I.

WHat hope can wee haue of honest and square dealing with this Ca­tholick-copes [...]mate, who begin­neth so captiously and deceitful­ly, as, to play at fast and loose in ambiguities? For no Protestant liuing, affirmeth that all Scripture is easie. No Papist liuing, will, or dareth say, that no Scripture is easie. If some Scripture be easie: and some be hard, this Generall Proposition, The Scriptures are ea­sie, is true, and this Generall Proposition, The Scrip­tures are not easie, is also true, viz. Some Scripture is: and some is not so. This is easie: that is hard.

[Page 2] That which the Protestants maintaine, is it expresly Contrary to the expresse words of their owne Bible. against Scripture? Yes saith this gagger, Contrary to the expresse words of their owne bible, 2 Pet. 3. 16. Where Saint Peter speaking of Saint Pauls Epistles, saith. In which are some things hard to be vnderstood. Saint Peter saith, but some things; by this fellowes own confession: he doth not say, All things in Saint Pauls Epistles are hard: or, All Saint Pauls Epistles are hard, nor indiffinitely, Saint Pauls Epistles are hard, but one­ly, some things, in his Epistles, are hard. That some things are, it was euer granted, that all Scripture, all things in Scripture, are easie, it was neuer so much as dreamed. So what contrariety of the Protestants do­ctrine, is there vnto their owne bible? No honesty in this fellow, nor his director C. W. B. thus to peruert the state of the Question, and fasten a lye vpon the Pro­testants, I am sure.

That place of Esay not vnderstood by the Eunuch, Acts 8. 30. 31. is not to purpose against the Pro­testants; Against Acts 8. 30. &c. And Philip said vnto the Eunuch, vnder­standest thou what thou readest? and hee said, How can I, except some man should guide mee? therefore, &c. This is but one particular place, and proueth no more, but one obscurity in one place of Scripture. It is also a Prophecy: and Prophecies are assised at obscurity. The euents of Prophecies are obscure, before they fall: and being ac­complished, not straight-way discerned. The Eunuch did know what was said, but he could not tell of whom it was spoken. The difficulty was but in one point: and the hardnesse not generall neither, but in part. That par­tiall hardnesse, but in one particular. That particular, but for a time. Iudge, Reader, how many insufficiencies are [Page 3] in this allegation to proue that, all Scripture is hard, be­cause one place, a particular case, in one point, at that time, was hard. What honesty in that Proposer, this Gaggers good Gossip C. W. B. who hath it thus, The Eunuch could not vnderstand the Scriptures; who could not vnderstand but one thing in the Scripture, that we know.

Christ called two of his owne disciples fooles, and be­ginning Against Luk. 24. 15. at Moses, and all the Prophets, hee expounded vnto them all the scriptures, the things concerning him­selfe, before that they could vnderstand them: First, the answere is the same which serued for the former, that the things which they vnderstood not, were but some Scriptures. Now it followeth not, that all are hard, be­cause some were. Secondly, they were Prophecies, and so obscure till their accomplishments. Thirdly, Prophe­cies of one subiect, all; the Messias. Fourthly, the Case is altered with them now: they are now easie that were then hard, and our Question is of Scripture at this day to men now adayes, not of scripture then, to men then liuing. I adde farther, they are fooled for their slownesse of heart: that is, not so much for a dis-ability to vnder­stand those things there spoken of, as for dis-proportion in their affection; or dis-attention rather vnto those things, not so obscure or difficult of themselues, especi­ally considering the times then: The Shepheard being smitten: the sheepe scattered; and meeting with those occurrences which they looked not for, in the fulfilling of their Hopes: wee hoped it was he, that should haue re­stored the kingdome of Israel, so that a cloud of humane darkenesse and disheartnings were at that time cast vp­on their affections and vnderstandings. And if at some [Page 4] time I be ill-disposed to any businesse, it is no argument I am so alway; or should totally be excluded from med­ling therewith. And lastly this their slownesse, was but partiall: to vnderstand something, of one particular per­son. Which obscurity, if in the Subiect it selfe, is no­thing to obscurity vniuersall.

But yet further to this point: This fellow came forth to quarrell, not to plead for naked and bare truth: else would he haue dealt sincerely and ingenuously, not one­ly in propounding what the Protestants hold, which he doth not: but also in not belying the text, as hee doth. For is it found in our Bibles, or in any Bible, Hee expounded vnto them all the Scriptures? or, Hee ex­pounded vnto them, in all the Scriptures, the things that concerned himselfe? Thus I finde it, and not otherwise. For in this there is a sense: in that other there is none. So that the Holy ghost is made to speake plaine non­sense, to fit a turne for a Catholique cause. This may stand, and yet the Protestants assersion be not infeebled, He expounded vnto them in all the scriptures, the things concerning himselfe. For they doe not deny, but that some things are hard. That other cannot stand. For it implieth, that all things are hard. So we haue obserua­ble, a pretty niggling tricke of a false knaue: a small word, (In) left out, to marre all. For with In the text is for this, and no more, Some things in Scripture needed exposition, and therefore were hard. But without In, though there be no Sense (but what simple Proselyte attendeth to that?) the implication is, All Scriptures need Interpretation, and so are all hard; which the good Catholique beleeueth not himselfe; dareth not auouch; yet faine would haue his nouice take it so, to traduce [Page 5] the tenent of the Protestants, that some Scriptures are open and easie. Thus in the very in-steppe of his stolen pamphlet, he belyeth the Protestant for his opinion: abuseth the Scripture to bolster his Forgery: and yet for all that, fighteth onely with his owne fancy, as dogges by moone-light barke at their owne shadowes.

To your question then inferred vpon the premises, I How then are Scrip­tures so easie to be vnder­stood of the vnlearned, when the Disciples themselues vnderstood them not, till first they were expounded vnto them? answere, first, As easie to be vnderstood of the vnlearned now, as of them then, who were none of the Learned ones at that time: and had incident impediments at that time. Secondly, scriptures, hard then, vnto them, may be, and are easie now, without any such Interpre­tation. For one Day teacheth another: and especially in Predictions, as these all were; that is, after easie, which at first was hard. If now they be not easie, there is no explicite faith: implicite faith must saue all. Sir Gag­ger, whosoeuer you are, know that Scripture is not all of one height, depth, or alloy. Some was hard, that now is easie. Some easie now, and euer. Some yet hard, but not for euer. To be vnderstood, but not in the way: only in visione faciei, when wee shall see face to face, and know God as we are knowne, and some points, at least explicitely, not now to bee vnderstood, nor yet then. [...]. it was a se­cret, a mystery, saith Basil of Seleucia; at the beginning, & shall neuer cease to be a mystery; In some point or other, the worke of our Redemption in Christ, he meaneth.

See more who list, they shall see nothing to purpose. See more, 2 Pet. 1. 20. No Scripture, saith Saint Peter, is of priuate motion, or Interpretation, as you will. Ergo what? All Scripture is hard? Teach me this Consequence, and I will thanke you for my New-Logicke. This I doe see: where the [Page 6] Scripture is hard, and needeth interpretation, there that Spirit which dictated it at first, must direct in the vnder­standing it at last. For man is permitted to expound himselfe, and best can giue his owne meaning. So this Text is not to proue, that Scripture is hard; but to proue that in Case there be a Doubt, we are not to addresse vnto priuate Fancies, or peculiar opinions, but to the Direction of Gods Spirit, and that in the Church. I sub­scribe, Math. 13. 11. 36. it is remembred, that Christ, taught the People in Parables. Well: what if he did? Why a Parable is a darke kinde of speech, so that there is obscurity in the Scriptures. I answer: No man deny­eth but there is obscurity. No man denieth but Para­bles are obscure. Some, not all. In some things, not in all. Those Parables were obscure; admit it, that are remem­bred there: but they are not all the Parables that are in Scripture. Nor are Parables the hundreth part of Scrip­ture, and many of them are of easie vnderstanding, and many are expounded where proposed: and when vn­derstood, best remembred, most beneficiall to the Hearer.

Luke 24. 45. Then opened hee their vnderstandings, that they might vnderstand the Scripture: which act of our Sauiour vnto, and vpon his Disciples, at that time slow of heart; may rather excite vnto, then detar from the Reading of the Scriptures. For that which hee did to them personally, he will doe vnto all mediately; and doth it vnto the simplest actually, of those that are inte­ressed in him, though but by a generall tye. For the poorest member of the Church, doth now vnderstand that which he taught them; that he was the Messiah; the Promised seede; according vnto Prophecies, and Pre­dictions [Page 7] of old; then hard, now easie. 1 Cor. 12. 8. Saint Paul speaking of diuersity of guifts, saith; To one is giuen by the spirit, the word of wisdome, to another the word of knowledge, by the same spirit: which words are as much against vnderstanding Scriptures, hard, by interpretati­on: as Scriptures easie with interpretation. For those that haue it, haue it by guift: immediate by God, with­out helpe or instruction. Those that haue it not, by war­rant of this place, and goe no further, cannot haue it at all, because these things remembred were all of Infusi­on: of extraordinary indowment: and so, singular and peculiar. Againe, admit it in common course; yet it is rather a warrant for facility of Scripture, because there are designed Expositors, or if for difficulty, because ex­positors are needfull; yet this difficulty is but in some, to some, not vniuersall, of which we must be vnderstood, and of no other, if wee be rightly taken.

Luke 18. 34. The Disciples vnderstood none of those things. Doth it follow they vnderstood not any thing in the Law or Prophets, which were the Scriptures of those times? If you cannot read a letter in Cipher, can you not read a plaine letter in Italique hand? Those things, beside that they were not then written, and so no part of Scripture; and so not to purpose; were particu­lar, and personall, and not performed. Now they are per­formed; now they are in Scripture, now easie to be vn­derstood of all, without Expositors, the Sufferings of our Sauiour at Ierusalem. To them then, they were hidden: are they now to you Catholikes? Doe you not know Christ suffered at Ierusalem? If you doe not, I grant Scripture is hard, and hidden; but hidden vnto those, that perish onely, because they will hud-winke them­selues, [Page 8] and not see. Not a Lixa, Calo, or Agaso, not a shepheard or muleter but doth, or else may know this now, which then was a secret not knowen vnto many: many particulars, not vnto the blessed Virgin her selfe: such difference there is in things wrought by time; so little wisdome to take things at all times alike; and to conclude alike.

Indeed, the same: that is, the thing in question, as little Gag. See Fathers which affirme the same, Iren. lib. 2. cap. 47. as those Texts doe, and to as little purpose as those texts doe. Irenaeus Lib. 2. 47. Hauing insisted vpon, and instan­ced in obscurity in Gods word in Nature, he proceedeth vnto Gods word in Scripture thus. Si ergo & in rebus creaturae, quaedam quidem eorum adiacent Deo, quaedam autem & in nostram venerunt scientiam, quid mali est, si et eorum, quae in scripturis requiruntur, vniuersis scripturis spiritualibus, existentibus, quaedam quidem absoluamus secundum gratiam Dei, quaedam ante com­mendemus Deo? If so be in the workes of Creation, some keepe close vnto God in secret, some are apprehended and vnderstood by vs: what hurt or inconuenience is it, if in Scripture, all Scripture being spirituall, there be some­thing contayned, which through assistance of Gods grace, we can goe through with, and againe, some thing that we must leaue vnto God? Iust the doctrine of the Prote­stants; that some things may bee vnderstood, some things past our vnderstanding. Non solum in hoc sae­culo, so it followeth there, sed et in futuro. Not onely in this world; but that to come, that God may euer teach, man euer learne of God. The waters of Silo, some where runne pleasantly, and may be passed: in other some pla­ces not foordable. Origen lib. 7. cont. Celsum.

Origen singeth the same Protestant song, and that [Page 9] in moe places then one of his bookes against Celsus, as lib. 5. twise, hom. 14. vpon Exodus, and other where. The place you meane, lib. 7. contra Celsum, I thinke is this: (For you could not tell whereabout, or what it was, because your good founder C. W. B. failed you,) Celsus being a Pagan, and an Epicure, as happily you are, made the same obiection, I am sure, which you doe now, pag. 345. edit. Graec-Lat. that the Scripture was obscure and vncertaine: the sense and meaning not to be found out by wise men: so that the ignorant and indiscreet, abused it at pleasure. More then which no liuing Iesuite could haue said: No Protestant would an­swere a Iesuite otherwise then Origen doth, vnto that Pagan Celsus. Certe ipsi Prophetae, quicquid erat opus mox ab Auditoribus intelligi; et quicquid ad corrigen­dos mores faciebat, abs (que) vllis involucris proposuerunt ijs, ita vt Deus voluit. The Prophets themselues expoun­ded to their Auditors anon, whatsoeuer was for them to be vnderstood, and whatsoeuer serued to make them good men, that they proposed vnto them, as Gods will was they should, plainly without obscurity at al. Had the Protestants feed him, hee could not haue spoken more fully, and to purpose, in their cause; and yet he procee­deth to declare, why Figures, Parables, and Allegories are vsed therein, a long discourse to purpose, pag. 345. See him that will.

It is not denied, Saint Ambrose Ep. 44. to Con­stantius, Ambr. Ep. 44 ad Con­stant calleth it a Sea, a depth of Pro­pheticall rid­dles. compareth the holy scriptures vnto a Sea: and calleth them a depth of Propheticall riddles, Mare est scriptura diuina habens in se sensus profundos, altitu­dinem Propheticorum aenigmatum: in quod mare plu­rima introierunt flumina. But not all scripture in his [Page 10] opinion is that Sea: onely Propheticall riddles, are that Sea; beside which, diuersa sunt scripturarū fluenta: as he addeth, diuers streames, brooks, shallowes, and currents be in the scripture. Habes quod primū bibas, habes quod secundum: habes quod postremum. Scripture fitted to euery capacity: I know no Protestant that wil aske more.

Saint Hierome is next, who out of Bellarmines obser­uations could haue afforded vs three places moe, and Saint Hier in praefat. com­men. in Eph. more materiall, from whence this mans director tooke his store, and rather should he haue taken any testi­mony then this, if he vnderstood the credit of his wit­nesse. For the commentaries vpon the Epistles, extant vnder Saint Hicromes name, be none of his, but are the Collections of Pelagius the Hereticke; as not Prote­stants say, but Papists of name and note: Catharme, Se­nensis, Pererius, Bellarmine and Victorius Marianus: Such an aduocate we neede not enuie our aduersary; Much good may Pelagius the Heretickes testimony doe him. But let him passe for Saint Hierome, there is not any thing to purpose spoken by him. That which he saith is this: He had studied the Scriptures much and long, had conference with diuers learned men all his time, about the sense thereof, and had purposely vnder­taken a iourney vnto Didymus at Alexandria, vt ab eo in scripturis omnibus quae habebam dubia sciscitarer: Therefore, what? First this: Didymus, at least, vnderstood all scripture; or how could he resolue all the doubts of scripture? what needed Hierome to haue gone so long a iourney vnto him? therfore, scripture, al of it, is to be vn­derstood. Secondly, vnto Hierome, all scripture was not hard: he proposed vnto him the doubts he had: which implyeth, they were not infinite, not all scripture ob­scure [Page 11] or doubted of: therefore thirdly, this proueth the Protestant opinion true, that the Scriptures are some of them easie enough to be vnderstood

Saint August. Ep. 119. cap. 21. saith somewhat Saint Aug. Ep. 119. cap. 21. saith, The things, &c. more: For he descendeth vnto Comparison, and saith, The things of holy scripture which I know not, are many moe then those which I know. Such was his humility, to say so; like vnto Saint Paul in the same case: who knew nothing, and yet your selfe Sir, a man of lesse skill then Saint Augustine, not to be named the same day with him, if you should goe and make a list of the par­ticular verses in the scripture, which you vnderstand, and of those you vnderstand not, I doe not doubt but those would be more then these: and yet further, these being so, he might iustly and truely say so of all almost. For of one and the same place there may be moe senses then one: yea, euen literall senses, and intended by the holy Ghost: so that knowing one sense, perhaps prima­ry and naturall, he may be ignorant of the other: and thus all Scripture may be hard.

Saint August. opinion was indeed no other then our opinion is, as appeareth in Ep. 100. to Volusianus, Tanta est Christianarum profunditas literarū &c. Such and so great is the depth of Christian scriptures, that I might still euery day learne and profit by them, informe my selfe of that I know not before, if so bee that at most leysure, with my vtmost paines and trauell, indowed with as good a wit as any man can haue, I should set my selfe to learne them, and them alone, from my very infancy to decrepite age. Hitherto Saint August. in appearance for the Papist: now insueth for the Protestant. Not s [...], but that the things absolutely necessary to Saluation, are [Page 12] compassed with much losse, difficulty, and vnderstood. But when a man hath once resolued his Faith in them, without which no man can liue well and godlily, those men that will goe forward with greater proficiency, shall meete with so many things in such wise shadowed with mysticall meanings: so great proofe and depth of wise­dome therein couched, not onely in the words which set forth the things vnto vs; and to our vnderstanding: but also in the things vnderstood. Insomuch as that aunci­ent students, of pregnant wit, of vnwearied pains, doe find it verrified in themselues here, which the same scripture hath in a certaine place, Sirac. 18. 7. When a man hath done, then is he to beginne. So truly doth Saint August. resolue, for either opposite part, who haue shared the Truth betwixt them.

This was the doctrine once euen of the Roman Church: For Saint Gregory vpon the 6. of Ezechiel, Saint Grego­rie hom. 6. in Ezech, and many others confesse the same. said, If the vnderstanding of holy scripture were playne to all men, it would come in time to bee of no reckoning. Where hee giueth a reason of that obscurity that is in it. Who yet vpon the 6. of Iob, more atfull interpreteth his owne meaning thus. Sacra scriptura, cibus est in locis obscurioribus, quia quasi exponendo frangitur et man­dendo glutitur. Potus vero est in locis apertioribus, quià ita sorbetur sicut invenitur. The holy Scripture is Meate in the more obscure places, because in the expounding thereof it is broken as it were, and in chewing swallowed. Drinke it is in the more perspicuous places, because it is as easily swallowed downe, as it is found. Thus the do­ctrine and beliefe of the Roman Church was sometime, Scripture in some places, is hard, in some places easie. Hath that Church now forsaken her former faith? if [Page 13] not, we differ not: for we maintaine the easinesse of ho­ly Scripture, no otherwise then Saint Gregory the Pope did. This Goose may fit the Gagge for his Ganders mouth, the Gospell will soone enough be rid of it.

