Matt. 4. 10. Yet you teach, That a man may worship He Saints, and She Saints: yea Relikes, besides the Lord his God.

In the Scriptures it is expressly written, When ye pray use no vain repititions. Yet you have appointed a form of prayer upon the Beads: in which the Ave Mary is to be said one hundred and fifty times, and the Pater Noster fifteen, and the Creed thrice. Besides, since that you have set us out a Jesus Psalter, in which there is a form of prayer, wherein fifteen such petitions as this, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, give me here my purgatory, are to be repeated ten times, which makes in all one hundred and fifty petitions, in which the name of Jesus is repeated four hundred and fifty times: which argue ye allow of vain repetitions.

In the Scriptures it is expressly written, That in vain they worship God, who teach for doctrines men's commandments. Yet you, over and besides the Commandments of God, have written others; which some of you call the commandments of the Church: some commandments of the Canon law; which are at fewest, five; if not six: some say, Ten, even just as many as those of God's; which you urge more strictly then the Commandments of God: for, Grauius plectitur contra vnum Papae decretum, quā delinquens contra diuinum praeceptum & Euan geltum: He that offends against the Popes Law, is more grievously punished, then he who offends against God's Law and the Gospel, saith Gerson.

In the Scripture it is expressly written, That whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for whoredom, and marries another, commits adultery, Matt. 19. 9. Yet your Alexander the sixth, consented that Lewis the twelfth of France, should put away his wife, because she was barren and deformed; & marry Anne, the wife to Lewis the eleventh, his predecessor. And your Pope Coelestine the third, set forth a Decree, That when, of married persons, the one falleth into heresy, the marriage is dissolved, and the Catholic party is free to marry again.

In the Scriptures it is expressly written, That our Savior after his Resurrection appeared first to Mary Magdalene: yet many of you say, We must believe he first appeared to his Mother Mary.

True: for Bernardinus de Bustis, having noted, That our Savior after his Resurrection appeared first unto his Mother, adds: Ft hanc opinionem tenet sancta Mater Ecclesia. And this is the opinion of our holy Mother the Church. And Baronius falling to speak of the same point, Vetus traditio per manus maiorum, ac per subsequentia secula ad posteros dilapsa testator Christum dominum nostrum apparuisse pr • mum omnium sanctissimae genetrici Mariae: quod nemo pius puto, neg ar it. It is, saith he, an ancient tradition of our Ancestors, which is come to us from hand to hand, that our Savior Christ appeared first to his most holy Mother Mary, and I think no godly man will deny it.

In the Scripture it is expressly written, That he who blasphemeth against the holy Ghost shall never be forgiven: Yet you teach, That blasphemy against the holy Ghost may be forgiven.

In the Scripture we read expressly, That S. John was the disciple whom Jesus loved, John. 13. 23. compared with Chap. 21. 20. & 24. And yet you will needs it was Saint Peter whom Jesus loved most entirely.

In the Scripture we read expressly, That when Cornelius met S. Peter, and fell at his feet to adore him: S. Peter reproved him for it. Act. 10. 25, 26. Yet your Ps • udo-Peters are so far from refusing adoration when it is offered, that some of them have presented themselves to the people that they might be adored.

In the Scripture it is expressly written, That our Savior speaking of the Sacramental Cup, said: Drink ye all of this, Matth. 26. 27. Yet, you say; All need not drink thereof. Yea, ye say, All shall not drink thereof: Patris & Primitiua Ecclesia populum a Commun • one Calicis non prohibebant, nos arcemus, &c. The Fathers in the Primitive Church did not forbid the people to drink of the Cup, but we drive them from it, saith Aeneas Sylvius.

That which was the Sacramental Cup, after the words of Consecration in the Scripture, is expressly called, The fruit of the Vine, Matth. 26. 29. Yet ye say, That after words of Consecration uttered, it is not the fruit of the Vine, Wine; which is in the Sacramental Cup, but blood.

In the Scripture it is expressly written, That the other element delivered by our Savior Christ to his Apostles, at the celebration of the Communion was Bread: for so it is called after the words of Consecration uttered, as well as before: Yet ye say, That after the words of Consecration uttered, it is not Bread, which is delivered to the Communicants.

In the Scriptures we read expressly, That S. Paul in nothing was inferior to the chief Apostles, 1 Cor. 12. 11. Yet ye push at it when we tell you, S. Paul was equal to Peter in power.

In the Scriptures we read expressly, That a man is justified by faith, without the works of the Law, Rom. 3. 28. Yet ye say, Works justify.

In the Scripture we read expressly, That as • y one man, sin entered into the world, and death by sin▪ so death went over all men, in whom all men have sinned, Rom. 5. 12. Yet ye say, The Virgin Mary never sinned.