II.

I Know no such tenent exclusiuely. I know no such Assertion negatiuely, the Church of England hath no such faith as this. You set vp a Shawfoule for a marke, and shoot your bolt at it your selfe alone. In our 11. Article, (put on your spectacles and see if you can reade it) we professe, The Church hath authority in controuersies of Faith.

The written word of God is the Rule of Faith with vs. And hath beene so with all our Fathers of old. Vn­to the Law, and vnto the Prophets, was a direction of a perpetuall Morallity, and is continued in that of our Sauiour, Ioh. 5. Search the Scriptures: for in them you hope to haue eternall life. A rule absolute in it selfe, a rule most sufficient vnto vs, for that end entended, To make the man of God perfect in euery good worke. Suffi­ciunt sanctae et diuinitus inspiratae scripturae, saith Atha­nasius, ad omnem institutionem veritatis.

Truth is of two sorts amongst men, manifest, and confessed truth, or more obscure, and inuolued truth. In his quae aperte posita sunt in scripturis, inveni [...]ntur [Page 14] illa omnia quae continent fidem mores (que) viuendi spem sci­licet & charitatem. Plainely deliuered in Scripture are all those poynts which belong vnto Faith and manners, Hope, and Charity to wit. And accordingly I doe know no obscurity vpon these; I know none of these controuerted inter partes: the Articles of our Creede are confessed on both sides, and held plaine enough.

The controuerted poynts are of a larger and an in­feriour alloy: of them a man may be ignorant, without any danger of his soule at all. A man may resolue or oppose this way, or that way, without perill of perish­ing for euer. Now if a question be moued iuris contro­uersi, in controuerted matters, who shall decide and settle the doubt? you say, The Church, and so say I: nay so say we. You say wee say the Scriptures; but without the Church: that is, each priuate mans opini­on and interpretation of the Scriptures, euen against the Church. No such thing Sir: you mistake vs. We say the Church must doe it, explaining, declaring, re­soluing the Scriptures, as the direction is from God himselfe, to purpose, Deut. 17. 8. and as your Texts and Fathers doe pretend it, and no otherwise.

And yet the Scripture may well be called iudge. As the Law determineth Controuersies betwixt man and man: In plaine cases iuris positiui, no deciding Iudge or legall proceeding shall neede. But such as are iuris ambigui & controuersi, must be determined by the Court, by the Iudge, according vnto Law. So is it in Scripture, according to the Protestants opinion. In points of Faith, they disclaime not the iudgement of the Church, nor yet appeale to Scripture alone, vnder­stood by themselues without a iudge, but referre it vn­to [Page 15] the Church. And they haue reason for it enough, seeing Gods Word and the ancient practise of the Ca­tholike Church, that is both Law and Iudge, are both for them: In the name of the Church of England, I will be tried thereby, and maintaine it against all Papists liuing. Take one for all, Cyril of Hierusalem in his fourth Catechisme saith, [...], In any poynt concerning the diuine and ho­ly mysteries of our Faith, not any, the least thing, must be tendred without warrant of diuine Scripture. And he addeth, Belieue mee not that speake and deliuer these things vnto you, vnlesse for proofe of them I doe bring plaine and euident demonstration out of diuine Writ. Was this man a Protestant or a Papist? Those Bibles he had then which we haue now: and it seemeth that addressing his owne beliefe and doctrine accordingly, varied not in iudgement any whit from vs, who make Scripture the rule of our beliefe. And in doubtfull poynts that require determination, appeale vnto the Catholique Church for iudgement in that Rule.

This is not contrary to any deduction from, much Contrary to the expresse words of their owne Bible. Math. 23. 2. lesse to the expresse words of our owne Bible, Matt. 23. 2. The Scribes & Pharises sit in Moses Chaire, all therfore whatsoeuer they bid you obserue, that obserue and doe. Therefore, &c. Doe you finde, eyther Faith or Iudge­ment, Pastors or Church, expresly named in this text? Looke once more, and looke back vpon your vnderta­king. Their refutation by expresse words of their owne bible. For words expresse you faile, vndertaking more than you can performe: an ordinary tricke of Catho­like Braggadochioes. Let vs see if Consequents will hold the tewghing any better.

[Page 16] Those that answere the Church and her Pastors in your Thesis, are the Scribes & Pharises, in your proofe: who whole and some, head and taile, be Doctors and Pastors of the Church with you. But of the Church of Rome it must be supposed, for wee disclaime any Conformation at all with them. And doe you suppose that our Sauiour approued them so well, as that hee would haue had the Iewes in matters of Faith to relye vpon them and their decisions, as Pastors of the Church in points of Faith? If this were his meaning, what meant he then to giue warning elsewhere, Take heede of the leauen of the Pharises? that is, as the holy Ghost expoundeth it, Of their doctrine. If the question had bin put, Art thou the Christ? would he haue sent them vnto the Scribes or Pharises for resolution? or aduised the people to belieue on them? we finde it not practi­sed: the contrary we doe. What then is this text, in consequence vnto the poynt? Surely hee meant no more but this: and in that hee will declare himselfe a Protestant; Whatsoeuer they bid you obserue out of Mo­ses, obserue; that is, so long as they teach but Scripture, they must he heard: if there they faile, then heare them not. Verba legis proferendo, in the opinion of Saint Augustine, so long as they speake Law. This is not our Heresie but Catholique Doctrine. De legis ac Mosis doctrinâ loquitur perindè enim est acsi dicat, Omnia quae Lex & Moyses vobis dixerint, Scribis & Pharisaeis recitantibus seruate; saith Maldonate, no friend nor fa­uourer of Protestants. And after him Barradas ano­ther Iesuite, in this resolution a very Protestant, Hoc est, saith he, omnia quae legi Dei & mandatis non re­pugnāt. Ergo, bound in the text with this restriction, as [Page 17] you must, and it is a plaine Gagge to the Gospel.

Luke 10. 16. He that heareth you, heareth me: and he 2. that despiseth you, despiseth me: and hee that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me: Therfore, &c. You know not what you say. All this we constantly beleeue. But first I answere, this is a text indeede to purpose, to vin­dicate authority to the Church and her Pastors: but not expressely, which is your vndertaking; by necessary consequence, and indenied it is, but you haue tied your selfe, foole as you were, vnto expresse words: and ex­presse words are not here extant. Secondly, perhaps it is not so pat as you imagine, because the men intended there and then were of another making, fashion and account than euer were any since or before: and there­fore their priuiledges more peculiar, of greater extent: insomuch as that all were not to be heard so respectiue­ly as they were: they without Scripture or allegation of Scripture, hauing mission immediate from the Sonne himselfe, which none euer had but they. But thirdly I answere, take it with Saint Cyprian, Epist. 96. and others, in a larger extent, ad omnes praepositos qui Apo­stolis vicariâ ordinatione succedunt, vnto the Gouer­nours in the Church, who succeede the Apostles in the Churches gouernement, by imposition of hands and ordination, and goe and answere your selfe out of Saint Bernard, thus, Be the commandement tendred by God or man, as Gods agent, it is to be receiued with like re­uerence; Vbi tamen Deo contraria non praecipit homo; As farre as man doth not gain-say the will and com­mandement of the most high. A flat Protestant in his assertion; and vpon reason: For a Nuntio must goe to his Commission.

[Page 18] Matth. 16. 19. I will giue vnto thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen, and whatsoeuer thou shalt 3. binde on earth shall be bound in Heauen: whatsoe­uer thou shalt loose in earth shall be loosed in heauen. Which text hath no such mention of relying vpon Church or Pastors in matters of faith, expressed. Nor hitherto perhaps any such meaning. Your Compeeres were wont to cry vs downe with this text, For Saint Peters iurisdiction ouer all, and the Popes vniuersall power in claue potestatis. You now waue that power, it seemeth, and cast aside that key, and lay hold vpon that other key of knowledge. Shall wee belieue your Puniship or them? This cannot be good Catholique vnitie, in so fundamentall a poynt of your Faith, ex­cept for neere alliance betwixt Saint Peter and his Spouse the Church, whatsouer is remembred of the one, must be likewise true of the other.

But out with your Table-bookes, you that haue them amongst you, and Note here, that he doth not say who­soeuer, but whatsoeuer: giuing vs thereby to vnderstand that not onely the bonds of sinne, but as well all other knots and difficulties in matters of saith and manners, are to be loosed by Saint Peter, and by the Pastors that succeed him in the Church. Note: the man will giue you some­thing worth the noting: that is, our Sauiour doth not say whomsoeuer, but whatsoeuer. We take it, and note it, and meane to make good vse of it: inferring there­upon through your owne confession, that therefore S ^t. Peter by Christs commission, must in case of binding and loosing, and executing the power of the Keyes (which whether it be all one with binding and losing, you are not agreed amongst your selues) let whomso­euer alone for euer; and betake himselfe vnto whatsoe­uer: that is, not meddle any more with Kings and Princes: with cantoning of their Kingdomes and estates: but content himselfe with whatsoeuer matters [Page 19] of fact inferiour: matters of Faith, and the like decisi­ons, at least with Causes and Persons within his owne Verge, indeede Causes, that is, knots and diffi­culties, for Persons are none of that combination.

So, to shake hands with your memorable obserua­tion; Therefore in matters of faith euen by their owne Bible, wee must not relye vpon the written word one­ly; but vpon whatsoeuer Saint Peter shall tie or vntie: which we in this case are contented to doe, and to say with that Councell of which he was a part (you say President) visum est spiritui sancto & nobis, the decisi­on of the Catholique Church, wee receiue as the di­ctate of the holy Spirit: but be you sure it is the iudg­ment of the Church, for you are good Proficients in equiuocation, and present vs the Church vpon no better termes, then if you should tender vs a man of straw for a perfect man: or a shadow for a sub­stance.

Indeede to this effect, that is to as little purpose as See more to this effect, Deut. 17. 8. that which went before. In cases of controuersies and of doubts, in matters of fact or ciuill cognisance, which could not be determined by ordinary course of Law, in the seuerall Counties as it were, or Places of iudi­cature, the Parties plaintife and defendants were to re­ferre it, to the Leuits, Priests, and Iudge, in these daies: that is, to the Church and to the Pope, you dreame: and let your dreame goe once for truth: and they must heare it, determine it, definitiuely, It was capitall to refuse, or to appeale. Good: but yet this commeth not home: for they must determine it according vn­to Law, to which supreamest decision, both concurre: [Page 20] the Rule of right, and determiner of right according to that rule. In our construction to our present que­stion, the iudgement of the Church according vnto Scripture, the selfe-same that the Protestant maintai­neth.

In this text I graunt more is to be seene then in all the rest, viz. when the word of the Lord came vnto See Aggee the 2. and 11. Agge the Prophet. Which thing how it sorteth with the present position, I cannot tell: speake those that can. But the word that then came vnto him was this, in the 12. verse, Aske the Priests concer­ning the Lawe. And the Priests answered according vnto Law, thus and thus. And this is resoluing of a doubt by the Priests: but the doubt resolued according vnto Law: so the written word is relyed vpon. Not I my selfe, the word onely, Quis enim re­spondet? Did euer any man deny that the Church and her Pastors, are not to be heard speaking out of, or else according vnto Scriptures? Shew this, and take it, else Nihil ad rhombum.

That of 2 Chron. 19. 8. is all one with Deuter. 17. 8. an exemplification of that rule: a practice accor­ding 2 Chron. 19. 8. vnto that direction there: somewhat more. For hereby it appeareth that the Precept was not for Tell the Church: and heare her Pastors: but goe take the ordinary course appointed, the iudgement of a stan­ding court, mixt of Clergie, and of the Laitie: as it were our court of high Commission; or indeede the Starre-chamber, consisting of both robes; Ecclesiasti­call and ciuill: not any thing to purpose for Church or for her Pastors propounded.

[Page 21] The last out of 2 Thessal. 2. 15. was wont to passe currant for vnwritten verities: now it commeth in limping for Church and Pastors: resolue where it shall stand, and then we will ranke it in degree and desert.

So I would, could I tell where to finde them: they See Fathers which affirme the same. walke in tenebris: I cannot speake with them by cleare day-light. In briefe, what they affirme, I pro­fesse I cannot tell. I know many things which they affirme in those remembred bookes and passages: but what the man here meaneth, I can but guesse at, so dissolute and at randome are his quotations, as if to name and muster vp some Fathers were enough: as I can coniecture, so come I to them: if I misse, I must haue better information hereafter.

Gregorie Nazianz. in Oratione excusat. saith some­what S. Gregor. Nazian. in Oratione ex­cusat. I resolue of, and to some purpose, but what I certainely doe not know: nor yet which Oration is by him intended. For I finde not any vnder that title in Billius whom these men follow, vnlesse it be one of his Apologies. In the former of which two, I finde somewhat that may looke that way: this, In Ecclesijs constituit vt alij pascantur & pareant, quibus videli­cet, id conducit, ac cum sermone tum opere ad officium diriguntur: alij autem ad Ecclesiae perfectionem Pa­stores, ac magistri sunt, qui virtute, coniunctione (que) ac apud Deum familiaritate vulgo sublimiores sunt, rationem animae ad corpus, aut mentis, ad animam ob­tinentes. A thing reasonable, profitable, and of abso­lute necessitie for the being of a Church, to haue a di­stinction of Pastors and People: some to teach, some to [Page 22] be taught: to leade, to be led: to rule, to obey: a thing established, practised, and defended in England, no o­therwise then was in the Primitiue Church, and is in the Church of Rome at this day. Vnlesse wee can see more shewed vs in Gregory Nazianzene, we haue seene but little vnto any purpose yet: and other thing then this I know not.

Tertullian next to be seene, against Heretickes pre­scribeth Tertul. lib. de praescrip, Hae­ret. the rule of Faith, so doe we: appealeth to the first institution of the Catholicke Church of Christ in his Apostles, and to their Doctrine then taught and deliuered: and so doe wee aboue all, primerily thereto he descendeth vnto Succession: so will we. Not any prescription insisted vpon by Tertullian, but I embrace it, and dare appeale vnto it, and stand to the award thereof: Ex fide personas approbantes, non ex personis fidem. Is this that which he would haue with Tertul. out of Chapter 21. What Christ reuealed vnto his A­postles to be preached, I will prescribe, that it ought to be proued no otherwise, then by testimony of those Chur­ches which were first founded by the Apostles in their preaching; partly by word of mouth, and partly after­ward by writing? If this be the place of Tertullian, meant by the Gagger; then Currat a Gods name, we accept the Condition, and ioyne issue, and come on with Tertullian, as it insueth, Si haec ita sunt; If this be so; it must needs be, that all Doctrine which concordeth with those Apostolicall, mother, and originall Chur­ches, is true, as being that selfe-same which the Chur­ches receiued from the Apostles: they from Christ, Christ from God. Whatsoeuer other Doctrine is beside [Page 23] this, is false, against the truth of the Apostles, Christ, and God. Thus he, thus we. I desire no other Iudge, or bet­ter triall, ioyne issue when you will, or when you dare. I accept the Condition, for any point controuerted betwixt the Church of England and Rome at this day, for 500. yeeres after Christ at least.

Discipulus magistrum. Cyprian commeth next to S. Cyprian Lib. 1. Epi. 3. be seene, in his 55. Epistle, or as your Authors suggest it, Lib. 1. Epist. 3. In which Epistle, I cou'd pitch vpon places, moe then one, that happily you may entend, for they looke this way: but that which is purposed I suppose is this, in the second sect. Actum est de Episco­patus vigore, & de Ecclesiae gubernandae sublimi ac di­vinâ potestate: The rather because the Texts of Scrip­ture here cited, are by Pamelius the Roman Scholiast, there applyed, though to no purpose. For it is the re­ceiued Doctrine of the Church of England, that in the office of a Bishop, there should be that vigor as he calleth it, and that the Calling it selfe is Diuine, and an high calling. Nor doth any Papist liuing more respect and approue that saying of Saint Cyprian in the same Epistle, Sect. 19. then our Church of England doth. Non est ad hoc deponenda Catholicae Ecclesiae dignitas, &c. The honor and the dignity of the Catholick Church, is not to be abased so farre: nor the vnspotted maiesty of the Flocke of Christ: or Priestlike power and authority to be so deiected, that men consisting out of the Church should dare professe they will passe censure vpon a Bi­shop of the Church. That Heretickes should presume to censure Christians: wounded men, iudge the sound: lapsed men, those that neuer fell, guilty persons iudge [Page 28] the Iudge: Impious Sacrilegists, the Priests. This you approue: so doe we. To what end doe you will vs see Saint Cyprian?

Or Saint Augustine against Cresconius the Dona­tist, S. Aug. lib. 1. cont. Cres. cap. 33. & lib. cont. epist. Fund. ca. 5. if yet wee could tell where in speciall and what to see, is this that which you meane, Cap. 33. We vphold the truth of Scripture, when we doe that which the vni­versall Church commandeth, recommended by autho­rity of the Scriptures, so farre as that because the Scrip­ture cannot deceiue a man, that would not willingly erre in this question obscure, should goe and enquire what the Church saith of it? If this be the place, as in all likelihood it is, we subscribe vnto it with all our hearts. For in Diuinity Questions, Controuersi Iuris, there must bee a Iudge to determine: that wee say is the Church, whether part contending hath Law & right: that is, consent of Scripture vpon his side, and we pro­fesse with the same Saint August. in his 118. Disputare contra id, quod vniuersa Ecclesià sentit, insolentissimae est insaniae. A most in solent franticke foole were he, that would dispute against the tenent of the vniuersall Church. Sir, bring vs to the triall, and gagge vs if you can, with this resolution of Saint Augustine; belye vs not for our opinions, against your knowledge.