In the Scriptures, Saint Paul speaking of Concupiscence, in express terms calls it sin, Rom. 6. 12. as you yourselves confess: Yet ye deny Concupiscence is sin: and tell us soberly, that Apostolus Concupiscentiam peccatum vota • , at non lice • nobis it a loq •• : Though the Apostle calls it sin, yet we may not call it so.

In the Scriptures we read expressly, That whatsoever is not of faith is sin, Rom. 14. 23. Yet ye teach, That many actions done by Infidels are not sin.

In the Scriptures it is expressly written, That if any Brother have a wife that believeth not, if she be content to dwell with him, he should not forsake her: and if any woman have an unbelieving husband, who is content to dwell with her, she should not forsake him. 1 Cor 7. 12, 13. Yet ye teach, That a believing brother may put away his unbelieving wife though she be content to dwell with him: and a believing woman, may put away her unbelieving husband, though he be content to dwell with her: Yea, ye teach, That the unbelieving party may not continue with the unbelieving. They must part company.

Indeed I read in Binius, that Licet in principie nascentis Ecclesi • erat licitum post susceptam sidem virum fidelem ab vxore infideli non discedere vel contra, sed eandem in domo & commerci • manere vt constat ex Paulo: 1 Cor. 7. propter spem conuersionis alterius: tamen ab hinc 800. annis Ecclesia contrarium pr • cepit, si • que lege, consuetudine, & vsu introductum est vt fidelis non maneat cum in • i • eli, Though in the Prime age of the Church it was lawful for the believer to continue in the same house and fellowship with the unbeliever, & not to make a separation, in hope the believing party might convert the unbelieving: yet the Church about eight hundred years ago gave commandment to the contrary. So that now partly by virtue of a law, partly by custom, it is generally received, That the believing party may not continue with the unbelieving. And to confess the whole truth, I read that Father Gaspar in India having baptized an honorable Indian Lady, when her husband made great means to have her again, being desired to deliver his opinion in a Council held about that matter, answered roundly: That they ought not to give holy things to dogs, nor the persons of such as praise God unto beasts. Wherevpon it was concluded, Her husband should not have her again. She should be married to another.

In the Scripture it is expressly written, Defraud not one another, except it be with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to Fasting and Prayer, 1 Cor. 7. 5. Yet ye teach, A married man may go in pilgrimage, even to Jerusalem, without his wives consent.

I grant Innocentius the third decreed so upon a special occasion: but I know not whether that Decree stand in force now. But proceed.

In the Scripture it is expressly written, That he who cannot abstain should marry, because it is better to marry then to burn, 1 Cor. 7. 9. Yet ye teach, That some such, as your Priests and Monks may not marry though they burn.

In the Scripture it is expressly written, That it is a shame for a woman to be shaven, 1 Cor. 11. 6. Yet your Nuns are shorn.

In the Scripture it is expressly written, That Christians should praise God in their assenblies, by singing, Coloss. 3. 16. Yet ye will not allow them to sing in their assemblies. And this is confessed by your Binius: for, Vt • ideles in suis conuentibus Psalms & hymnis, alternatim cord simul & ore decan▪ at is Deum landent a Paulo ad Coloss. cap. 3. & ad Eph. cap. 5. praeceptum esse fat • mur. Sed dum olim vnà cum clericis etiam popolus promiscue cantare • , imper itiâ Canentium aliquando accidebat, vt ii, quorum vox inculta erat, aut absona Harmonicum illum Ecclesiastic • dignitati congruentem concentum plane corrumperent. Ad bo • ergo incommodum a cantu religioso tollendum Ecclesiast. institut. hisce optime prouisum est, ne praeter cert • s ad hoc opus ascr • ptes all ii in Ecclesia psallerent. We confess (saith he) Saint Paul commanded Christians to sing in their assemblies: but because it fell out, that some who had no skill in singing, sung with other who had skill, they marred the Music, it was very well provided by Ecclesiastical Institutions, That only certain Singing men and Quoristers should sing in Church assemblies.

In the Scripture we read expressly, That prayers should be conceived in known languages, 1. Cor. 14. Yet ye like not of that. A Parisian Doctor tells us, Et si Apostolus linguâ intellect â preces velit celebrari, tamen sanctam Ecclesiam iustissimis de causis contra statuisse, That though the Apostle thought good prayer should be in known languages; yet your Church upon good reason hath decreed the contrary.

In the Scripture we read expressly, That the unlearned should say, Amen, at the end of prayers, 1 Cor. 14. 16. which they did even, Ab initio nascentis Ecclesiae, from the Apostles time, as Dorantes conconfesseth: Yet by your Religion, The Clerke of the Parish only is to say Amen, at the end of prayers.

In the Scripture it is expressly written, That he is cursed who abideth not in all things which are written in the Law to do them, Gal. 3. 10. Yet ye teaching, That some sins are pardonable of their own nature, must needs be thought to teach by necessary consequence, That every such man is not cursed.

In the Scripture it is expressly written, Every man shall bear his own burden, Galat. 6. 5. Yet ye teach, That one man may bear another's burden: for if one be enjoined to fast, in part of Penance: another may fast for him.

In the Scripture it is expressly written, That the Mediator between God and man is one, and he is Christ Jesus, 1 Tim. 2. 5. Yet ye generally teach, That there are many mediators between God and man, moe then Christ Jesus.

That is our general doctrine, I grant: Yet there are among us who teach, Sanctos Angelos & homines non dicendos esse mediatores Dei & hominum, sed potius mediatores ad mediatorem: The holy Men and Angels are not to be reputed mediators between God and man, but rather mediators between the Mediator: Yea some of us simply deny that Saints be Mediators: Vniuer salis Ecclesia San • tos colit, sed non vt mediatores, The Catholic Church worshippeth Saints, but not as Mediators, • aith Viruesius.

That doctrine is as false as the other, but it sufficeth me that your ordinary doctrine is proved to be contrary to express Scripture. I will pass to another instance.

By express Scripture married men may be made Bishops, 1 Tim. 3. 2. Yet ye teach, Married men may not be made Bishops.

By express Scripture, they be made Bishops who have children, 1 Tim. 3 4. Yet your Clemens the eighth, would admit none to be Bishops who had children; though some of his predecessors did otherwise, yet his practice was according to your learning: For in your Canon Law, Pope Pelagius giving one direction what manner of man he should choose for a Bishop, bids him look unto it, Nec vxorem habeat, nec filios: He neither have wife nor children. Whereof some of you give this reason, Quia filius est Argumentum ambulance super terram de incontinentia patris: Because children are aprant ambling Arguments of the Incontinencie of their fathers.

By express Scripture they are condemned who forbid marriage, 1 Tim. 4. 3. Yet ye do so: for ye will not suffer Priests to marry.

They who forbid marriage as unlawful, such as the Manichees, are condemned: but not we, who only forbid some sorts of men to marry.

The Manicheis did not forbid all men to marry; but only their Elect, such as your Priests and Monks. And therefore if the Manicheis be hereby condemned; why not ye also?

In the Scriptures we read expressly, That if any who believeth not, call a Christian to a feast, the Christian should cate of whatsoever is set before him, asking no question for conscience sake; 1 Corinth. 10. 27. Yet if one of you Papists be bidden to a feast by a Protestant (of whom you make no more esteem, then of one who believeth not) you will not eat of whatsoever is set before you.

By express Scripture they are condemned, who command men to abstain from meats: Yet so do you Papists. Qui gustauit ouum, trahitur in carcerem: cogitur que de heresy causam dicere: qui totam diem Dominicam vacat temulentiae, scortis, & aleae, audit bellus home: He who eats an egg on a fasting day is committed to prison, and suspected for an Heretic: He who sits at the Ale-house all the Lord's day, and gives himself to whoring, and dicing, is counted a good man and a true.

In the Scripture we read expressly, That the Lord laid upon him (viz Christ) the iniquity of us all: and that it was Christ, who suffered for our sins: and, bare them in his body on the tree: so that, by his stripes we are healed. Yet you teach, That satisfaciendo patimur pro peccatis, By satisfactory works we must suffer for our sins: We, as well as He; Not he only.

In the Scripture we read expressly, That our Savior Christ did but offer himself once: And yet you say, That in precise manner he offered himself twice. Once at his last Supper; and again, upon the Cross.

Some of us say so indeed: But there was a hot contention about it in the Council at Trent: a good sort maintaining resolutely, That he did not offer himself at the last Supper: Of which number that famous Mussus was one, who was a Preacher at twelve years old, with whom all Italy was in admiration. But say on.

In the Scripture we read expressly, That our Savior was not to offer himself often: Yet you teach, That he offered himself daily.

In the Scripture we read expressly, That if Christ be often offered, he must often suffer. But you deny, that he suffers often, though you grant he is often offered.

In the Scripture we read expressly, That without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Yet you teach▪ That your Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice for sin; though you acknowledge it an unbloody sacrifice.

In the Scripture it is expressly written, That Marriage is honorable among all: And yet you say, Marriage of Priests is the worst sort of incontinency.

In the Scripture we read expressly, That in many things we sin all: Yet you say, He who is justified, Legem omnino implet, Keepes the Law wholly.