But all this while wee haue seene in the Fathers what wee could finde or imagine, yet wee neuer saw cleerely till the close. Drinke was your arrand, but draffe would you haue: your plea hath beene for the Church, and Pastors; your intent was meerely for the Pope: for so Saint Anselme, Lib. de Incarnat: cap. 1. written vnto Pope Vrban, saith vnto him; Vnto no o­ther [Page 29] is more rightly referred to be corrected whatsoeuer ariseth in the Church against the Catholicke Faith. What is this saying of S. Anselme vnto vs? in matters of faith wee must relye vpon the iudgement of the Church, and her Pastors. There be moe Pastors in the Church then the Pope; though he be granted first, he is not all. There be moe Churches then his Church; what hath Pope Vrban, one man, to doe with Pastors? with the Church, but that, which wee know well e­nough, by Pastors, and Church, in conclusion you meane the Pope. I could interpret Saint Anselme well enough; as that, if a Controuersie were referred by the Church, or an Heresie to be corrected in the Church, which touched the case of the Catholicke Church, it could not be put ouer more fitly to any one man by the Church representatiue in a Councel, then vnto the Pope, first Bishop of Christendome: of greatest, not ab­solute power amongst Bishops. But I know your Saint Anselme well enough. This was not his meaning: he was partiall: post natus: not fit to speake in this cause, nor amongst the Fathers. A great Bishop I grant him: He was Archbishop of Canterbury, no great Doctor, but respectiuely considering the barbarous times in which hee liued: farre from being one of the ancient Fathers, or their grand-child. He liued in the dayes of Whether now wilt thou be­leeue so great a Bishop as S. Anselme, or some other Host, or Ho­stesse, that sell bottle-ale? King Henry the first, and was a factionist for Pope Vr­ban, his good Lord and Master. So aske my fellow if I be a thiefe: your bottle-ale Hostesse, where you vse, it seemeth, to meete, in Partridge alley with your gossips, is well enough acquainted with these passages, and can tell you as much as Saint Anselme could; if an Heretick [Page 30] aske her who is Supreame ale-canner on Earth, shee will answer, no doubt, why who but his holinesse? In this case I beleeue them both alike; as good reason for one as for other. Sure yours are no better then those Corkes with which your Hostesse vseth to stop her bottles: but agree as you can, you and your Hostesse; we proceede to the next Proposition.

III.

THis is also contrary to the expresse words of Contrary to express words of their owne Bible. our owne Bibles? How? wherefore? we shal see when we can: In the interim, thus wee draw on. Traditions are of two Sorts in the writings of Antiquity, as the word is ambiguous, of two significations. There are Traditions writtē, im­properly so called, and there are Traditions vnwritten, deliuered from hand to hand. The name is sometime applyed to the one, and sometime attributed to the o­ther: you meane not here Traditions written, I know it; no more doe we: we agree to take it of vnwritten Traditions, in opposition vnto Scripture: as where Tertullian speaketh in his Book de coronâ militis thus, Scripturam nullam invenies, Traditio tibi praetenditur euictrix: Scripture for this you can finde none, the ori­ginall came from Tradition.

[Page 31] Traditions are considered Originally in their Au­thors: Christ; the Apostles: the Church priuatemen: which haue their authority more or lesse, answerable to the worth of their Originals. Againe, they are considered materially, in regard of what they treat of, what they containe, whereof they are; of Orders, Rights, practices, opinions, in common vse and cu­stome amongst men.

Traditions instituted by our Sauiour, euen in points of beliefe & Faith, haue Diuine authority as his writ­ten word hath. Traditions deriued from the Apostles, haue equall authority with their Preachings and their writings. I approue that processe of the Controuersor, The authority of Gods Word, is not because it is writ­ten, but because it commeth from God. Traditions of the Church haue such authority as the Church hath: all binde and oblige, as they were intended; and as their extent is. For they must be considered not onely from the Author, but from the End: Some were intended to be Permanent; others onely to be transient: for a Time onely, or else for euer. Some vniuersall, some onely Partiall: for the Catholique, or else a priuate Church. Such variety and difference is in Traditions, which this Hudler confoundeth, to deceiue his No­uice with indistinctions.

Now the question is not whether there be Tradi­tions, or haue beene heretofore, we doe grant it in eue­ry kinde, that either there are, or haue beene Traditions of Christ, his Apostles, the Church, priuate men. The question is not of what authority they are: we grant their authority is from, and as the Authors: but the [Page 32] question is of their Credit and Extent. First, whether the pretended Traditions of Christ and his Apostles, were indeed so ordained or deriued, as they are preten­ded; or rather counterseits and suppositions. Proue them true, vndoubted, and we rise vp vnto them. Se­condly, to what ends they were instituted, whether to last and indure euer, or for a time: whether to supply the defects of Scripture, not else sufficient for the end. This we denye: for it is our Position, that the written Word of God, without vnwritten Traditions, is per­fect, and absolute, and sufficient for the end whereto it was intended; To make the man of God absolute in euery good worke.

Abuse not your selues, nor your Proselites here: slander not, nor belye vs: giue vs any Tradition of Christ, or his Apostles: giue vs good euidence for what you say: goe proue it conuincingly to haue come from them, by Scripture, Fathers, consent of An­tiquity; can you aske any more? and we receiue it with both our armes, as Gods holy Word and Institution. Quae vniuersa tenet Ecclesia, ab Apostolis praecepta benè traduntur; quanquam scripta non reperiantur: Though I finde it not vpon record in Scripture, yet I receiue it as proceeding from the Apostles, if the vniuersall Church imbrace it; said Saint Augustine, and I sub­scribe vnto it: bring vs any such Tradition so accep­ted, so receiued, so commended, and you shall see wee will reuerence it as much as you, or more: but if you giue me copper in stead of gold, pardon me if I beleeue you not, nor receiue it for pay. Ecclesiasticall constitu­tions are moe, more certaine; of the same authority [Page 33] with the Churches written Lawes: which binde ge­nerally, if made for generall obligation: or else parti­cularly, if they haue but locall and confined limitati­on, omni modo, bind they doe vnto obedience, so long, in such sort, so farre forth, as the authors did intend: till the same authority disa [...]ow them, which gaue vn­to them being at the first. In the 34. Article to this purpose wee reade of and concerning Ecclesiasticall Traditions.

It is not necessary that Traditions and ceremonies be 1. in all places one, or vtterly like, for that at all times they haue beene diuers, and may be changed according to diuersities of Countries, times, and mens manners. So that nothing be ordained against Gods word. Your Catholique cares be they round or long, cannot be offended with this position, I thinke.

Whosoeuer through his priuate iudgement, willing­ly 2. and purposely doth openly breake the Traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant vn­to the word of God, and be ordained, and approued by common authoritie, ought to be rebuked openly, that o­thers may feare to doe the like, as hee that offendeth a­gainst the common order of the Church, hurteth the authoritie of the magistrate, and woundeth the consci­ences of the weake. Loe Traditions not onely auowed, but maintained: the infringers censured. So that, but reade ouer your Position againe, That Apostolicall traditions, and auncient customes of the holy Church, are not to be receiued, nor doe oblige vs: compare that with this decision, and then giue your Catholike honesty the lye.

[Page 34] Euery particular or national Church, hath authority to ordaine, to change, and abolish ceremonies or Rites 3. of the Church ordained onely by mans authoritie, so that all things be done vnto edification. Nor is this against your Catholique Doctrine or practise, and yet this is all that our Church deliuereth touching traditions, in their publique authorised, receiued, con­stitutions. Priuate opinions, if there be any, tye vs no more then they doe you. Nay we deale more sincere­ly, and positiuely than you doe, distinguishing Traditi­ons for plainenesse sake, whereas your Fathers of Trent giue this onely in commaund, That Traditions be receiued as the Scripture: playing fast and loose in ambigiuous termes, not differencing humane, di­uine, Apostolicall, Apotacticall, Christian, Paganish, generall, particular; free, of necessity, temporary or permanent Traditions. Can you or any Papist defend this?

The Popish Doctrine thus deliuered, is not onely contrary to expresse words of your owne Bibles, but to pietie and religion, to sense and reason: that any idle, fantasticke, foolish, impious, prophane, humane inuention, for your words runne generally, and ex­tend to all, should be receiued as Holy Scripture: but the protestant doctrine declared, as before, is not contrary to expresse words of our Bibles.

2 Thessal. 2. 15. Therefore Brethren stand fast, and hold the traditions which yee haue receiued, whether by word or by our Epistle. Therefore, &c. Wee deny not obedience vnto this exhortation, but indeauour to stand fast in the word of truth: and hold fast all [Page 35] those Traditions which Saint Paul deliuered either by word or writing. All Protestants giue due respect to such diuine authority. Shew any that doth not, and you say somewhat. But, good Sir Gagger, Hee that refuseth those manifold botcheries, and brokerages of your Romish Church, and casteth them off as im­pious and ridiculous, doth not streight transgresse this Apostolicall direction: no more than he, that reie­cteth a counterfeit Passe, made by some jarkman vn­der an hedge for a Rogue, doth resist lawfull autho­rity. Proue your Tradition such as you pretend, then see what we will say vnto you.

2 Thessal. 3. 6. Now we command you, brethren, in the name of the Lord Iesus Christ, that you withdraw you selues from euery brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the Tradition he receiued of vs. Which we receiue and obey: But Tradition may runne for Example here: in effect, not according to our example. And so Saint Chrysostome vpon the place: or it may be something extant also in writing: or order pre­scribed them by the Apostle temporary and occasio­nall; or of morall dispensation. If you can name it, wee will not refuse, for our conclusion differerh not from yours, Traditions are to be receiued, and doe oblige vs: but you must let vs know them, and their credite first.

1 Cor. 11. 2. I praise you brethren, saith the Apo­stle, that you remember mee in all things, and keepe the Traditions as I haue deliuered them vnto you. So hee would vs, were hee now liuing: so would hee not you, that haue broken them: for that which hee deli­uered [Page 36] vnto them, that, hee receiued of the Lord, 1 Cor. 11. 23. and that which hee receiued was touch­ing the whole intire communion, the Cups, as well as the Bread, you haue broken this Tradition through your [...] and presumptions. But can you re­solue mee what Tradition hee meaneth heere? per­haps they were Temporall, and not intended for vs. If such, your owne rule is, They oblige not. It may be no vnwritten Traditions, but the written word, at least such things as be written now. Howsoeuer, the allegation is not to purpose; for it doth not proue what the Protestants deny: and that which it pro­ueth, they deny not; That Traditions are to be kept.

2 Timoth. 2. 2. Where there is no expresse menti­on Thas Tradi­tions are to be receiued, see more. of Traditions, but onely of things receiued from Saint Paul: by which Traditions, peraduenture, not written, are meant: and peraduenture things writ­ten; who can tell whether these or those? shew them, and we refuse them not.

Iohn 20. 30. and 21 25. are both to one purpose: Tradition is in neither text expressed: nor to be col­lected from either: for neither text is for Tradition: both one & other, intimate no more, but that all which Christ did or said, is not recorded in the Gospels. Doth any ideot belieue the contrary? This fellow might begge vs, if wee said or taught, that Christ did nor said any thing but that is written. Till then, him­selfe may be begged for a foole, that would put vpon vs this vnhandsome beliefe, All that Christ did or said is not written: therefore any thing must be receiued that is pretended to be Tradition Apostolicall or Di­uine.

[Page 37] 1 Cor. 11. 34. Paul saith, The rest I will set in or­der Shall then the saying of some vnlear­ned Baker, ouer beare great Saint Basil? when I come. Therefore you may goe learne to bake a batch of Bread; or goe drinke an health to the Vicar of S ^t. Fooles with your Host of Holborne. The inference is, Saint Paul had not ordered all, till hee came: when hee came, hee made good his promise, and set all things in order at Corinth: therefore any thing, though neuer so absurd, which Papists pretend, as Tradition, must be receiued as Gods word.

1 Timoth. 6. 2. Saint Paul saith nothing of Traditi­on; except these words will beare out Tradition, These things teach and exhort: which things are written, not vnwritten. For, These things, doe designe things there remembred.

Saint Iohn 2. Epist. 12. saith, He had many things to write vnto them, which hee would not commit to pa­per, but come himselfe, and teach them by word of mouth: which hee repeateth, Ep. 3. vers. 13. There­fore hee wrote not all things vnto them: And who saith hee did? therefore, what? our Gagger is a goose; no other sequell: and so hee must stand vntill hee shew, that some of his Romish Traditions, were part of that which Saint Iohn would not write vnto them, but teach them by word of mouth.

Act. 16. 4. and 15. 28. Wee reade of no Traditi­ons: wee doe of Decrees, ordayned in the Councell at Ierusalem; but the mischiefe is, they are written: and yet so, our Gagger, and his Comerades keepe them not. For tell mee, did you neuer eate a Goose, or her pudding, Capon, Hen, or Chickens, at your Bottle-Ale house in Partridge-Ally? if not there nor [Page 38] otherwhere, I haue nothing to say to you. But if so I returne it to your teethe, you belie vs in that which you doe your selues. The Traditions Apostolicall, and auncient customes of the holy Church oblige you not: For among these Decrees, or, as you will, Traditions, Act. 16. 4. this is one, Act. 15. 29. To abstaine from bloud and strangled. Exempt such dishes specified, from such dressing, & haue with you to Masse to M ^r. Mayes, as I am inuited by Sir A. P [...]. peraduenture your selfe.

2 Tim. 1. 13. We finde [...], the forme of wholesome words, in our Bibles: And if this be Tradi­tions vnwritten, iudge you good Catholiques: and set not so high a price vpon this arrant blunderer; then whom, a verier Goose neuer handled Goose­quill. And so goe see, if your leasure will serue, Fa­thers See Fathers that affirme the same. that affirme, somewhat, not what they should.

The first you must see if you please, is Irenaeus, Lib. 3. cap. 4. for he will not trouble your seeing with Cle­mens, Ignatius, Dionysius, Areopagita, Polycarpus, E­gesippus, Iustinus Martyr; all elder than Irenaeus, and vaunted of by his good masters: and no doubt, as much to poynt as Irenaeus, who yet is held to be reso­lute and irrefrageable in that place. Propter quod o­portet deuitare quidem illos, quae autem sunt Ecclesiae, cum summâ diligentia deligere, & apprehendere veri­tatis Traditionem: For which cause wee must shun and eschew them, but with all possible diligence make choyce of the things belonging to the Church, and lay hold vpon the Tradition of truth. Which Traditi­on is no other thing, but the rule of our faith, The ho­ly Scripture: nothing vnwritten, vncertaine, beside [Page 39] much lesse against Scripture. This is somewhat, in your opinion, but that which is the thing intended indeede, is this which followeth in Irenaeus: Et si quibus de aliquâ modicâ quaestione disceptatio esset, nonne oporteret in antiquissimas recurrere Ecclesias, in quibus Apostoli conuersati sunt, & ab ijs de praesenti quaestione sumere quod certum & re liquidum est? Thus hee questioneth: I answere affirmatiuely, yes. No doubt we ought for resolution in poynts of doubtfull controuersie, relye vpon that decision of the eldest Churches. Doe we refuse this triall good Sir Gagger? Where you will, in what poynt you will, I vndertake thus to iustifie the Church of England, name you the Controuersie, one or moe; and maintaine the con­trary if you can or dare. The question is not with Irenaeus, what must be Law, but how the Law is to be expounded and interpreted. Scripture the Law, and Tradition the Interpretation: that is, the perpe­tuall praxis of the Church, to expound the doubtfull texts of Scripture.

But Irenaeus proceedeth farther than so, it will be said: For, What if the Apostles had left vs no wri­ting at all? Nonne oportet ordinem sequi Traditionis, quam tradiderunt ijs, quibus committebant Ecclesias? Farther indeede, but to no purpose; this is vpon sup­position: If it had been so; which is not so, nor could be so. Secondly, it followeth not, that because if God had not giuen Israei a Law, it is probable hee would haue continued his former course with Abraham, I­saac, and the Patriarchs: therefore, when he had gi­uen them his Law, they were still to looke for imme­diate, [Page 40] or Angelicall Reuelations, as before. No more is it consequent to reason, pietie, or Irenaeus intent, that albeit, if no Scripture had beene written, onely Tradition must haue beene followed: therefore, Scrip­ture being written, wee should, as otherwise addresse our selues vnto Tradition. But thirdly, wee come home to poynt: Shew vs any thing tendred by those Ecclesiae antiquissimae, to be belieued, and obserued, and see if wee respect it not as well, and as much as you. Till you shew vs such Traditions, leaue your pra­ting idlely at randome, touching worth and weight, and vse, and authoritie of Traditions. Your Traditi­ons tendred in these dayes, are onely in name, as Si­mon Magus was, and Simon Peter, the same: no more of credite, than hee of pietie: both alike.

Origen is next to be seene in cap. 6. ad Roman. Hee calleth Baptisme of Infants, a Tradition; and let it be so. It is the vniuersall iudgement, and most anci­ent practise of the Catholique Church, deduced, at least from Scripture, if not proued in Scripture, as the controuersor himselfe confesseth. Be it a Traditi­on, it is more for our aduantage than otherwise: For we admit, receiue, defend, and practise it, which must needes giue the lye vnto your proposition, That, ac­cording to the Doctrine of the Protestants, Apostoli­call traditions, & ancient customes of the holy Church, are not to be receiued, nor doe oblige: For the World knoweth, your brazen face will blush to deny it, wee receiue it, practise it, are obliged by it.

S. Damascen may stand by, vnlesse you meane to make your friends with him: a childe in yeares, of [Page 41] yesterdayes birth, in respect of those old Heroes of the Primitiue times. Not that he saith any thing, Lib. 4. cap. 17. more than an other: or more effectuall and to purpose, but because he is not of that desert or esteeme to be ranked with the Fathers of the Primitiue times: being long post natus, and a Partian many wayes: for which cause I answere him not.