In the Scripture we read expressly, That they are blessed who die in the Lord hereafter, for they rest from their labors: Yet you teach, That many of those that die in the Lord go to Purgatory: where their labor is greater then they ever underwent in this world.

To be brief: In the Scripture we read expressly, That Christ is the Head, and Spouse of the Church. Yet you tell us, The Pope is Head, and Spouse of the Church. In the Scripture we read expressly, That it is the blood of Christ which cleanseth us from all sin: and yet you tell us, That Holy-water, Holy-bread, Bishops▪ blessing, and such like will cleanse us from many sins. In the Scriptures we read expressly of two places appointed for Souls after this life, Heaven, and Hell. And yet you tell us, there are four places: Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, and Limbus puerorum; yea, and perhaps a fifth differing from all these. By all which do not you see how plain, and how plentiful the Scriptures are which make for us, and against you in matters controuersed? Do not you see his falsehood, who said; The Catholics follow the Bible, but the Protestants force the Bible to follow them?

I see you huddle up one Scripture in the neck of another readily: But it hath been the property of all Heretics to make no bones of Scripture, but prodigally to spend them, and to lavish them out to prove thereby their heresies, were they never so fantastical. Vincentius Lyrinensis witnesseth, That Heretics fly through every volume of the heavenly Law; and that they die and color almost every Page in their Books with sentences of the Old and New Testament.

And do not you so too, I pray? Are there not many Pages in many Books of yours, which are died & coloured with sentences of the Old and New Testament? Is not your Canisius Catechism as full of Texts of the Old and New Testament, as any Heretics? Is not your Summarie of Controuersies, made by W. C. and published, A. 1623. and your Gagge of the New Gospel, published • . 1622. died with sentences out of Scripture?

Yes: but Heretics insist upon Scriptures only, as S. Augustine witnesseth; whereas our Books are full of other testimonies out of Fathers and Councils.

Yea: but it is not true that Heretics insisted upon Scripture only; for the most notorious Heretics that ever were, have been as confident that the Fathers were on their side, as you are confident they are on your side. The most notorious Heretics have insisted much upon the Fathers.

The Samosatenians, who denied the Godhead of Christ, bragd, Maiores omnes etiam ipsos Apostolos ea sensisse ac docuisse quae ipsi nunc dicunt seruatamque esse predicationis veritatem vsque ad tempora Victoris qui 13. à Petro Romanorum Episcopus fuit. All their predecessors, even the Apostles themselves thought as they thought, and that the truth of their doctrine continued till Victors time, who was the thirteenth Bishop of Rome after S. Peter.

Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria, who denied the two Natures of Christ's cried out in the Council at Chalcedon, Ego testimonia habeo sanctorum patrum Athanasij, Gregorij, Cyrilli in multis locis; Ego cum patribus eijcior, ego defendo patrum dogmata, non transgredior in alique, & horum testimonia non simpliciter ne • transitory, sea in libris habeo. I have the testimonies of the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Gregory's, Cyrils, and that in many places; I am condemned with the Fathers; it is I who defend the Fathers opinions, I do not swerve one Yod from them, I have their testimonies not by hearsay, and at second hand, but in their own Books.

The Nestorians, who held many heresies, at the Council of Ephesus, made this protestation. Nos in sanctorum patrum qui apud Nic • nam conuenerant caeterorum{que} qui post illos in Ecclesia claruerunt, Eust achij Antiocheni, Basilij Caesariensis, Gregorij, • oannis, Athanasij, Theophili, Damasi Romani, Ambrosij Mediolanensis, reliquorum que qui cum memoratis consentiunt doctrina persevere amus pijsque illorum vestig ijs insistimus: quippe qui Evangel • cam Apostolicamque & Propheticam doctrinam plene assecuti exact am Oxthedoxae fidei Rogulam nobis tradiderunt: quam doctrinam & nos inconcussam inflexamque retinere satagimus, &c. We maintain the doctrine which the holy Fathers assembled at Nice, and others who were men of fame in the Church since that time maintained. Such as Eustac • ius of Antioch, Basil of Cesarea, Gregory, John, Athanasius, Theophilus, Damasus of Rome, Ambrose of Milan, and the like. We tread in their most holy steps, who having fully attained to the knowledge of the Gospel, and of the Apostles, and of the Prophets, have left us an exact rule to follow, which we desire also to leave unto our posterities, &c.

Certain Heretics in a Council held under Martin 1. cried out, Haec pietatis dog mata tradiderunt nobis qui ab initio praesentialiter viderunt, vel Ministri verbi facti sunt, eorum{que} discipuli, & successores, & sequentes à Deo inspiratae Ecclestae doctores, &c. These religious opinions were delivered unto us, by such as were made Ministers of the Word at the beginning, and by their disciples and successors, and since by the Doctors of the Church, who were illuminated by God, &c. And this is so plain that Cope confesseth it in these words: Veteres haeretici cum patres ipsis apertissime aduer sarentur cos tamen à se stare magna contention • clamabant: The ancient Heretics cried out with open mouth, that the Fathers made for them, though indeed the Fathers were flat against them. And if Copes acknowledgement will not satisfy you, you may find as much acknowledged by Baronius, Annal To. 5. An. 431. Nu. 170.