S. Chrysostome is peremptory and through for Tra­ditions: In 2. ad Thessal. 2. vers. 16. he saith, Hence it is plaine and apparant, that the Apostles deliuered not all in writing, but very many things without booke. Thus hee; but to what end? For no Protestant liuing in his right wits will deny this, That the Apostles spake much more then is written: And whatsoeuer they spake, as Apostles, in execution of their Ministe­ry, is of equall authority with that which they wrote: For inke and paper conferre no authoritie or validity, beyond the subiect and author of the writing. There­fore the Tradition of the Apostles, and of the Church, is, without all question of good credite and esteeme; and so much wee professe, Art. 34. I graunt it hath displeased some which is said, [...], It is Tradition which auoweth it, seeke no fur­ther. I see no reason why any should be so displea­sed therewith: For if it be a Tradition of the Catho­lique Church, (and such Traditions onely hee mea­neth) Chrysostome saith there no more than hee may. No more than Augustine and Tertullian haue said, It is Tradition, I goe no further. No more will [...] in any thing, for my part, I promise you, that is con­trouerted betwixt you and vs, at this day. Make that [Page 42] appeare, which you propose, to haue been a Tradition of the Catholique Church, and you and I shall soone agree; shake hands, and no more adoe.

Saint Basil you haue kept for the close, it seemeth, S. Basil. lib. de spirit. Sanct. ca. 27. saith, that some things we haue from Tradition of the Apostles, both which haue force a­like, vnto god­linesse. and for the vpshot of all; and he indeed is, in the place remembred, very much for all Traditions vnwritten; deriued to the Church from the Apostles. I know some Protestants, especially of preciser cut, doe discre­dit the Author, as a Counterfeit; onely vpon Erasmus bare word, who sauoured some discongruity, which I could neuer finde, of stile: I am not of that, or their minde. Others being at a stand, because of their owne priuate fancies, oppose Saint Basil, vnto Saint Basil. For my part, I beleeue no such allegation, nor will I oppose him vnto himselfe. Thirdly, some goe to it with downe-right reprehension, that he gaue too much vn­to Traditions, and therein erred; which censure and taxation is too surly. I like not that the ancient Fa­thers should so be philipped off, and sent away like schoole-boyes with snips; that most learned, religious, and most iudicious Writer, saith no more then is iusti­fiable touching Traditions. For thus he: The Doctrine of the Church, is two wayes deliuered vnto vs: First, by writing; then by Tradition from hand to hand: both Some things wee haue from Scrip­ture: other things from the Apostles Traditions: both which haue like force vnto godlinesse. are of like value vnto piety. And this is true, if certain­ly both come from the same Author, to the same in­tent and purpose: for writing and speaking doe not vnder, or ouer-value a thing. In Edicts, and Precepts, and Proclamations from a Prince, some haue his minde, his words, his hand-writing; other his minde, and words; all his hand: others his minde onely, and no [Page 43] more, being conceiued, and penned by a Secretary of State, according to directions: yet are all the Acts of his Maiesty, not of a Seruant, or a Subiect.

To this Basil addeth, which some mistake, and there­fore mislike [...], &c. If wee venture or presume to taxe and reproue vnwritten Customes, as not much to be respected, wee may vnwittingly and vn­willingly preiudice, and that in points of moment and consequence, the very Gospell of Christ, and bring Prea­ching to be but a bare name: which censure, I see no such cause to censure. For Saint Basil saith not, Take away Tradition, and the Gospell is nothing: as if the credit, and weight, and authority of the Gospell, were meerely from Tradition: but, that the Gospell will re­ceiue preiudice thereby. Meaning, that through Tradi­tion, that is, the vniuersall consent of the Catholike Church, wee are assured, that the Gospels of Saint Marke, and Saint Luke, are diuine, and true; and that the Gospels of Saint Thomas, Saint Bartholmew, and others, are forged: though these were Apostles, those but Disciples. But [...], to what purpose is this, for Popish Traditions? Is there any of them so commended vnto vs, as the Gospell of Saint Luke, or Saint Marke, is by Tradition? Saint Basil saith, [...], &c. that is, not some things, as you perfidiously relate it; but, of the Doctrine, and Discipline, heretofore, and yet obserued in the Church; part we haue from written in­struction, and part from the Tradition of the Apostles we haue receiued: which hath beene transmitted vnto vs couertly. Both which haue the same force, vnto piety. [Page 44] We admit this saying, and professe as much; let it be [...], a perpetuall practice of the Ca­tholique Church of Christ, and see what wee will say vnto it. Saint Basils first instance in the point is, [...], to signe vs with the signe of the Crosse: you know wee commend it, we practice it, we command it, we propugne it. Eue­ry Baker could haue told you so much, that euer had Shall then the saying of some vnlear­ned Baker, ouer-beare great Saint Basil? Childe Christened in our Church: Aske your ac­quaintance; I make no doubt but you are interessed in some Bakers basket for a toste, or a new loafe: Bakers and Bottle-ale are so much in your mouth. But leaue we you to your Bottle-ale, and Baker: great Saint Ba­sil, that patronizeth you suppose, so much your Tradi­tions, in his Morals, Reg. 12. cap. 2. giueth you this Item; remember it well, [...]. Wee ought not to follow the Procepts of men, so farre, as to set by the Commandement of God. Hold you here, and haue along with you; in your Traditions as you will: faile here, Basil and we leaue to gang alone.

IIII.

FAst and loose, Sir Iugler: For why expresse you not plainly, what Church you meane, when you say, that the Church cannot erre? or in what things, and how far the Church cannot erre? Particular, and Topicall Churches haue [Page 41] erred, (such may then, and can, euen in Fundamentals) and so ceased to be any more Churches; as those of Galathia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossae, Thessalonica. Those vnto whom Saint Iohn sent his Reuelation; glorious and goodly in their time: but now, Cages for vncleane Birds. But as touching the Catholique Church, take it thus from me: The Catholique title includeth two things; vniuersality of Time and Place both, or vniuer­sality of Place onely. In the former acception take the Church, and that Caetus euocatus, which hath beene heretofore, and which is now, make it vp. The Apostles, their Disciples, all their Successors, are included: And so the Catholique Church, hath not, did not, cannot erre; either in Factor Faith: Fundamentall, or lesse Fun­damentall. In the second acception, according vnto vniuersality of Place: The Catholike Church of Christ is twofold, Diffusiue, or Representatiue; in euery part and member, in euery place: In some speciall parts, in one place, a generall Councell for the whole, or all par­ticulars that make vp the whole. The Catholique Church at this day cannot erre, in all her parts, nor in faciendis, matter of fact: nor credendis, points of beliefe, dangerously. The Church Representatiue, true, and lawfull, neuer yet erred in Fundamentals; and therefore I see no cause but to vouch, shee cannot erre in Funda­mentals. Firmitas enim Fundamenti, cui totius Eccle­siae superstruitur altitudo, nullâ incumbentis sibi tem­pli mole lassessit: Soliditas enim illius fidei, quae in Prin­cipe Apostolorum est laudata perpetua est. Et sicut per­manet quod in Christo Petrus credidit, ita permanet, quod in Petro Christus instituit: as well saith Leo, Ser. 2. [Page 42] de Assump. sua. If this be your opinion, looke you: Let vs see, if our Bibles be expresse against this.

Esay 40. 21. My spirit that is vpon thee, and my words which I haue put into thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seede, nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seede, saith the Lord, from henceforth, and for euer. In which words, if we did de­fend the Thesis, as it is proposed, that the Church could erre; we might answer, this Text doth not perplex vs. For where doe we finde, Church, or not erre, in the Pro­phet? it is but by illation at the most: The man brag­ged of expresse words; and can performe no more but And conse­quently can­not erre. consequence: And that not necessary. For may not it be said; This is but a Precept, not a Promise; as where it was said vnto Iosua, and in him, vnto the Princes and Rulers of the People: The volume of the Law shall not depart from them; they shall meditate therein day and night. This was an iniunction what they ought to doe, not a promise what they should performe; or at least but Temporary and Conditionall: for they departed from the Law, and the Law from them. I [...] so, what assu­rance of not erring? Thirdly, Gods promises haue a Condition, annexed or implyed euer, to be performed by man; which if he performe, God is bound: if hee breake, God is free. My words shall not depart, is Gods promise: Mans promise reciprocall is, I will not depart from them. If I depart, that is, if man faile; They may and shall depart, God is then free: Now this supposed, what assurance is there for, my words shall not depart, &c? So your first Text is mistaken peraduenture in the meaning, but without peraduenture in the allegation: [Page 43] It is Esay 5 [...]. 21. not as you tender it from your adui­sers, 49. 21. And lastly, it is to be vnderstood of the Church of the Iewes in particular conuerted vnto Christ, as it seemeth by Saint Paul, Rom. 11. 26. and not of the Church of the Christians already conuerted; and so you misapply, as well as mistake. But more ridicu­lously in your second Text, Iohn 14. 16. For haue you read or heard, that euer any Protestant maintained, That the holy Ghost can erre? I suppose not. I beleeue you are not so much past shame, to say so, and yet your conclu­sion is so: The spirit of truth cannot erre. For, hauing recited the Text of the Gospell, your illation is; There­fore the spirit of truth hath aboade for euer, and shall a­bide for euer with the Church: and consequently, cannot erre. What Sir, cannot erre? To my vnderstanding, The Spirit of Truth cannot erre; can you vnderstand it o­therwise? But let your barbarismes goe by: to the point I answer first, you faile, and that confessedly, in your vn­dertakings. It is but consequently, the Church cannot erre; therefore confessed, not expresly. Secondly, I an­swer out of the Text it selfe. This promise is for com­fort, not instruction; The Comforter shall abide for euer: for Christ there spake of affliction, which should en­sue. Thirdly, were it punctually for direction, we might reioyne: It was a temporary promise, a personall priui­ledge to the Apostles; you thought wee would say so, belike supposing wee had no other shift; silly men like your selfe: therefore you come in with, by way of pre­uention, But the Apostles themselues could not abide for euer: poore foole, that knowest not, there is duplex aeternum, frequent in Scripture; Gods euer, and mans [Page 44] euer. That, for euerlasting, as God is. This for the terme of his being: so for euer is thus; no more, then while you are: all the dayes of your life. But we seeke no aduan­tage; we will not take it: we grant Gods Spirit eternally assistant to the Catholique Church, then represented in the Apostles: and therefore we admit that you belye vs in your Proposition; The Church, can erre; to be vnder­stood of the Catholique Church, as is expressed.

The third Text in order, Esay 35. 8. is so farre from expressing the not erring of the Church, that it is a question, though such a Nouice as you, know it not, whether it be to be taken of the Church at all. Hierome in his Comments expoundeth it of Christ, who saith of himselfe, Iohn 14. I am the way, the truth, the life: An high way shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called the way of holinesse; the vncleane shall not passe ouer it, but it shall be for those. The way faring men, though fooles shall not erre therein. Who told you that this way was the Church? why not the Scripture? which is also a way: and called a way, as to my remem­brance, the Church is not. Ibi erit semita, & via mun­dissima, quae sancta vocabitur, &c. There shall be a path, saith Hierome, and a most cleane way, which shall be cal­led Holy; and which saith of himselfe; I am the way: by which way, the polluted cannot passe: where also we reade it spoken in the Psalme; Blessed are the vndefiled in the way: And this way, that is, our God, shall be vnto vs, so direct, so plaine, so open, and champion, that no wandring shall be there. Fooles, and silly men may walke therein, vnto whom in the Prouerbs wisdome speaketh thus: If there be any little ones, let them come vnto me, and shee [Page 45] hath spoken vnto the Fooles, Come you, and eate of my bread. Thus Hierome vpon the place. Tertullian in 4. against Marcion, is indifferent, for Christ the head of the Church: or Faith in Christ the life of the Church. Your Worship, Sir Gagger, out of your au­thoritie, cast it meerely vpon the Church. Satis pro Imperio, if you can out-beare it. Howsoeuer, it is not expresse, as it should be. Not to purpose, if it were ex­presse: our question is not, whether fooles can erre, but whether the Church can erre. The Church hath of­ten beene compared to a Ship: and now at last by you made a Ship of Fooles. Content, so you be Pilot in that Ship, Sir Foole.

Once at length you rightly bid vs goe see more. See more Iohn 16. 13. For the Text of Iohn 16. 13. is more expresse than all the former, He shall leade you into all truth. But what if this text concerne not truth vpon Earth but Truth in Heauen? What becommeth then of your Not er­ring? Augustine, and Bede, encline that way. What if it be personall, vnto the Apostles alone, not to the Church, or their successours? Hee will shew you the things to come: and I haue many things to say vnto you, but you cannot beare them now: these & such like passages, doe more than seeme to conclude it vnto them. What if he meant but All things that were ne­cessary and conuenient for them to know? so Theo­phylact, Euthymius, and others▪ In this sort the Church is eternally directed: so the Church directed cannot erre.

Matth. 18. 17. It is commaunded by authoritie: Tell the Church: and heare the Church. No good [Page 46] proofe, the Church cannot erre. For the Scribes and Pharises were to be heard, and obeyed: yet had no assurance of infallibility. Kings and Princes are to be obeyed: yet haue they fallen into great enormities, Ephes. 5. 27. the Church is said to be glorious without spot or wrinckle, or blame: which is to be vnderstood, de to [...]o integrato, of the parts in Heauen and earth: Of the time to come, rather than present. Without blame, yet not without wrinckle, euen here: for error may be where blame is none, Esay 9. 7. the Kingdome of Christ is to be established with iudgement and with iustice for euer: and yet, I know no such priuiledge annexed to iudgement or iustice, of infallibility. No more then Ezech. 37. 26. to a Couenant of peace; an Euerlasting couenant: to multiplying of them: or placing Gods Sanctuary amongst them for euer.

Luk. 22. 32. and Matth. 23. 3. What correspon­dency haue they one with another; not to speake of reference vnto the poynt? In the former, Peters faith was prayed for that it might not faile: and yet Peter denied Christ Iesus. If Peter were not the Church: what maketh this Text amongst the rabb [...]e? If Peter were, the Church may erre; as Peter fayled: though not eternally, one or other. In the latter, the Phari­ses must be heard: And therefore will you say, they er­red not? If they erred, as doubtlesse they did, then, to what purpose are they pretended for not erring of the Church? Much good may the Pharises doe your Church, 1 Pet. 2. 9. The Church is styled, a chosen ge­neration, a royall Priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people: glorious titles: but nothing to this, They [Page 47] cannot erre. Iohn 17. 17. Gods word is truth. I graunt. But is Gods Word euer in the mouth of man? The Apostles were sanctified, and that in Gods truth, ac­cording vnto Christs Prayer. Yet after this Prayer, Peter went not right when Saint Paul reproued him: he fell, and that foulely in denying Christ. That which is sanctified is accepted, not euer so sanctified as with­out spot. As for 1 Cor. 11. 25. if the Institution, or ra­ther Commemoration of the institution of the holy Communion, be a proofe sufficient that the Church cannot erre, wee yeeld the cause: if nothing to pur­pose; what meant this idle pate to range it heere? What the man would say in Psalm. 101. 23. 20. or whether hee would send vs, after mistaking there, I cannot tell: and till then, I cannot answere. For not so much as neere thereabout, is ought to purpose of not erring.

Ephes. 2. 20. Wee reade that they were built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. And what then? Could they not erre? Dare you say so? They could: for they haue; and are shaken off from that foundation: but so long as they stood on, fast, they erred not; holding one Faith, one Lord, one Bap­tisme, Eph. 4. 5. which if you and we doe, at this day, by your owne argument, (auoid it if you can) we erre not. As for one heart, and one soule, of the belieuers, Act. 4. 32. it is in reference of loue one to another: not in vnity of Doctrine all with one another. And yet there were differences in that vnion: for exam­ple sake, inter Paul, and Barnabas; and might be disproportion in their Doctrine: as dissimilitude in [Page 48] the habitude and condition of those sheepe in one sheepe-fold, vnder one Shepheard: and yet all heare the Shepheards voyce, Iohn 10. 16. and hee that will not heare some of those Sheepe, Luc. 10. 16. be taxed for not regarding the Shepheard: when as yet for all that, some of those Sheepe be gone astray.

To conclude. The Church cannot erre, neither col­lectiue, nor representatiue. Thus your Masters distin­guish the termes of this question, that goe workman­like, and not like you, clutteringly to worke. So they: so wee. In the largest extent, not erre at all. Second­ly, not erre in poynts of Faith. For in matters of fact, they confesse errour. Faith is fundamentall or accesso­ry. There none is: here error may accrew. Fathers to be seene, you afford vs none. Not because there are none: but because your reading could supply none. Who take vp all vpon retaile and credit, hauing so small store at home. The Church cannot erre, is most true: and the Church may erre, is as true: each part considered as it ought.

V.

IT may be some priuate opinions haue runne vpon inuifibility of the Church, which are no doctrinall decisions: nor to be imputed vnto the resolued Doctrine of the Prote­stants, that are of another minde. Nunquam est quod [Page 49] nusquam videtur. That which cannot be seene, if it be seeable, is no where at all, nor in being. For as Saint Augustine well said, Quo modo confidimus, ex diuinis liter is accepisse nos Christum manifestum, si non accepi­mus & Ecclesiam manifestam? How is it possible wee should hope to haue Christ manifest in Scripture, except wee haue likewise the Church manifest? Therefore on all hands it is resolued, the Church hath euer beene visible, since there was a Church. In England especi­ally how can this fellow impute inuisibility to vs, who claime and proue a succession, and therefore needes a visibilitie from the time of the Apostles? If any doe thinke otherwise, or cannot doe this, we vndertake no patronage at all of them.

The Church is a City, seated on a Hill, which is naturally visible: though in a fogge, or mist, not dis­cerned. There euer was and will be a Church vnto whom complaints may be made; though the Church doth not euer heare complaints. Those that haue fell vpon an inuisibility, may perhaps be tollerated, if well interpreted and vnderstood. For euen the visible Church in her more noble parts, may be said to be in­uisible: First, the Saints triumphant, and now regnant with Christ, are parts of the Church in largest extent. Who being in Heauen, are vnknowne; their persons, proprieties, and indowments. The Saints militant, her more excellent parts on Earth, according to her more royall indowments, the Elect according vnto purpose of Grace, are knowne onely vnto God alone, the sear­cher of secrets, and decipherer of thoughts. Such as be secret, & occultò intus: are there not visible vnto man.

[Page 50] In this sence, in regard of these parts, the Church is, and is esteemed inuisible: and so held euen of the Papists themselues. Otherwise then so, wee doe not speake of inuisibility: So that the man must fall foule with his owne part; or be at warre with his owne wits. Moderate men on both sides confesse, this con­trouersie may cease. Et quamuis praesens haec Ecclesia Romana, non parum in morum & disciplinae integri­tate, adde etiam in doctrinae sinceritate, ab antiquâ il­lâ, vnde orta & deriuata est, discesserit, tamen eodem fundamento doctrinae, & sacramentorum à Deo insti­tutorum firma semper constitit: & communionem cum antiquâ illâ & indubitatâ Christi Ecclesiâ agnoscit, & colit. Quare alia, & diuersa ab illâ esse non potest, tam­etsi multis in rebus dissimulis sit. Manet enim Chri­sti Ecclesia & sponsa, quamuis multis erroribus, & vi­tijs sponsum suum irritauerit, quamdiu à Christo suo sponso non repudietur, tametsi multis f [...]agellis ab ipso castigetur. As for our Gagger, hee is interessed hap­pely otherwise. In standeth him in hand to vphold and foment a faction: lest for insufficiency otherwise, hee turne Host, and sell Bottle-Ale. That mustie ob­iection, as hee calleth it, of Elias, may doe him some pleasure at that time. I adde no more touching this proposition, because it is but lost labour.

VI.

NO doubt Contrary to our owne Bibles: in such sort, that if the Protestants be not gag­ged now, their mouthes are wider than Gargantuaes: and their lips somewhat like to Germans, that were nine mile asunder. Certes neuer so foyled by texts of Scripture, since Luther went out, to this day. Therefore expedite tabulas Chrysippei sophi: For heere you haue a singular piece of worke indeede.

The Church of England, directed, not onely by the light of Israel, the Word of God, but also per­swaded by common sense and reason, hath, and hath had her Seruice, the publique prayers and Liturgie of the Church, in a knowne tongue, vnderstood of all that are present there ordinarily. This is contrary to their owne Bibles: nay to the expresse words thereof, nedum consequents and deductions, saith this phan­tastique pamphleter, if wee will belieue him.

For why: marke expresse words, Luke 1. [...]. 9. 10. Thus wee reade in our English Bibles. It came to passe, that while hee (Zachary) executed the Priests office before God, in the order of his course, according to the custome of the Priests office, his lot was to burne Incense in the Temple of the Lord: and the [Page 52] whole multitude of people, were praying without, at the time of Incense: This is a Text of the Protestants Bible: true: and expressely contrary to their owne doctrine. In what? Doe the Protestants teach that Zachary did no such thing? or that there was no such custome of executing the Priests office? or that the multitude were not then without? or not at Prayer at the time of Incense? If they teach or preach, or be­lieue, or thinke all these, or any one of these, then they are contrary to their owne Bibles. Thus they doe not: thus they are not charged to doe. What then? why they are charged to teach, that Diuine Seruice ought to be in a tongue vnderstood of the assistants at the Seruice: and this Text is contrary to that their opini­on: For by this Text, it is expresse that publique Seruice ought to be in an vnknowne tongue peraduen­ture, because there is no mention of any tongue at all: of nothing there spoken or saide by the Priest at all: of the vse of his tongue taken away from him: or be­cause Zachary offered Incense in his course, and incense was prayers in an vnknowne tongue: or because the people were praying without when hee was offering Incense within: which they neuer did but in an vn­knowne tongue.

Laugh Protestants, and lye downe, if you be not gagged. Qui risistis & nunc ridete, & qui nunquam ri­sistis nunc ridete: This fellow meaneth to make you merry; was neuer heard such a giddy goose gagler. In other Texts of Scripture, for other points, there is some face, or resemblance of a proofe. Here, nec vola nec ve­stigium: And if there were any, it would put for He­brew, [Page 53] or Syriacke, their mother tongue. For, the People were praying: not the Priest, and the People; at least, most of them spake but their mothers Language: vn­lesse the fellow can proue, that the Iewes had their ser­uice in a strange tongue. So that our deuout Catholikes by this Doctrine, must either pray in English their Mo­thers Tongue, or in Hebrew, wherein the People pray­ed then, and there: The Latine is irregular, because then not vsed by the People, or Zachary. For Zachary vsed no Language at all: They prayed for ought we know, in the Tongue they spake, as we doe in English in our Seruice. This they could pray in, and did without doubt: nor is it gaine-said; Hee could not pray in any Tongue anon, his speech being taken from him.

How shall we come at last to see how contrary this is to our Bibles? why, out with your Table-bookes, and Note; he biddeth you: If you doe aske what you shall Note. First, Note that this was the custome. This What? Of good fellowship tell vs, that we may note it. Was it the custome for the People to pray? we doubt not of it: but to pray in what Tongue? in Hebrew? out vpon it; take heede of that: this Custome will cut the throat of Latin Seruice. For it was in a knowen Tongue: But to execute the Priests Office, was, The Custome. What is that to Seruice in an vnknowen Tongue? It is now a part of the Priests Office to say Seruice; it was not then, but to offer Incense, or Sacrifice. They had a cu­stome. Speake man; what to doe? what was their Cu­stome? We haue many, so haue you. Because the Iewes had a Custome, to doe, I cannot tell what: must you needes haue a Custome to haue Latin Seruice? and to [Page 54] impose that Custome vpon vs? Must their Custome to doe, God knoweth what, put a Custome on vs to haue our Seruice in Latin? What Baker would not bake that Codshead in his Ouen? or what Hostesse not beate the pot about his eares, that in discoursing with her of sco­ring, should reason, He would not pay his score, be­cause the Iewes Had a Custome?

I, but note secondly, and that salueth all: The People were without, and the Priest within; what of that? why, How then did they vnderstand him? Saying what? Praying what? He spake nothing; he was not to speake, to vse his hands; not his lippes: had he spoken, must it needes be they vnderstood him not, because there was a wall betweene? or because a wall betweene, and they could not heare him speake; did he therefore speake the Ethiopian Tongue? I will put a Case. Suppose A. Pe. or this fellow, were at Supper in Partridge Alley, at a Bottle-Alewifes, or a Bakers House, with a brace of woodcockes beside himselfe; his Hostesse is in the Sol­lar, or in some outward remoued roome: he calleth vn­to her, for what you will: Sawce for the fooles, say it be; He may call his heart out, till his tongue ake, and not the neere: for why, his Hostesse vnderstandeth him not. Marke his owne reason: He is within, shee is without; how then can shee vnderstand him? No more then if a Gypsie should cant vnto her in Pedlers French; because there is a wall or two, or some other partition that diui­deth her and him asunder: must it not be so? For Note. Mutatis mutandis, Change but the termes, and the rea­son is all one. The People were without, the Priest with­in, how then did they vnderstand him? The man were [Page 55] best to take heede of such reasons as this, least a worse thing betide him; then not being vnderstood: lest the Woman suppose hee call her Whore: For why not in an vnknowne tongue? and so crack his cockscombe for his labour. It were worth the noting to haue him so serued. The Animall had but his iust reward for such a frothie reason as this; fitter for an Ale-wife than a Priest.

Praemonitus praemunitus; fore-warned, halfe-armed: Peraduenture by aduertisement he wil preuent it: and so we leaue him noted for that which he is: The mea­ning of that place, nothing to purpose, either expresly, or by any consequence, is this. In the Temple at Ieru­salem, where this accident was, that is thus remembred by Saint Luke; The Priests, both of the City and of the Country, serued by courses in their seuerall moneths; not singular: for they were many thousands, and had manifold employments in that seruice; but as they were descended from the XXIIII Founders of so many seuerall Courses, all of one Linage and Family in a Course. These seuerall XXIIII Courses were first of all instituted, as appeareth in the Scripture, by King Dauid; and so continued till the Captiuity of Babylon: and after the Captiuity, being restored, to the desolati­on of the Iewish State. Zachary was of the course of Abia; in ranke the VIII. The Priests seruice in the Temple was diuers, and different euery day; who should performe what seruice in his course, was deter­mined and assigned by Lot. It fell to Zachary to burne Incense; as to others to offer Sacrifice: Now the Tem­ple of Ierusalem had diuers diuisions; as wee haue in [Page 56] our Churches; Isles, Chauncels, Reuestries: These were seuered by Vayles, Trauerses, or Walles. The first was the Sanctuary, or most holy Place: No People or Priest went in thither at all, but onely one, once a yeere; and no oftner then once that one day, the high Priest, and no other man. The second was called the holy Place; the Altar of Incense stood there, whereat the Priests offered Incense vnto God in their Courses, as Zachary here did, and nothing else; neither reading the Law, nor expounding of it, nor teaching the People, nor praying with them, nor saying any deuotions for them: it was no Custome, or part of Seruice there.

A third diuision was, atrium sacerdotum, the body of the Church, into which none came, but onely Priests; and they to offer Sacrifice onely: The People came not so high, but into a fourth Court, atrium populi, or mun­dorum, in which they were praying at that present. So betwixt the place in which Zachary offered Incense, which was seuered by a vayle, and that place in which the People prayed, there was some distance: what mar­uell if the People could not heare him? But as is tou­ched, they needed not: for he was not to read, expound, or say any part of Seruice within, but onely to burne Incense, and no more. There were that taught them beside, they did it in the place for the purpose; in the Peoples Court, and in that tongue which the People vnderstood. So our Sauiour taught in the Synagogues, and in the Temple, being vnderstood; and Moses was read in the same forme and Language, that euery one vnderstood. If it had beene added, that the People were praying in Latin, Greeke, or in some other exoticke [Page 57] Language, this Tale-teller had noted somewhat to pur­pose. This which he saith, and noteth; i [...] as much to purpose, as mother Bumly hitting a Hen in the fore­head.

Leuit. 16. 17. And there shall be no man in the Ta­bernacle Therefore it is not forbid­den in holy Scripture, the publike ser­uice of the Church to bee in a tongue not vnderstood by the Assistants. of the Congregation, when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, vntill hee conuent, and haue made an atonement for himselfe, for his Houshold, and for all the Congregation of Israel. Therefore: Con­clude. Aron must goe in alone: For of Aron and his Successors is this spoken. When he goeth, he must goe alone: Now what is this to purpose? Therefore it is not forbidden in holy Scripture, that the publike ser­uice of the Church should be in an vnknowne tongue? A poke full a plummes: no foote nor foote-steps of such an inference; at least let vs haue it with this exception, vnlesse at one time onely of the yeere: for onely once, what, the high Priest hither.

But to purpose. This Text is to no purpose. For there must be Assistants where the Seruice is in an vnknowen tongue: and here Assistants are shut out of doores. It is precise; There shall be no man in the Tabernacle, when he goeth in. If no man there; no seer, no hearer present: then what neede we talke of tongues either vnderstood, or not vnderstood? Secondly, the Textis to no purpose: For it speaketh but of a peece of Iewish seruice, and of such a peece, as was performed by hands onely, with­out lippes or tongue: and then it was priuate betwixt God and the Priest. Priests nor People were Agents or Assistants at it. Let your morrow Massmungers when they masse it alone, vse Iaponian, or Mexico Language, [Page 58] if they list: and when they make priuate intercession vnto God, speake in any of the Dialects that were at Babel, but in the publique Seruice of the Church, Pie­ty and Practice, reason and Religion require a tongue that is vnderstood of the Assistants, that they may say Amen, to what is spoken.

It is a tricke of vanity, an idle flourish; What shall I neede to produce authorities of Fathers, when the pra­ctice of the Christian World for many hundred yeeres to­gether is contrary vnto Protestants. A very strange pra­ctice, of which there is no Constat: let but one Father say so, and I yeeld the bucklers. Inopem te copia fecit: Such plenty you haue as hath made you poore. If you name me one Father that thought so, or wrote so, I will goe with you to Masse to morrow, and acknowledge Pope Vrban for absolute Monarch directly ouer all the Earth: I can but laugh at your insolent and impu­dent folly, that blush not to write; What neede I pro­duce authority of Fathers? I say againe, doe name me but one that squinteth that way, nedum that saith it po­sitiuely; That the seruice of the Church hath beene, or may be in a tongue vnknowne; and haue with you to Masse next morrow.

VII.

First or chiefe: how ignorantly spoken? as if two words of one signification: First and Chiefe are not euer of equall extent. Ruben was the first; but Iuda, chiefe. First and Chiefe, in some things, are not euer so in all. Peter was first; but Iohn, chiefe, in respect of Christs speci­all and peculiar affection to him aboue the rest of the Apostles. It is graunted, Peter was first called to be Now the names of the twelue Apo­stles are these: the first Simon, which is cal­led Peter. Therefore, &c. an Apostle, though not first to be a Disciple. In rancke and reckoning wee graunt him first: As in your first Text of Matth. 10. 2. No Protestant li­uing will deny this, nor fall so foule with their owne Bible: perswade not your selfe they will doe so.

But this precedency will neither serue your turne, nor content you. Another chiefedome must be cast vpon, which you collect by sequell; for you haue it not expresse, out of Luke 22. 32. and 26. and yet at last you fleete backe to his first-ship in place, Peter is euer named first. Thus you are not resolued what to haue, and how can your Proselites tell in what to trust you, but that you leade them hoodwinked, by the nose?

Luke 22. 26. The words, is greatest, is chiefe, doe euidently shew, that among the twelue, one was indeede [Page 60] ter than another, and so accounted by Christ himselfe. Proue that, by Christ himselfe. Those words insisted on, doe not proue it: for they may be an Irony, or a Concession: Admit there be greater or lesser amongst you; yet hee that is greatest, let him be thus or thus: He that thinketh so highly of himselfe, yet let him doe thus. But let it be euident, and graunted, that one was greater than another amongst them, this greatnesse yet is farre short of that transcendent greatnesse giuen to Saint Peter. Let Saint Peter be the man, inuested with that greatnesse, yet, quous (que)? What bounds and limitation had it; since the greatest greatnesse vnder Sunne, is not without some circumscription? It is not questioned whether Saint Peter were great: whether the greatest among those great ones: Wee graunt it: but the controuersie is about the extent and nature of his greatnesse. Hic Rhodus, hic saltus. This is that you should haue expressed out of our Bibles, or the Fathers: In setting out his greatnesse otherwise, you doe but trifle.

Haue it hee must first, and then practise it. Happe­ly the execution will bound it out. Let vs see how farre Luke 22. 32. And when thou art conuerted streng­then thy Brethren. You reade, you say, confirme: In good time; reade so still. Strengthen and confirme, no great ods in either, if it be shewed what his greatnesse was: and yet strengthen is more than to confirme: the Originall is [...], to stay and hold vp from fal­ling: to the purpose, and present case of Peter, who And what other thing is it for Peter to confirme and streng­then his bre­thren than to practice and exercise his greatnesse ouer them? was to fall, and foulely, in denying Christ. Streng­then, or confirme, must needes imply execution of [Page 61] greatnesse: for, to confirme and strengthen, what is it, but to practise and execute his greatnesse ouer them? A poore practise; and sorry greatnesse: not of soue­raigntie to which you driue, but of superintendency at most, in his Pastorall charge: to plant, and to wa­ter, to doe no more. It is true, He that doth strengthen and confirme, is greater than hee that is confirmed: but in that act onely of confirming, not in vniuersall iuris­diction For he that doth streng­then and con­firme is grea­ter: and they who are strengthened, &c. are made thereby inferiors to him who doth strengthen and confirme them. I hope. Your ghostly Father, if you were a Potentate, and at poynt to dye, as his duetie is and of­fice, confirmeth you in your Faith: Because hee con­firmeth you, and in that hee confirmeth you, hee is your better; will you take him for your Lord and So­ueraigne therefore? Paul strengthened Peter, when he went not aright to the Gospel. What was then be­come of Peters headship, can your sheepes-head tell? To confirme in faith, requireth nor implyeth no supre­macy in power. No other confirmation is intended there: Goe cast your Cap then at Peters Primacy from, confirming his Brethren.

See more proofe of your folly, Mark. 3. 16. Where See more for proofe here­of, &c. Saint Peter, in the list of the Apostles, is onely named first: which doth not necessarily inferre hee was the chiefe: but wee graunt him a chiefe, a prime, a first place. Wee acknowledge him the greatest amongst the Apostles, in many respects. And what of this? No more but this: First, you belye vs in your positi­on: Secondly, you cannot claime your Popes Mo­narchie from any greatnesse that Saint Peter had, Act. 1. 1 [...]. not the 13. Hee speaketh first; proposeth a case: Will Pope Vrban be contented to doe no more? will [Page 62] he callenge no other royalty? take it: vse it? let him goe as farre as euer Saint Peter went, as a Bishop, and not as an Apostle, and wee will goe along with him. Therefore, in conclusion, your texts of Scripture are not to any purpose at all to proue Peters Primacy, but you a poppet.

Much lesse your Fathers, see them who list, for I See Fathers that affirme the same. Theoph. in 22. Luk calleth Peter, Prince of the Dis­ciples. Eusebius in Chron: First Bishop of Christians. haue seene them more times than I haue fingers and toes, and could neuer see any such regality in them. Theophilact calleth him, Prince of the Disciples; and so doe I: as Aristotle, Prince of the Phylosophers: and Virgil, Prince of Poets: who had no commaund for al that either ouer Poets or Phylosophers. Eusebius in his Chronicle, calleth Saint Peter, the first Bishop of Christians: Admit hee doe: What then: First, is in respect of time, of place, order, and authoritie. Eu­sebius expresseth not how he meaneth first: nay, doth hee call him first at all, in any sense? In my Eusebius, I finde no such matter. What is in yours, I cannot tell. I reade but this: Petrus Apostolus cum primus Antiochenam Ecclesiam fundasset, Romam mittitur vbi Euangelium praedicans, xxv. annis eiusdem vrbis Episcopus perseuerat: Where Romam mittitur, is not much for his greatnesse, or that principality you giue vnto him: and preaching the Gospell is lesse than that.

Cyril of Hierusalem calleth him, Prince, and most S. Cyril of Hier. Cat. 2. Prince, and most excellent of all the A­postles. excellent of the Apostles. I adde, the Greeke Text is more for your aduantage: [...]. He that standeth before, and is head ouer the Apostles. And againe, in his xi. Catech: which [Page 63] belike you neuer read, no more, I guesse, did you the o­ther, but tooke it vp on credit by reta [...] [...]. Peter Prince, as you call him, of the Apostles, a prin­cipall Preacher of the Church. Titles of honour: Quis negat? of great honour. I adde such as neuer was any like vnto it: but honour and aduancement, as it is confined, so is it designed, how farre, whereto, in what sense. He stood first, in ranke: hee was chiefe among: so was Ioab ouer 30. but not King vpon them: or Lord ouer them: There is an headship which will not reach that illimited power giuen to the Pope, Our Lord, Vice-God vpon earth.