But what say you to Saint Anstine, whom I alleged as witnessing, That Heretics insist upon Scripture only?

I say it is not credible that Saint Austin ever said so, or thought so; for he himself witnesseth, That Heretics have insisted upon Visions and Miracles, and Successions, and Councils, and Fathers, as well as upon Scripture. That Heretics insisted upon Visions, Saint Austin witnesseth, De vnitate Ecclesiae Cap. 16. That Heretics have insisted upon Miracles, Saint Austin witnesseth, Tract. 13. in John. That they have insisted upon Succession, S. Austin witnesseth Epistola 165. And that Maximini • s the Arian insisted upon the Council at Arminium. That the Donatists insisted upon S. Cyprian, and other Fathers concurring in opinion with him. That Pelagius insisted upon Hilary, and Ambrose, and Chrysostom, and Sixtus Bishop of Rome, and Jerome, and upon some passages of S. Austin we read in S. Austin. Now except he would contradict himself, how can it be that he, who witnesseth these things, should witness also, That Heretics insisted upon Scripture only?

It seems by your speech, That Heretics used all kind of arguments in defense of themselves, and that they insisted upon Fathers especially. I could wish you durst refer the hearing of the more weighty differences between us unto the Fathers.

What reason have you to fear, that I dare not refer the hearing of the more weighty differences between us unto the Fathers: it by Fathers you mean the Ancient Fathers, and not your Father Jesuits?

I fear you dare not make such a reference, because I read in Cardinal Baronius that, Haeretici nostri temporis sic prouocant ad diuinam scripturam, vt nisi tot syllabis & elementis id ipsum quod profitetur Ecclesia Catholica in ea expressum inueniunt, minime sibi retinendum esse pertinacissime reluct antur: nullam vel traditionum, vel sanctorum patrum interpretationum rationem pror sus habentes. The Heretics of this age (he means such as you) do so appeal to Scripture, that except they find therein even in so many words, whatsoever the Catholic Church be • eeueth, they utterly dislike it: making no reckoning at all of Traditions, or of the expositions of the Fathers.

Your Cardinal is a Cardinal liar. We require no such dunstable plain proof out of Scripture for points of Faith, as he lyingly affirms. Neither do we despise the Fathers: We confess they were men endued of God with excellent gifts, and brought no small light to the understanding of Scriptures. And much more we say (saying nothing but what we think) in their commendation.

Why, but I have heard (for all your talk) by others, That you despise all the Churches Doctors, and ancient Fathers, That you make no more account of the Fathers, longer then you can wrest them to serve your turn, then you do of Beuis of Hampton, or Adam Bel. Yea, I read it written of such as you, that, Non alio loco reuera sanctos Patres habent quàm que loco Alcoranum Mahometi, & Esopi fabulas: They make no more account of the holy Fathers, then they do of the Turks Alkaron, or Aesop’s Fables. And, that it is well known to such as hear your Sermons, or be in place to hear you talk boldly and familiarly together among yourselves, you are not afraid plainly to confess, That the Fathers all were Papists. And I am sure you know the man, whose words these are: The Protestants let not to confess with Tobith Matthew, That no man can read the Fathers, and believe them, and embrace the New Religion.

I know there are of you Papists, who confidently avouch, That the old Fathers make against us in all points: and i that in most matters of Controuersie they are so plainly on your side, that it cannot with any color be denied, or called in question. I know there are of you who write: That in all the Volumes of the Fathers nothing is treated, but what you profess, nothing commended or condemned, but what you commend or condemn; and that we in our consciences know all Antiquity to be against us: Because (as they say) in no one point that they can hear of, will any of us be tried by the judgment, and consent of Antiquity. I know the man, & what became of him (he was hangd at Tiburne for Treason) who first broached that slander on Tobith Matthew, the most reverend Archbishop of York at this day: who being almost eighty years old, preacheth more Sermons in a year, then you can prove have been preached by all your Popes since Gregory the great his days. And I know that that man vaunted; Ad Patres si quando licebit accedere, confectum est praelium: tàm sunt nostri quàm Gregorius 13. filiorum Ecclesiae Pater amantissimus. If Controuersies of Religion came once to the decision of the Fathers, all would go on your side: for the Fathers, were as flat for you, as Gregory the thirteenth, your beloved Pope. Yea, and I know your Lay Catholics in their Petition to his Majesty, suggested: That for one place of a Father evil understood, sometimes falsified, sometimes mutilated, and sometimes wholly corrupted, brought by us: they could produce a thousand, not by patches and mammocks, as we do: but whole Pages, whole Chapters, whole Books, and the uniform consent of all the ancient Fathers, and Catholic Church. Yet I am of Scultetus mind, That D. Whitaker's spake nothing but the truth, when in his answer to Campian he avouched, Patres in maximis iudic ijs toti sunt nostri, in leuioribus varij, in minutissimis vestri. The Fathers in main Controsies are wholly ours, in the lesser, some ours, some yours, in the least yours, not ours. Yea I am of D. Reynolds mind, who protesteth that in his opinion, Not one of all the Fathers was a Papist; especially, considering the very essence of a Papist consisteth in opinion of the Popes Supremacy: and the Popes Supremacy is not allowed by any of the Fathers.