Saint Chrysostome, hom. 55. in Math. neither calleth S. Chrys. hom. 55. in Mat. Pastor, and Head of the Church. him Pastor, nor head of the Church. Some well-willer of the cause, added the words. In Greeke wee haue but [...], a man that was a Fisher. But, ad­mit both Pastor and Caput too; what is it to purpose? Wee deny no titles giuen vnto him: wee deny your inferences vpon those titles. If you will thanke me for it, I will helpe you to tenne times as many moe titles as you haue collected; as transcendant as any of these: and when I haue done, to as large and ample, giuen to Saint Paul. Doe you shew mee but one place of any one Father, that giueth him that power you challenge to the Pope, I except not Leo, nor yet Gregorie, and I will subscribe: viz. for, vniuersalitie of iurisdiction, infallibilitie of iudgement, and power direct or indi­rect, ouer Kings, and Kingdomes. This is your Hele­na: First, chiefe, great, or greatest will not content you, nor satisfie ambition now in the russe. Vnder­take [Page 64] this: trifle not out the time, in pleading so idlely and vainely for Saint Peters prerogatiues, which wee the Church of England deny not.

VIII.

ANd yet Saint Peter denied Christ. Dare you deny that? Belike, in your opinion, and new diuinitie, a man may deny Christ, and his faith not fayle: Turne Turke, and his faith not faile: onely, turne Protestant and his faith faileth. But wee must hold it howsoeuer: for it is con­trary to our owne Bible, Luke 22. 3. I haue prayed for thee that thy faith faile not.

Your Proselites may know you are an Empostor: That propose it in these words, so opposite to Scrip­ture and euent. That leaue it so suspence, without di­stinction. Saint Peters faith fayled, after this very prayer and assurance: and yet Christ obtained what hee did pray for. God heard him euer, how can you reconcile this?

Your Masters consider Saint Peter two wayes, euen in this prayer made by our Sauiour for him, as a pri­uate man, as a publique person: or as they loue to speake, Head of the Church. As a priuate person, Christ did pray for him, that though his faith fell to­tally for a time, it yet might not faile eternally, and for euer; as Iudas failed, and fell: and hee was heard in [Page 65] that he prayed for. Peter denied, but repented: hee recouered after his fall, and perseuered vnto the end. Our Sauiour said not to him, thou shalt not deny mee; but, That thy faith fayle not: and that his faith did not eternally fayle, it was out of his speciall fauour vn­to him, and care of him, saith Chrysostome hom. 83. in Math.

This is the prime, true, and literall meaning of the Text, euen in the opinion of your owne Partiaries: that Christs prayer was personall for Saint Peter: restrained vnto Saint Peter alone: which being so first setled and acknowledged, Peter may be said in a secon­dary sense, to sustaine the person of the whole Catho­lique Church: in which sense many, and they no Pro­testants, doe vnderstand it. And so his Faith, that is the Faith of the Church, fayled not either totally or finally, no not in the greatest eclipse that euer was: because Christ was euer heard in that which he pray­ed for: and he prayed for the Church.

The refiners of Popery, the quintessense of villany, the Iesuites, haue inuented a third sense to fit the pur­pose more than the former. This promise was made, say they, to Peter, not personally, but as Pope. And therein was inferred, thereby assurance made that the Pope neuer did, neuer should, neuer could maintaine, decide, hold, belieue any thing against Faith. A thing not heard of but out of such mouthes, a late dayes. False in euent, for their faith hath failed; totally, fi­nally, vtterly for euer. False according to themselues, and their other resolutions. For Peter was not Bishop, much lesse Pope, when our Sauiour Christ prayed for [Page 66] him: insomuch as by inchoation: when hee denied Christ, saith Bellarmine. And good reason for his say­ing so: lest his successours might fall into the same predicament. His principality in and ouer the Church, was not inuested in him, vntill after our Sauiours Resurrection. Thus hee, de Rom. Pontif. 4. 8. therefore hee did not pray for him as Pope. There­fore Bellarmine contradicteth himselfe: and is contra­ry to his companions. Therefore this prater gagleth hee knoweth not what, against his owne rules, and a­gainst his Masters.

As also out of Matth. 16. 18. The gates of Hell shall not preuaile against it. It? What? Saint Peters Faith. Was the Church therefore built vpon Saint Peters Faith? Take heede of that. It, is the Church; not his Faith, nor his Person: nor his Papacy. But let it, for once, be his Faith. I answere, there is a two­fold preuayling against. First, to ouercome: So Iosua in fight, preuayled against Amalec, by the signe of the Crosse, rather than the sword. Secondly, a pre­uayling against, to destroy. So did Saul preuaile a­gainst the same Amalec. The Gates of Hell did not preuayle against Peters Faith, to vndoe it. For be­ing lapsed, hee recouered: and mightily preuayled against them. They did preuaile against it, to ouer­come him: For he forswore and denyed his Ma­ster. The Faith of Marcellinus and Liberius fayled: but they recouered as Saint Peter did. The Faith of Honorius, and Iohn 12 fayled: happely hee re­canted before his death: and so his Faith did not fayle finally: But Iohn 12. liued and dyed in his [Page 67] Faith; that is, in his Sinne: and so Body and Soule went to the Diuell. Saint Peters Faith fayled one­ly for a time: Of this speake the Protestants, His Faith fayled. Saint Peters faith did not finally or ir­recouerably fall. Thus intended our Sauiour in that saying; I haue prayed that thy Faith fayle not. But, Sir, it mattereth not much what became of his Faith: His Person is the thing to be stood vpon: his Power, Principality, Papall Prerogatiues, sea­ted therein; this, I trow, is so cleare in holy Scrip­tures, no great neede to fortifie it by or from the Fa­thers: and yet I maruaile why, if so cleare, there, wee haue so few Texts of holy Scriptures for it: one­ly two Texts; nay scarcely that: For one of these is cleare for another thing. And againe, whatsoeuer you vaunt of Fathers, needelesse to be brought, it is more than presumption, you had not one Father to fling at this Faith, not fayling: For when you haue them, you spare them not.

IX.

QVeene Elizabeth was? With lye and all. No Protestant euer saide so of Queene Elizabeth: No Protestant euer thought so of any Woman. You shamelesse pennes, and brazen faces: You haue often vouched Caluin a­gainst such Gouernement: whom you make the Patri­arch, fondly, of our Profession, and yet you impute it to our Doctrine. Lyers in this, or in that, needes. Can you of your knowledge say, this title was giuen vnto Queene Elizabeth? Did shee euer practise it actually? or challenge it habituall; to her Person, or her State? And if it had beene challenged, or giuen in Her time, seeing that it is not at present, but disclai­med by him that best may: and seeing it dyed, if yet it euer liued, together with her, what meaneth this quarreller to stirre vp a new allayed strife, and trouble things setled, and well disposed of. The truth is, Queene Elizabeths stile, was no other then, than King Iames is now, mutatis mutandis, Ouer all persons, in all Causes, (not and all causes) as well Ecclesiasticall as Ciuil, in these her Maiesties Realmes and Dominions, [Page 69] next vnder God, supreame Gouernour. Can your small vnderstanding put no difference, betwixt, Ouer all; and In all? betwixt Persons and Causes? ouer all Persons, in all Causes, is one thing; Ouer all Persons and all Cau­ses, is farre another thing: Ouer Each: or ouer Causes, without Persons, looketh your way. But Causes with Persons, ouer the Parties in their proceedings, is no such exorbitances: no Scripture expresse, none inferred a­gainst it to any purpose.

We doe not professe, much lesse propose or pro­pugne, that Princes are Heads, or Gouernours, to any such intent; as to coyne, or set abroad new Formes of Faith: to determine what is defide, what not; as your side belyeth vs, and beareth your Proselites in hand we doe. Wee giue no such authority to any humane Power. They were of you that did it at Trent, that cast it vpon your Lord God the Pope: He was one of you, none of our side; Stephen Gardner by name, who to flatter the Prince in state, and keepe himselfe in those hurring times in his fauour, openly auouched, as Car­dinal Poole relateth; That the King might take away the Cup from the Laity: Potestas enim summe est penes regem: For the King hath supreamest Power. Such a­phorismes neuer came out of our mouthes. We say, Princes haue supreame Power in Earth vnder God, ouer all Persons, in all Causes whatsouer, within their Do­minions; euen in Causes meerely Ecclesiasticall: to compell them to doe their duties, by the Ciuil Sword. Not ouer all Causes, to doe as they will, to command, or change beliefe or Faith. Will it rellish better with you in Saint Augustines words? Then this is our pro­fession [Page 70] in his words: Kings serue God as Kings, if in their owne Realmes they command good things; not a­lone, which concerne the ciuill state of men: but which doe also touch Religion and Piety. Thus he, so we in our Cont. Cres­con. 3. 15. Profession, ouer all persons, in all causes. Not, In all Cau­ses alone and singular, as you traduce vs.

Hoc posito: Now see wee your Texts of Scripture contrary to this in our owne Bibles. 1 Tim. 2. 11. Let the woman learne in silence, with all subiection: There­fore a woman, heire, or otherwise, cannot be Gouernour in her Realmes. Doe you thinke that the Lady Infanta, no Protestant Princesse, will be so confinde; because shee may not say Masse, nor speake in the Congrega­tion: therefore as Dutchesse of Burgundy, or Coun­tesse of Flaunders, may shee not meddle with the State? Marke your owne words: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to vsurpe authority ouer the man. Therefore shee cannot be supreame Gouernesse. Let Catholicke Ladies looke to this. Such Fellowes if they had their due, would haue their mouthes gag'd with an halter; I, their tongues cut out, and cast to Dogges If this were intended by Saint Paul, I maruell why the Eunuch re­turning home into Ethiopla, did not put downe Can­dace from being Queene.

If you take it not as you speake it, (for Equiuocators say one thing, and meane another) generally of all au­thority, nor yet of any subiection; but as Saint Paul restraineth it, onely to Teaching and speaking in the Church; we subscribe vnto you: wee are of the same minde with you; we say the same thing that you doe: but then wee call your honesty into question, and af­firme, [Page 71] you deale perfidiously with vs, in belying vs, and falsly with your Proselites in seducing them. Did euer any Allen, or Saunders, or Parsons, or Kellison, heare Queene Elizabeth Preach? Did euer any see her admi­nister the Sacraments, take vpon her to expound Scrip­ture; appoint Faith, or denounce Excommunication? Shee claimed, and might, and had authority comman­ding, coerciue, coactiue, ouer Church-men. Did shee euer challenge, or vse it, or was it giuen her in Church­seruice; as Saint Tecla did, and Saint Katherine of Siena in your Legends: as Pope Ioane did, if there sate such a strumpet in Saint Peters Chayre; as Prioresses, and Ab­besses haue, and exercise by your Canon Law, or with Dispensations. An Abbatesse may command the Priests that are subiect to her, to excommunicate her rebelling Nunnes; and the Priests are bound to obey her: So Ta­biena, Armilla, Panormitane, Astensis. The Canonists are of this minde, saith Stephanus de Aluin, that the dignity of Prelacy, and excellency of Office, may giue to Ecclesi­asticall women, (therefore howsoeuer to women) spiri­tuall and Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction; which they may en­ioy, not onely by right delegated and committed vnto them, but by ordinary also. Now good Sir Gagger, how digest you this good Catholicke Doctrine? gaue wee euer so much to Queene Elizabeth? Is this according to your Bibles? or are your Bibles and ours not the same?

That of 1 Cor. 14. 34. is not cited according to our Bibles of the last Transation, which you yet pretend to follow: and howsoeuer cited, it is not to purpose; onely it discloseth your leud demeanor. Saint Paul for­biddeth [Page 72] women to speake or teach in Churches: so doe we. And in conuenticles also, you may see it inquirable, presentable, punishable in our visitations, if any such presume to expound or interpret Scripture in priuate Houses. You may sooner heare Pope Vrban preach, then any Woman with vs to execute any function Ec­clesiasticall, who with you doe ordinarily baptize.

For satisfaction to poore misled Catholikes in this point, if yet they will be satisfied, take the resolution of our Church, Art. 37. The Queenes Maiesty (it was made you know in Queene Elizabeths time) hath the chiefe power in this Realme of England, and other her Dominions, vnto whom the chiefe gouernement of all E­states of this Realme, whether they be Ecclesiasticall or ciuill, in all causes, doth appertaine; and is not, nor ought to be subiect to any forraigne iurisdiction.

2. Where wee attribute to the Queenes Maiestie, the chiefe gouernment; by which titles wee vnderstand the mindes of some slanderous folke to be offended, wee giue not to our Princes the ministring either of Gods Word, or of the Sacraments: The which iniunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queene, doe most plain­ly testifie. But that onely prerogatiue, which wee see to haue beene giuen alwayes, to all godly Princes, in holy Scriptures, by God himselfe; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed vnto their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiasticall or temporall, and restraine with the Ciuill Sword the stubborne and euill doers. This is all that Queene Elizabeth had or chal­lenged. Publike Records, publike notice, publike testi­mony of the State, and all that then liued, are of greater [Page 73] credit, I hope, with all moderate and honest Romish Ca­tholikes, then the leud lying aspersions of a partiall Fa­ctionist, such as this Fellow is; and many of his com­panions are, who haue taken vp this course, as of inhe­ritance and kinde, to dare say any thing in despight of honesty and truth, in ordine ad Deum; for the Catho­licke cause.

X.

THat Antichrist was to come, and so prophe­cied of, that he is called, That man of sinne; is in my Creed, and an Article of my Be­liefe, as being plainly and directly expressed such in Scripture: And this I know no Protestant but beleeueth. But whether he was to be One particular man; or a State, a succession opposite to Christ; I know no Article, Canon, or Iniunction, that tyeth mee to be­leeue. The Church of England leaueth me to my opi­nion: Euery man may abound in his owne sence, and beleeue it, or not beleeue it, as he will. For who dareth peremptorily define what God himselfe hath not, but left at liberty? The Fathers, I grant, runne most vpon one man: So doe your Masters of the Roman Church. The Protestant Writers, doe most of them encline ra­ther to a Succession, and a state of men; but not all.

[Page 74] Not all so peremptorily, as not to encline notwith­standing, vnto one man, who more then any of his rank shall oppose himselfe to Christ in that state and Succes­sion Antichristian; vnto whom all those markes and descriptions set downe in holy Scripture, shall perfectly agree: as Zanchius, and many others doe hold. For in point of Prophecie, and that so obscure as this, vntill plaine euent doe make it manifest, iudgements doe and may well, sauing the peace of the Church, vary: nor should wee condemne or censure Dissenters any way from our priuate opinions.

Whether the Pope bee that Antichrist or not, the Church resolueth not, tendreth it not to be beleeued any way. Some I grant are very peremptory; too pe­remptory indeed, that he is: He for instance, that wrote and printed it, I am as sure that the Pope is Antichrist, that Antichrist spoken of in Scripture; as that Iesus Christ is God: But they that are so resolute, peremptory, and certaine; let them answere for themselues, they are old enough: the Church is not tyed, nor any man that I know, to make good their priuate imaginations. Nor can or ought the seuerall fancies of men, to be imputed vnto the authorized and approued Doctrine of the Church: A fault more then ordinary with you Pa­pists, to charge the Church of England with euery priuate opinion, that any man holdeth in our Church, though he be singular and alone.

For my selfe; I professe ingenuously, I am not of opi­nion, that the Bishop of Rome personally, is that Anti­christ, that Vrban the VIII: or Gregory the XV; or Paul the V. were Antichrist: though Pauls name [Page 75] Borghesie, before he was Pope, written in Greek, S ^t Iohns Language, doth make 666. the number of the Beast. Nor yet that the Bishops of Rome Successiuely, are that Antichrist so spoken of: An Antichrist I hold him, or them, carrying themselues as they doe in the Church; either as the word hath hitherto beene taken for, one that is [...], against Christ: or according to the new tricke and deuice of some; for [...], in stead or place of Christ. Rather in this point I should encline vnto that opinion of many Protestant Diuines, that for the State Antichristian, the Turke and Pope together may seeme to make it: and for the Person, some one no­torious varlet aboue the rest. Thus Zanchius, and o­thers: so Melanthon, Draconites vpon Daniel, Oeco­lampadius vpon the same; Hiperius vpon the second Epistle to the Thessalonians: Zanchius in Miscellan: Lambert in Apocal. Zegedynus in Locis: Grynaeus in praefat. Eiusdem Libri: and a Disputation at Geneua, 1589. vnder Faius. I say, rather this way, then the o­ther; though for full resolution I cannot resolue for ei­ther: but professe my ignorance in such mysteries, and therefore as is fitting [...], and craue pardon.

But had I no greater cause to refraine from conclu­ding then your wise worshipfull reasons, Sir Gagger, Contrary to their own Bi­ble, 2 Thes 2. 3. I should conclude as peremptorily as any; Papa est ip­sissimus Antichristus: Your Texts are not expresse, they are not euictiue, nor conuincing: 2 Thes. 2. 3. He is cal­led, That man of sinne, the sonne of perdition: Your in­ference is hereupon thus. The words, Man of sinne; and sonne of Perdition, being singular, doe plainly proue, that a succession of men, as the Popes are, cannot be this [Page 76] man of sinne. For so Saint Peter also should be Anti­christ; for he was Pope, and the very first of all the Popes. So your good Gossips long since reasoned in this point, but idely all, and you more: Though the words be sin­gular and personall; Man of sinne: and Sonne of Perdi­tion: yet followeth not, that the subiect is one Person; they may denote a body: For any Corporation, though collected out of Pluralities, is a totum, and so but one, and so singular in it selfe. The Prophecies of Iacob for Iudah, and his other Sonnes, runneth precisely in sin­gular and personall termes; yet your selfe, I thinke, are not so sencelesse, as to fasten them all vnto the Persons of the Patriarchs. The Man of sin, is personall in termes, I grant, but the designation may be a collectiue vnity; a Corporation, a Succession. A sinfull man, a wicked ge­neration; an impious body, and an Antichristian State. You haue read in the Psalmes, That the man of the Earth be no more exalted against them: And againe; For man goeth about to deuoure me. Some priuate man the Prophet meant by your reason; no Company, com­bination, or society of men: For, The words Man, and Man of the Earth, being singular, doe plainely proue, that he could not intend any priuate man: this is your reason for the Pope.