r Why, but you will not deny I am sure, That some of your predecessors, as for example Luther, hath spoken scornfully of the Fathers▪ Are not these his words, Nihil curo, &c. I care not if a thousand Austin's, a thousand Cyprians, a thousand Churches think otherwise then I do.

Luther persuading himself that the Word of God made for him in a controversy which he handled, by way of supposal, that Austin and Cyprian, &c. thought otherwise▪ professeth, that having the Word with him, he cared not who they were, not how many they were, who were against him. And do you think that therein he spake scornfully of the Fathers? What do you think then of him, who persuading himself that some of your Popes made for him, protesteth he would rest more thereon, then upon thousand Austin's, thousand Jerome's, thousand Gregory's, Ego vt ingenue • atcor plus vnt summo pontificicrederem in his qui fidci mysteria tangunt quā mille Augustinis, Hieronymis, Gregorijs saith your Cornelius Mussus, in his Commentary upon the Epistle to the Romans. If it were scornefullnesse in Luther to prefer the Word of God before thousand Austin's: doth it not much more argue scornfulness in Musse, to prefer an usurping, most vicious, and unlettered Pope, before thousand Austin's? He was a great Clerke in his time, who delivered this as sound doctrine; Simplici potius Rustice, & infanti, & Anicul • , magis quàm Pontifici maximo, & mille Episcopis credendum est, si isti contra Euangelium, illi pro Euangelie faciant. We ought rather believe a plain country fellow, or a child, or an old wife, then the Pope, and a thousand Bishops: if the Pope and Bishops speak against the Gospel; and the others agreeably to the Gospel. To prefer the Word of God before Bishops, is not to scorn Bishops.

Well, shall we then fall to the Fathers, and see what they say?

Nay, stay a little. And tell me first what hope there is that either you should persuade me, or I persuade you, by Fathers: seeing the one of us cannot persuade the other to be of his opinion by the Scripture: It is written, That they who hear not Moses, and the Prophets, will not be persuaded though one rise from the dead again. Which makes me fear, that seeing Moses and the Prophets, alleged by me, cannot persuade you, nor the Texts which you allege out of the same cannot persuade me, we shall lose both our labors in examining what the Fathers have said about the differences between us: For if men who hear not Moses and the Prophets, will not be persuaded by the dead miraculously raised; I cannot think they will ever be persuaded by the Fathers.

Say you so?

Yea truly: and I am the more afraid we shall lose our labors in this kind; because there is as great question between us, about the Fathers, as about the Scriptures: what the meaning of the Fathers is, as what the meaning of the Scriptures is. On whose side St. Austin, and St. Ambrose stands, as on whose side St. Paul, and St. Peter stands. The Fathers Writings are subject to mistakings as well as the Scriptures. Arbitror nonnulles in quibusdamlocis libr • rum meorum opinaturos me sensisse, quod non sensi, aut non sensisse quod sensi: I suppose (saith St. Austin) that many by reason of some passages in my Books, will conceive that my meaning is otherwise then it was: or that it was not such as it was. And it fell out accordingly. For as Baronius witnesseth, after St. Austin's death, there arose up diverse, Qui ex eius scriptis male perceptis complures inuexerunt errores, quos S. Aug. nomine & authoritate defendere conabantur. Who mistaking his meaning, broached many errors in his name. Now I doubt not, but you think other Fathers Writings are as subject to mistakings as St. Austin's.

That I do: Yet prove this point (I pray) a little more fully.

I will; and that by examples of ancienter, and later times. In ancient times one Father mistook the meaning of another. At this time, even one of you conceives differently of the meaning of the Fathers, from others of you: some saying, This is the meaning: others saying, not so; but this is the meaning.

What ancient Father mistook his fellows meaning?