As for Saint Peters being then a limbe of Antichrist, because he was Pope, and the first of Popes; I answere, For so Saint Peter should then be An­tichrist: for he was Pope, and the very first of Popes. that he was none of Antichrists members, because he was first: For the Spring is good and wholsome, where the streame is muddy, bitter, or vnwholsome; the foun­dation good, where the building is ruinous: the first most regular, where Succession is not. Those that hold [Page 77] the Pope Antichrist, neuer imagined all Popes to be so: but the defection of Popes; since the falling away either from the Faith; or from the Roman Empire; or rather indeede, from both. So that Saint Peter, though Bishop of Rome, and a Pope, and many other succeeding him in that See, cannot be included with­in the pale of Antichrist, although it be pleaded that the Pope is Antichrist, and resolued so.

Reuel. 13. 18. The holy Spirit giueth both you and others good aduise, Qui operta sacri supparo silentij irrumpere audent; Let him that hath vnderstanding, count the number of the Beast: for it is the number of a man. I cannot tell certainely what is meant by that number of a man. You can, it should seeme: but this I can tell, as I haue told you already, that a man doth not euer and necessarily imply a particular and singu­lar man. For the name of Christ, is as particular, ra­ther more singular than the name of man: and yet your owne directors acknowledge, it is attributed vn­to any, and all that haue any similitude or resemblance vnto him, as Prophets, Kings, Priests. And your last Therefore the great Antichrist shall be a particular man. Text to be seene, is, 1 Iohn 2. 22. where hee is a lyer, that denieth Iesus; that denieth the Father and the Sonne, is Antichrist; and yet I hope no singular man necessarily. Therefore the great Antichrist may not be a particular man.

XI.

SInnes are forgiuen two wayes: by power originall, and authority: by deriued pow­er, and delegation. God alone, and none but God, doth or can forgiue sinnes the first way; against whom onely sinnes are committed, Psalm. 51. Against thee onely haue I sinned: and therefore Esay 43. 25. I am hee that blotteth out ini­quities for my selfe. In this sence the Pharises did not erre, Luke 5. Who can forgiue sinnes but God a­lone? In this sence it is true, and truely maintayned, None but GOD can forgiue, or retaine sinnes. Ve­rum dicunt Scribae: The Scribes say true, faith vene­rable Bede, No man can forgiue sinnes but God alone. And hee doth forgiue them by the ministery of those men to whom hee hath giuen power to forgiue them; by actiue delegation.

Hee hath giuen power vnto men to doe that: wee professe and maintaine; The Priest hath power and authoritie from God, to forgiue sinnes, in as ample manner, as hee can receiue it. So your Fathers and Scriptures may well be spared, and haue beene kept by you in store against a dearer time. Your owne di­rector, Controu. 9. hath these words, to our aduantage and acquittall, and your confusion. Hereunto is also pertinent the doctrine of those Protestants, who hold; That Priests haue power not onely to pronounce, but to giue remission of sinnes. That hold most of the fore­named [Page 79] authors, and others very many. Yes, it seemeth to be the doctrine of the Communion Booke, in the vi­sitation of the sicke; where the Priest saith: And by his authoritie committed vnto mee, I absolu [...] thee from all thy sinnes.

If this be acknowledged the Doctrine of our Com­munion Booke, and practice of our Church according­ly, as it is, iniurious are those opposites vnto truth, and lyers against their owne knowledge, that impute it to vs, which wee are confessed to deny, That none but God can forgiue sinnes. This must proceede out of fa­ction, Contrary to expresse words of their owne Bible. or that which is worse: But this fellow procee­deth vpon a further extreamity, to strengthen a truth in it selfe, with a lye made by himselfe, that our Do­ctrine is contrary to our Bibles.

Matth. 9. 3. 8. To proue against vs that which we deny not, viz. this power delegated vnto Priesthood, thus you alledge: But when the multitude saw it, they maruailed, and glorified God, who had giuen such power vnto men, as to forgiue sins. Which words, As to for­giue sinnes, are not in our Bibles, out of which you vndertake to proue your Assertion: Nor in your owne Bibles, follow which you will. You haue added them out of your store, to serue your owne turne, contrary to Scripture; and further, contrary to sense. Because that thing which amazed them then, for which they glorified God, was a thing sensible, visible, apprehen­ded of all: When they saw it. Now, see sinnes forgiuen they could not: heare it pronounced; belieue it, they might. Secondly, the power there giuen, is not ordi­nary, as that of absolution is: but extraordinary, and [Page 80] miraculous, to heale the sicke. Peter, and his Succes­sour had that: but very few or none had this. You know, it was answered a Pope once, when he shew­ed a masse of Gold and Siluer to one, and added, The Church could not say now, Siluer and Gold haue I none; No, quoth the other, Nor can it say; Arise and walke. This is that power there mentioned, could you see it, not that of Absolution ordinary.

That of Ioh. 20. 21. Matth. 16. 19. Giue that pow­er vnto the Apostles to forgiue sinnes: But may it not See more, Mat. 16. 19. be excepted, it was a personall priuiledge? I answere, not so: for I belieue it not. The collation was origi­nall, to them, as to those from whom it was to be conueyed vnto others. But some are happely of that opinion: and it may seeme probable vnto others: you should haue cleared the Texts of that obiection, and then your performance had beene to purpose.

Matth. 16. 19. May be vnderstood you meane of sinnes forgiuen, but yet only secondarily: for thesi se­cunda: Because we reade in the Euangelist, whatsoeuer, and not whomsoeuer; this place is to be vnderstood of any knot whatsoeuer: indeede rather of the power of the sword, than of the keyes. And it seemeth that if this place be not personall to Peter, and his successors, as by this allegation for forgiuing, it neither is, nor can be, then our most holy Father hath lost a maine pillar of his Papacy, peculiar to Saint Peter, and his successours: So these Madianites sheath their swords one in anothers sides; and crosse themselues in their owne positions.

In Matth. 18. 18. The Text is so expresse to the [Page 81] purpose, that Origen, Chrysostome, Theophilact, and Anastasius, vnderstand it of all Christians whomsoe­uer: that sundry Roman Catholiques, if Maldonate deceiue vs not, vnderstand it of no more than ciuill policy. Goe take it, Whatsoeuer you binde on earth, shall be bound in Heauen, and whatsoeuer you loose in Earth, it shall be loosed in Heauen: as your selues will for the power and execution of the keyes. Wee deny not in any sort, that power is giuen vnto mortall men to forgiue sinnes on earth, nor to binde by excommu­nication, which is frequently practised, and peraduen­ture too frequently amongst vs. Vnto that, 1 Cor. 5. 5. Artic. 33. thus wee subscribe, That person, who by open denunciation of the Church, is rightly cut off from the vnity of the Church, and excommunicated, ought to be auoyded, and to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithfull, as an Heathen, and a Publican, vntill hee be openly reconciled by penance, and receiued into the Church by a Iudge that hath authoritie thereunto. And in this sort Saint Paul deliuered Hymenaeus, and Alexander, 1 Timoth. 1. 20. and forgaue the ince­stuous Corinthian, 2 Cor. 2. 10. Which places by your direction wee haue seene, and finde the Article agree­ing with them. As for 2 Cor. 5. 19. It is not to pur­pose of forgiuing sinnes by delegated authority vnto a Priest, but of Reconciling by the whole office and function of the ministry. God was in Christ, saith the Apostle, and reconciled the world vnto himselfe, not imputing their sinnes vnto them, and hath commit­ted to vs the word of reconciliation. So wee haue [Page 82] seene eyther, nothing at all to purpose: or else that of which wee made no question, nor yet doe any at all.

As little in Fathers that affirme the same. Irenaeus See Fathers that affirme the same. Lib. 5. cap. 14. saith, the raising of Lazarus from death to life, was a Symbole or figure of our Resurre­ction from Sinne to God. Hee saith no more that I can see or finde. Ambrose Lib. 1. it should be de paeni­tent. cap. 7. Nor August. Tract. 49. in Iohn: Nor Gre­gor. hom. 26. in Euangel. if wee may belieue Bellar­mine, Lib. 3. de paenitent. cap. 3. from whom you tran­scribed these testimonies, without considering of these Fathers, in their owne workes: but so carelessely, that if you were a Schoole-Boy, lures in corpore: for you referre vs to Gregor. hom. 26. in Euangel. Whereas Bellarmine hath it 6. and to Ambrose, Lib. de paeniten­tia: as if Saint Ambrose had written but one Booke of that Argument, not diuided into Chapters, where­as Bellarmine directed you aright to the seauenth Chapter of his 1. Booke. Was this securitie, stupiditie, or insolency in you? or what was it?

XII.

THat wee must not, implyeth a flat ne­gatiue, or iniunction rather, vnto the contrary: Shew mee any such inhibi­tion, and I will say, which I belieue you neuer will deserue at any Prote­stants hands, you are a true dealing, and an honest man. Otherwise, you are that you are, and so will be still.

The most that hath beene saide, is, that priuate con­fession is free, not tyed: and therefore suus positiui, not diuini: Therefore, happely of conueniency, not of absolute necessity. That in a priuate Confession vn­to a Priest, a peculiar enumeration of all Sinnes, both of commission and omission, with all circumstances, and accidents, is neuer necessary necessarily: most an end not expedient, nor yet, all things considered, re­quired. It is confessed that all Priests, and none but Priests, haue power to forgiue sinnes: It is confessed, that priuate Confession vnto a Priest [...] is of very anci­ent practice in the Church: of excellent vse and pra­ctise, being discreetly handled. Wee refuse it to none, if men require it, if neede be to haue it. We vrge it and perswade it in extreames: Wee require it in case of perplexitie, for the quieting of men disturbed, and their consciences. It hath beene so acknowledged by [Page 84] your fellowes, that in the visitation of the sicke, it is re­quired by the Communion Booke: That the sicke per­son make a speciall Confession, if hee feele his Conscience troubled with any weightie matter: And likewise be­fore the receiuing of the Lords Supper, according to which doctrine and iniunction, our Bishops doe, or should enquire in their Visitations, touching the vse and neglect of this so good an order: as did that right learned and reuerend Bishop of Norwich, D ^r. Oueral, of late: A man for admirable learning, and yet as strange humility, in communicating his knowledge vnto any poore Scholler, hardly equalled, sure out­gone by none since the world had him. The 21. Ar­ticle enquired of in his Visitation 1619. concerning Ministers, is: Whether doth your Minister before the seuerall times of the administration of the Lords Sup­per, admonish and exhort his Parishioners, if they haue their Consciences troubled and disquieted, to resort vn­to him, or some other learned Minister, and open his griefe, that hee may receiue such ghostly counsell and comfort, as his Conscience may be relieued, and by the Minister hee may receiue the benefit of Absolution, to the quiet of his conscience, and auoyding of scruple. And if any man confesse his secret and hidden sinnes, being sicke, or whole, to the Minister, for the vnburthening of his Conscience, and receyuing such spirituall conso­lation, doth or hath the said Minister at any time, re­uealed and made knowne to any person whomsoeuer, a­ny crime or offence so committed to his trust, contrary to the 113. Canon? that hee might be punished ac­cordingly. Which is not like the iniunction of those [Page 85] that hold, Wee must confesse our Sinnes but onely vnto God. Our people happely are negligent in performing this most behoofefull vse and practice of the Church, but the judgement and resolution of the Church, is not auerse from it, as you belye vs: much lesse is it our decision. We must not confesse our Sinnes, but one­ly vnto God.

The words of our Bible, Matth. 3. 5. 6. are expresse Contrary to the expresse words of your owne Bible. for confessing. I graunt: and for confessing of Sinnes too: But not expresse for publique or priuate confes­sing: not for confessing vnto whom, to man or vnto God: not, whether in generall, they confessed them­selues sinners; or, descended to some particulars there more ordinary, direct, and enormious sinnes. These are not instanced, discerned, nor determined; Writers are diuided in opinion. You know it not: onely be­cause there was confessing of Sinnes, it must needes be such confession of such Sinnes, as you imagined. Haue you read what Maldonate that learned Iesuite hath said of such bold Bayards, as your selfe, Quis vnquam Catholicus tam indoctus fuit, vt ex hoc loco Confes­sionis probaret Sacramentum? Was there euer any Catholique such a blocke, as would goe about to proue out of this place the Sacrament of Confession? Not in his time, or before peraduenture. Maldonate could not prophecie, nor fore-see therefore, that such an vn­lettered Dolt would rise vp after him. I doe speake but in his Language: Indoctus, is as much in effect. If you meant not of sacramentall Confession: bucus, blennus es. What other Confession could you speake of? If of Confession sacramental; in Maldonates iudg­ment, [Page 86] bardus es: howsoeuer, fungus, fatuus es: For, if all those that went out vnto Iohn Baptist, came to him for shrift; hee had shriuing worke enough for seauen yeares. I adde. It is happely intended, They confessed vnto God: For it is not said, they confessed vnto Iohn. And then, what is become of your, There­fore Therefore sinnes may be confessed vn­to man. sinnes may be confessed vnto man? Secondly, your tenet is of must be, not may be. They did it volunta­rily, once: therefore, often, and againe. Wee must necessarily doe. Thirdly, they did it once in all their life: and that on occasion, and time extraordinary; at their Baptisme: not againe, for any thing that wee know. Your Confession is penitentiall, flat opposite vnto this in Baptisme You may as well inferre out of this Text, reiteration of Baptisme: as reiteration of Confession: Baptisme in Iordan, necessarily, as Con­fession of Sinnes necessarily: So many incumbran­ces are in the words: so many Non sequiturs vnto the maine.

That of Act. 19. 18. I graunt is more proper: and as Bellarmine obserueth, in some sort it is true, that the words are of speciall Confession: but yet they come not home vnto Auricular; Confession in pri­uate into the Priests eare. Againe, it was not of in­forcement or necessitie, but of voluntary motion. Nor is it expressed, which is most materiall: whether it were made onely vnto God, or also vnto man. If you be put to proue it, what proofe or euidence can you make for it? The Text hath, [...], Confessing and declaring openly what they had done: Before men, not vnto Paul, or [Page 87] any Priestin priuate, but vnto God, before men; that all the Assembly might take notice of it, and vnder­stand it.

That of Numb. 5. 6. is for Confession vnto, at least before the Priest: but is your iudgement so crased, to award vs the iniunction and practice of this Iewish Ce­remony, for a ground of Confession Sacramentall? If so, your braines are rather to be purged, then your error refuted. If you take it but for typicall, as you must and will, if you vnderstand your selfe: then such Propositi­ons are not argumentatiue. Nor was there here enioy­ned any particular enumeration of their sinnes in kind, but onely of that one sinne for which the Sin-offering was brought: for which an attonement was sought, & to be procured by the Priest. Peccatum illud quod fece­ram, is Bellarmines obseruation: and so, no way for the point in Controuersie; Confession Auricular vnto the Priest, vnlesse onely by way of equality and conuenien­cie, as left vnto vs free, and not vpon obligation as to them, which helpe you not.

Thus we haue no great satisfaction out of Scripture, Goe and see Fathers that affirme as little: Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 9. speaking of some silly women, one or two, sedu­ced by Marcus, a Sorcerer and Gnosti (que) Hereticke, rela­teth thus much, that being reconciled and regained to the Catholike Church, they confessed, Marcus had abused them carnally; which nothing promoteth their Catholique Cause, vnlesse their ghostly Fathers should shriue them in secret as Marcus did: They might con­fesse that before a temporall ludge, vnto some Neigh­bour or friends of their owne. To a Priest: some [Page 88] Priests; and yet not in aurem: or if so, yet not by speciall enumeration of all the circumstances, or relation of their other sinnes. It might be in the face of the Church in generall. Irenaeus words are not confined: Hae saepis­simè conuersae ad Ecclesiam Dei, confessae sunt, & secun­dum corpus exterminatas se ab eo velut Cupidine, & inflammatas valdè se illum dilexisse. They confessed it often, vnto many, what Magicall inchantments he vsed to besot them: Therefore not likely in Sacramentall Confession, where hauing receiued absolution of the Priest, it were but idle to confesse it againe; vnlesse the man imagined the Protestants denyed and tooke away all Confession, vpon any termes, what neede we goe see in Irenaeus?

Or in Tertullian; who in his Booke de poenitentia, (I must supply the Chapter, you had forgot it, or else could not tell it) Cap. 4. blameth some that through bashfulnesse would not confesse: but where, or to whom he telleth not. Happily he meant it of Confession vnto God. For almost instantly before he hath these words; Quâ delictum nostrum Domino confitemur: To God, notto man; and Delictum, the sinne that lyeth close, that presseth downe, that disquieteth vs in Conscience: not Delicta, our sinnes by enumeration. But passe it for priuate Confession to a Priest. Tertullian vrgeth it no farther, then for conueniency; and draweth it vp no higher then Delictum. Euery way conspiring with the Protestants, who mislike not Confession, nay, approue it vnto men: who condemne not Absolution, but ap­proue it, enioyne it, though not with that rigour as Romanists doe; and approue Saint Ambrose counsell [Page 89] well: Confesse freely vnto the Priest, the hidden secrets of thy soule. If yet it be the counsell of Saint Ambrose. For Plagiary as you be, did you not here mistake your Authour: and Father that ignorantly vpon Saint Am­brose, which Bellarmine telleth you was the aduise of Gregory Nyssen, Orat: in mulierem peccatricem? Such grosse Bayardismes in so insolent a Bard, are intollera­ble: Saint Ambrose hath no such Booke, de muliere pec­catrice. 2: de paenitent. 6. He exhorteth to repentance, but not a word of Confession vnto a Priest: many confessing vnto God.