St. Austin mistook St. Cyprians: for St. Austin thought St. Cyprian had been of opinion, that Heretics were within the Church: which (as your men say) St. Cyprian did not.

Indeed, I think St. Austin mistook St. Cyprian foully: for I read in Bellarmine, that, Cypriani verba nihil tale sonant. S. Cyprians words founded nothing that way. And in Cano, Ego, vt quemadmodum sentio loquar, non intelligo quid caus • Augustimo fuerit, vt verba Cypriani in eum sensū acceperit, qui mihi sane tam apparet à Cypriani mente alienus, quam Coelum a terrae natura altenum est▪ sed aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus. If I may speak my mind freely; I wonder why S. Austin took S. Cyprians words in that meaning; from which they are as are far as heaven from earth: but the greatest Clerks may now and then be taken napping. But what other mistaking do you read of in old time? One swallow makes not summer.

Julianus Bishop of Capna, of quick wit, and good understanding in the Scriptures, as Gennadius witnesseth, conceived that Chrysostom did not believe Original sin was derived from the fathers unto the children. Yet S. Austin was of another mind: S. Austin thought Julian was deceived: Julian mistook the meaning of S. Chrysostom.

About the year 824. there was a great question, Whether Images might be worshipped. The Bishops of France in a meeting at Paris, collected diverse testimonies out of Gregory Nyssen, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Athanasius, Ambrose, Epiphanius, and Stephen Bostron, as they call him, to prove Images might not be worshipped: yet Hadrian alledgeth the same testimonies, out of the same Fathers, to prove the contrary. viz. That Images might be worshipped.

May I believe you that this is true?

Yea: for Bellarmine grants it to be true. Plurima testimonia quae summus Pontifex Hadrianus in Epistola illa sua doctissima pro Imaginibus posuit isti rursum allegant qui contra Imagines pugnant. The many testimonies alleged by Pope Hadrian, in that his learned Epistle in defense of Images: these Bishops (he means the Bishops which met at Paris) allege them to disprove Images, saith Bellarmine.

What instances can you give me to make it plain, that learned Catholics differ about the meaning of the Fathers: for I thought the Fathers had written so plainly, that any man might easily have conceived their meaning, and that all (Catholics especially) had understood them alike.

I could load you with instances of your learned Romanists differences about the meaning of the Fathers: but I will give you only a few, yet such as I think very remarkable. It is a great question among yourselves, Whether the Virgin Mary was conceived in sin, or no: some affirming, some denying. Bellarmine is one of them who denies that she was conceived in sin: and for proof of his opiniō, he alledgeth Ambrose Ser. 22. in Ps. 118. Yet Vasquez disputing the question, though he be of Bellarmine's opinion in the main, professeth: he durst not cite that place of Ambrose, which Bellarmine doth for that purpose. Mitto ex Latinis testimonium Ambrosij, quamuis istud non nulli praeclarum existiment. Mihi enim verba ipsius aliud omnino sonare videntur, &c. I pass over the testimony of S. Ambrose, saith he, though some account of it highly, because in my opinion his words carry quite another meaning. That which Bellarmine thought S. Ambrose meant, Vasquez thought he did not mean. The same Bellarmine, in prosecuting the same controversy, alledgeth Anselm, Lib. de concepta virginali & peccato Originally, Cap. 18. Yet Petrus de Vincentia alledgeth the same words out of the same place unto the contrary. Bellarmine thought the Virgin Mary's immaculate conception to be proved by Anselm. Petrus de Vincentia thought that the Virgin Mary's conception in sin was proved by Anselm. Bellarmine in the same case alledgeth Austin, and Jerome, as being of his opinion: m Petrus de Vi • centia alledgeth the same Fathers, as being of a contrary opinion. Hildephonsus lib. de virginita •• B. Mariae, is alleged by Petrus de Vincentia, for the Virgins conception in sin: and yet he confesseth, that Hildephonsus is alleged by a contrary faction, to prove her freedom from sin. May not this serve for one instance, to prove that your learned Catholics differ about the understanding of the Fathers?

What is your next?

It is a great Question (as you know) between us, and you, Whether Matrimony be a Sacrament in proper sense? You say it is so. We say, it is not so. For the proof of your, it is so. Bellarmine alledgeth Leo 1. in his ninety two Epistle; and Chrysostom in his twenty Homily upon the Ephesians; and Ambrose upon the fifth to the Eph. and a number of places out of S. Austin. Whereby it is plain, (except he write against his own conscience) that he conceived these Fathers held opinion, Matromony was a Sacrament in proper sense: Yet your Vasquez thinks they did not: for handling that point, Mitto▪testimonia Leonis Papae 1. in Epistola 90. aliàs 92. Cap. 4. Chrysostomum Hom. 20. in Epist. ad Eph. & Authorem Comment. in Paulum apud Ambrosium in illud Eph. 5. Sacramentum h • c, &c. qui Matrimonimm Sacramentum seu mysterium appellant: e • quod non loquuntur ipside sacramento proprie, qualia sunt 7. quae in Ecclesia sunt à Christo instituta, &c. sed de Sacramento latiori signification, pro ut est mysterium & signum coniunctionis Christi cum Ecclesia de qua nunc non disputamus. In quo etiam sensu existimo Aug. ubique Matrimonium Sacramentum appellâsse. I do not urge Leo 1. in his 92. Epistle: nor Chrysostom's 20▪ Homily upon the Ephesians, nor the Author of the Commentaries which go under Ambrose his name upon the Ephesians: though they call Matrimony a Sacrament: because they speak not of a Sacrament in proper sense, such as are those seven which Christ ordained in his Church: but of a Sacrament in a larger sense, as it is a mystery, or a sign of the union that is between Christ and his Church, of which kind of Sacrament we speak not now. In which kind of meaning I think S. Austin continually called Matrimony a Sacrament, saith Vasquez. And in the Chapter following, treating upon the same Argument: Postquam singula loca Aug. perlegi & attente considerani, An. 1588. manifesse deprehendi cum non loqui de Sacramento proprie, pro vt in praesenti loquimur: sed de sacramento latior • significationepro vt est signum vnionis Christi cum Ecclesia, ac proiude indi ••• authoritate ipsi •• in has part • ••• ra haretic • s v •• non debere. After that, in the year 1588. I did diligently read & considered of the places in S. Austin, I found it very apparent, that when he called Matrimony a Sacrament, he spake not of a Sacrament in proper sense, but in larger signification▪ and therefore I thought it not fit to allege Austin's authority against the Heretics in this Controuersie, saith the same man. May not this serve for another instance to prove that your learned Catholics differ about the understanding of the Fathers?

What is your third instance?

It is questioned partly between us, and you: partly among yourselves, what kind of certainty a man may have of his salvation: some saying, That faithful men may attain to such knowledge of their salvation, that they may rest assured of the forgiveness of their sins: other saying, not so, except it be by special revelation. Of the former opinion is • Catharinus, of the later Bellarmine. Both of them allege the self same Fathers, Greek, and Latin, for the proof of their several opinions, which argues they conceived differently of the Fathers meaning. In like manner it is questioned between us and you, Whether the words of Saine Peter, 1 Epist. 3. 19. are to be understood of Christ's discension into hell in soul after his death. And your Rhemists would persuade us, That S. Augustine found himself sure that so much was plainly proved thereby: yet Bellarmine confesseth; Non vult Aug. h •• c locu •• ad Infer • s pertiner • : That S. Austin did not think Christ's discension into hell was proved thereby.

A great question it is even amongst yourselves, Whether the words of Christ, John. Chap. 6. be to be understood properly of the Sac • ament, or no: Cajetan, Jansen, Hessels, Tapperus, and some others, hold negatively: Roffensis, Bell. Maldonado, &c. hold affirmatively. Now, Cajetan proves his Negative, ijs dem modis quibus Roffensis stabiliuit contrarium sententiam authoritate sanctorum & pracipue B. Aug. By the same Arguments that Roffensis proved his affirmative, even by the testimony of the Fathers, especially of S. Austin, as Tapperus witnesseth.

In King Henry the Eighth days, there was a great controversy among yourselves, Vtrum ducere relictam 〈◊〉 mortui sine liberis it a sit de iure divine & naturali prohibitū: vt nullus po • ti • ex super hui • snoodi m • trimonij contract is sine contrahen • is dispensare posset. And the most famous Universities in France and Italy, grounding themselves upon the Scriptures, and Fathers, were of opinion, That marrying of the brothers wife was so forbidden, that no dispensation could make it lawful. And to that purpose some learned man made a book. Now the Fathers, whereon the Universities, and the Author of the book rested were Origen, Chrysostom, Basil, Jerome, Augustine, Greg. &c. Yet Bellarmine, and the Author of the book, entitled, Apologia Tumultuaria▪ &c. allege the same Fathers to the contrary. I did not think the Fathers words had been so subject to different constructions. But I must put off the further dispute about the Fathers, till our next meeting, which shall be (God willing) err long, while, God be with you, only remember▪ I pray you, that which is written: 1. Tim. 6. 3. 4. and 5. verses, If any man teach otherwise, and consenteth not to the wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine, which is according to godliness. He is puffed up and knoweth nothing, but doteth about questions and strife of words, whereof cometh envy strife, railings, evil surmisings, Froward disputations of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, which think that gain is godliness: from such separate thyself.