XIII.

IN the Apostles times? no, nor yet many hundreds of yeeres since their times. Such Pardons as commence in the Apo­stolicall Chauncery; such as Tecelius dis­persed in Germany: others in other Countries: are impious, irreligious, prophane, and sacri­legious coosnage; an imposture of Merchants that trade for the Diuell; that chaffer Heauen and happinesse, for the reward of iniquity. The first mouing cause of Lu­thers rising vp, and taking Armes against the Church of Rome. Bellarmine and Baronius, those grand Dicta­tors, and vndertakers for the Papacy, faile in proofes of this nouelty; and what can such a puny as this fellow [Page 90] performe? Yet let vs see his best endeauours, and fairest shewes; because with Catholikes euery Pismire is a Po­tentate: as euery Goose a Swan. Contrary no doubt to our own Bibles, we denie them. For 2 Cor. 2. 10. S. Paul remembreth them thus; To whom you forgiue any thing, I forgiue also, &c. You must know, that are to learne: The Corinthian that had married his Fathers wife, was for his incest Excommunicated, and put to penance by the Apostle; as appeareth, 1 Cor. 5. 3. Well, what when? why here he giueth order for his Pardon. This is not denied vpon any hand. The Protestants beleeue the Scriptures more then Papists will doe. Why, but these two places compared, are a plaine proofe of the Apostles power of punishing and of pardoning. They are, it is granted: Therefore Pardons were in vse in the Apostles time. Is any Asse so ignorant as to say nay? Long be­fore the Apostles time they were in vse. Long before Moses, or Abrahams daies. Can a man with patience here this Animall thus bray? I suppose there is no Ro­man Catholique beside himselfe so sencelesse; as to ima­gine, Protestants beleeue or teach, That no offender was pardoned in the Apostles times: That the Apostles had no power, or wanted will to accept any Contrite, and Penitent into the Church. Ingenuous Romane Catho­likes, can you brooke the wittall thus to babble? Par­dons were in vse, then, after, before: but Pardons no more like the Pardons hee meaneth, or should main­taine, then Simon the Sorcerer was to Simon the Tan­ner, or Stephen the Deacon, to Stephen Gardiner; or this goose gagger vnto an honest man.

2 Cor. 2. 6. In the same case, vpon the same person, [Page 91] the Apostle saith; Sufficient to such a ma [...] his punish­ment: And therefore he forgaue what remained of his punishment, not yet fulfilled. So that there passed an Indulgence for his farther durance. There did no doubt. We willingly yeeld it; and take it for a warrant against Nouatian Puritanisme: for a ground vnto the Disci­pline of the Church; whose practice in Discipline is established. Art. 33. It is in the hands of the spirituall Magistrates to measure the time of such punishment or penance imposed. Let your Pardons be no otherwise, and we quarrell them not: Let them stay vpon the li­uing in foro fori, and not meddle with pardoning the dead for money: nor yet coosen the liuing, by false Coynes, out of the supposed Treasures of the Church; and no opposition will be vnto Pardons granted, no, though sold in externall Courts abroad. For the faults of men shall not be imputed vnto the Discipline by vs, if that were rectified as it ought to be. But the man is conscious to the foulenesse of his Cause, and prophane Roman marting; and therefore attireth a prostituted Strumpet, in the habit of a graue Matron. Popish par­dons and Indulgences, so prophane and enormious, are passed vnder the names of those things, with which they haue no more affinity then in name: which the Prince of the Apostles of the Lambe, had with the first begotten of the Diuell. Pardons, and Pardons: Simon and Simon, homonym [...]s. For, the Doctrine and Practice of the Church for Repentance, in Excommunication, Contrition, Confession, Satisfaction, Restitution, Abso­lution, is according vnto Piety, and the rule of Faith, in those that haue sinned, and are restored: but in the [Page 92] Church of Rome, thus it goeth. They imagine a trea­sure in the Church, compounded together, out of the satisfactions of Christ, and his Saints: which Treasure so composed, is in the hands, say they, of the Pope, and other Prelates, vnder locke and key, safe enough from purloining, to be disposed and dispenced as they shall thinke good, to whom they will open and communi­cate it, more or lesse, which is euer Danti, (for Giff-gaff is a good fellow) to none else; and answerable to his purchase much or little, Plus, or minus danti, as his meanes are.

For in euery good worke, there is Merit and Satisfa­ction. Merit is Personall, not Transitiue, nor yet Com­municable: but Satisfaction is and may be imparted. Because Satisfaction is onely for a Temporary paine; which is often more, and greater then Iustice, or right for the offence exacteth. So that God in Iustice requi­ring but Proportion, the ouer-plus in remainder is laide vp in store against time of neede, and drawen forth for vse, when mens purses are flush; then, & not till then, to be soueraignly applyed vnto the purchaser, not payer.

This premised, to your Scriptures and ancient Fa­thers: Find you any such Pardon in Saint Paul fore­prised? or Indulgence imparted vpon those termes? The Corinthian was restored, without a Bul: a Bishops Seale; a Commissaries direction vnto the Parson. He payed no rate, nor fees for Restitution, or standing rectus in Curiâ: No Treasure of the Church was applyed vnto him. Vpon his hearty repentance, and hearty satisfacti­on, he was restored. Satisfaction, not to God, but to the Church; whom hee had scandalized by his fall. Goe [Page 93] along with Saint Paul, and the Primitiue times; no man will euer say, Blacke is your Eye.

We haue seene, Mathew 18. 18. and 16. 19. once and againe, to as little purpose then, as now; and now, as then. The name, Pardons; and the thing, your Par­dons, are two things much differing euery way: and yet in neither place auonched is the Name, as by your vndertaking for Expresse, it should be. The thing as much differing as white and blacke. Power to binde and loose we denye not: wee maintaine and practice it in our Church. We may differ in the Execution; but Circumstances alter not Nature: your proofes may vouch the Thing, the right, the vse, the being; but man­ner, fashion, execution, onely doubted of, and to be pro­ued, that you touch not.

See Fathers that list, and like to loose their labour. See the Fa­thers, who af­firme the same: Tertul. lib. ad Mart. ca. 1. In Tertullian I am sure nothing, either in the first Chapter of his Booke, ad Martyres, remembred by some other of your Gossips, nor in his fifth, which is supplyed out of your store: His Booke ad Martyres, is very [...]ort. Finde me Pardons and Indulgences there mentioned, and I will purchase a Bull from Rome my selfe, whatsoeuer it cost me: deere enough, without doubt. That which you haue a minde vnto by directi­on of others, is this, as I guesse, Quam pa [...]em, quidam in Ecclesia non habentes, à Martyribus in carcere exo­rare consueuêre: Which Peace some not enioying within the Church, haue beene accustomed to intreat the Mar­tyrs in Prison for it. Peace there is Pardon, after the African phrase of Tertullian, and Saint Cyprian, whom you make your second Father to be seene; and whose [Page 94] testimony is almost idem numero with Tertullians. The meaning of both, as Pamelius, no Protestant, may enforme you, was this. Those that had fallen in time of persecution: to auoide or eleuate the censure of the Church, through their great suite and impor­tunitie, often procured letters deprecatory to the Bi­shop and Clergie, whereto they were lyable, from Consessors, such as were emprisoned for the truth, whom those Fathers call Martyrs, that so at their in­treaty, and for their confessions famous in the Church, the rigour of discipline might be suspended, mitigated, or determined, and they without more adoe, be resto­red vnto the Church. Against this custome in breach of discipline, Tertullian, and especially Cyprian, in­ueigh most bitterly. So then, take your choyce, ei­ther these Fathers cannot be seene to affirme for your purpose: or if so, auoide it if you can your pardons at the first arising vp in the Church were but abuses, and as such, resisted, exclaimed on, condemned as irregu­lar, and as impious, by the Fathers of those times, Tertullian, and especially Cyprian: and so you haue spun a faire threed either way.

As for Pope Vrban the second, make you mer­ry Pope Vrban the second, graunted a plenary In­dulgence to such as would goe to the Holy-Wars, An. Christi. 160. with him: much good may his plenary indulgence for the Holy-Land warre and voyage doe you. Aske my fellow if I be a thiefe, Vrban graunted such Indul­gence I confesse: So did Gregorie the seauenth his next Predecessor but one, first take vpon him to de­pose Princes, and dispose of their Kingdomes, by A­postaticall authoritie. No man heard of the one be­fore Gregorie: nor of the other before Vrban. The [Page 95] eldest aboue 1000. yeares after Christ. Vrban the eight, that now Popeth it, may proclaime a Croisado if hee will, and iustifie his fact as well as any other: but the true reason holdeth not now: The World is growne wiser, and men loue money too well to be so cheated of it, as their fore fathers were: to emptie their owne, and fill the Popes Coffers by Croisado cousonages.

But what a Bayard is this, to shew such blockish Ignorance, being an vndertaker, and that with some contumely against the whole Nation of Protestants? Wee are told it was Anno Christi 160. as if there were any Holy warres in those times, when as Vrban the first, (if hee were then borne,) yet certainely was not Pope many yeares after, till 224. aboue 60. yeares be­tweene. As for Vrban the second, hee sate in Anno 1088. A foule ouer sight in such an vndertaker, for the gagging of all Protestants mouthes for euer. But somewhat there was in it, that the Cat wincked, when both her eyes were out. Some wiser, more learned, and skilfull than himselfe, had obserued, it seemeth, that Vrban the second, Founder of these pardons, was the 160. Pope in order from Saint Peter: and this poore Ignaro, meaning well to the Cause, to aduance the credite thereof by antique vse, thought it had bin a thing so auncient as the yeare 160. at least, best to vse a Catholique tricke of piae fraudis, to let it goe so. For, honest good Catholiques must belieue what their Instructors say, though they teach that the Snow is blacke: so are they hood-wincked in implicite Faith. And as for Heretiques, no matter if they spie it: or [Page 86] what they say: poore mis-led Proselites, either reade not their answeres, good cause why; or if they reade them, will not belieue them, though neuer so plaine and euident: Therefore Quicquid in buccam, these men may say and write any thing; no matter what.

XIIII.

MEntiris furcifer: a leude lye: in impu­tation of flat impiety. They serue for nothing? those worthies of Dauid? those mightie men of Warre? Holy Saint Stephen and his Arriere-ban of valiant Aduenturers in the cause of Christ Iesus, that in life and death haue so glorified God: and set vp that bloudy banner of our Redemption, displayed on the battlements of Death and Hell! [...]: Indeede this was the power of that omni­potent God, not to be vttered by the tongue of men, which did so inable them vnto such performings, saith Iustine himselfe, one of that Societie. They are our Crowne, and our exceeding great reioycing. We boast of them, and of their noble acts: wee comme­morate their worths in our common seruice. [...], said Nazianzen, I take it, or Basil, one of the two, and wee take vp that saying, whose soeuer it was. In [Page 97] doing them honour we delight exceedingly. We tri­umph in the bloud they haue shed for our Sauiour. Their acts were recorded for imitation; that conside­ring their Precedents, and worthy performings, wee might be incouraged to follow their example, [...]. As springing Wels they supply vs continu­ally, saith Clemens Alexandrinus; What doe they supply vs with all? [...], with commonifaction to shew our selues religious lo­uers of God, though with shedding of our bloud. To shew forth our Faith, with losse of our liues. Wit­nesses they are: so is their name. Martyres, for [...] is to witnesse. Credendorum: agendorum: su­stinendorum, recipiendorum: Of things to be belieued, performed, indured, receiued, saith Bonauenture. And are these for nothing vnto the Church? Did euer any Protestant say or thinke so of these Holy Saints of God? For shame speake truth, and shame the De­uill, the Father of lyes, and such lying Libellers as our Gagger.

But belike it is for nothing, which is not for your purpose. And therefore, whatsoeuer Protestants doe thinke, and teach, and esteeme of the life and actions; the death and Passions of those holy Saints of Christ, it is nothing, because that they build not vp thence a Magazin, nor store-house for the Church, nor supply other mens defects, by their superfluities: that the Ho­ly Father may thereby mugle men, and fill his [...] coffers by lifting law. A thing so improbable for that fained treasury, that as Bellarmine confesseth, some of [Page 98] the Schoolemen, as Maironis and Durand haue not approued it: Which they durst not haue done, had Saint Paul beene of that minde, and tendred that, Do­ctrine, Colos. 1. 24. I reioyce in my sufferings for you, and fill vp that which is behinde: you reade wanting, (and reade so, if you list) of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh, for his bodies sake, which is the Church: Hence hath the ground of Indulgen­ces beene al­wayes taken: but more principally from the su­per abundant merit of Ie­sus Christ. Whence, if you say true, the ground of Indulgences hath euer beene.

And you meane since there were Indulgences heard off: For the time was, in the Protestants opinion at least, that no such thing was in being: which yet I maruaile much it so should be: and that many writing of that argument, haue not so much as dreamed there­of: and many, no Protestants, expound it otherwise. Osorius a Iesuite, in his Sermons, saith, Quid deest pas­sioni Christi, nisi vt nos similia patiamur: What can be wanting to the suffering of Christ, but onely this, that wee in like sort suffer with him? Paul suffered much; indured much; yet was hee not perfect, if himselfe say true: and for the Church of Christ, to giue them ex­ample, to strengthen and confirme them in what they had receiued from him, filled vp the measure appoin­ted for him in conformitie to the sufferings of Christ Iesus. Barradas, another of that same Society, Tom. 3. vpon the Gospels. Quod ad sufficientiam attinet nihil deerat passioni, & Cruci Christi: The Crosse and sufferings of Christ were all sufficiency: and that way naught wanted vnto his passion. Vt tamen efficax es­ [...]et Crux app [...]tio, & praedicatio laboribus plena de­erat. Ideo Paulus [...]it, se adimplere, quae desunt passi­onum [Page 99] Christi, quia per multos labores Euangelium gen­tibus praedicabat. And yet to make the Crosse and sufferings of Christ effectuall, there wanted application of it, by Preaching: A thing laborious, and exceding painefull: For which cause Paul saith, that hee filleth vp, or supplyeth, if you will, that which was wanting vnto the sufferings of Christ, for as much as, with great paynes hee preached the Gospell vnto the Gentiles.

Differences there may be amongst Interpreters: but none, not partialists take it so, as to make vp a Store-house for the Church, out of Christs sufferings supplied by Saint Paul: For so it must be: admit this Magazin, and we must admit a supply: a supply is not but vpon insufficiency. Can a man without blasphe­mie babble thus? Christs imperfect, a d insufficient sufferings, were made vp and supplyed by Saint Paul? In the merits of Christ, there are no [...], com­ming short, remaines, or as you will call them, wants: For if so: I say no more, but how can your selfe call them superabundant as you doe, and as they are? The Text should speake expressely, if you kept your wo [...] for making vp a store for the Church in time of need: which is so farre from expressely doing that, as that not obscurely it insinuateth what you pretend: no not in the interpretations of no Babes, vpon your owne partie, Iesuites of note and learning.

Philip. 2. 30. Because for the worke of Christ he was nigh vnto death, not regarding his owne life to supply your lacke. Epaphroditus is the man there spoken of: a faithfull seruant of Christ in the worke of the mini­stery: who with the hazard of his owne life puts him­selfe [Page 100] to doe seruice vnto the Church of God. This is the commendation Saint Paul giueth of him. Your inference is: Hee did more than hee needed to haue done: for who required any such seruice at his hand as this? Hee might haue kept himselfe close, and warme at home: and haue slept if hee would, in an whole skinne. This is your good wholesome Catho­lique Doctrine: For the benefit accruing out of the actions and Passions of Saints, is to make vp the trea­sure of the Church, out of workes supererogated by them, when they doe more than God requireth. As for instance, when the Virgin Mary, without not one­ly actuall sinnes, mortall, veniall, in your opinion, but also originall, as not conceiued in them, suffered yet much, which was not due to her: because all suf­ferings are the wages of Sinne: as when martyrs suf­fer more, or greater torments, than can in iustice be exacted of them, though God should enter into iudg­ment with them, and deale with them in the rigour of his iustice. So, Epaphroditus, sicke vnto death, indu­ [...] that which in no case was his deseruing, or due vn­to him: hee indured it therefore for the Philippians sake, that through his sufferings they might be saued, and haue supply of that which was wanting in the reckoning to the sufferings of Christ: as good bla­sphemy as euer was vttered by any enemy of the Grace of Christ, I will abide by it.

Secondly, admit it, good Catholique truth; yet is it not to purpose true: for Epaphroditus was then aliue; and vpon recouery, aliues-like. They are, and must be dead, that bring in their shot, to make vp that [Page 101] masse of treasure for the Church; and good cause why: For though then at present hee had enough at home, and also spare to serue others turnes, yet wisdome would hee should not be too lauish or profuse; for happely hee might haue neede thereof himselfe: For your Doctrine also is, Hee that standeth may fall. No man is sure of his Saluation: therefore, well is it pro­uided, though you regard it not, or know it not, that your store is not to be augmented till men are dead. Thirdly, in your owne construction and learning, this Text of Saint Paul will doe you no good: For in poynt of supply, for Pardons and Indulgences from the Actions and Passions of Saints, you admit not of merits, but onely satisfactions Now this text serueth, if at all, for any thing to any purpose, for merit, and not for satisfaction.

Lastly, you play the Catholique knaue in plaine termes: a man may call a spade a spade, and him a knaue that so deserueth it. For you will conuict vs by our owne Bibles. Now in our Bibles wee reade thus, Because for the worke of Christ hee was nigh vnto death, not regarding his life, to supply your lacke of ser­uice towards mee. You cut off these words of seruice towards mee; and set vp your rest vpon, to supply your lacke: as if the defects of the Philippians toward God, had beene supplied by the store of Epaphrodi­tus: whereas the defect was temporary, towards S ^t. Paul, to supply which, Epaphroditus did venture his life. Such legerdemaine befitteth well your cause, not to be vpholden but by collusion. Now goe and inferre your conclusion thus; Therefore the passions of [Page 102] the seruants of God, may be imparted; and serue to good purpose to the Church: which no man but like you, will deny: but is not the thing in question, or to be proued. And how commeth halting in the close, Roman. 9. 3. where Saint Paul remonstrateth his fer­uent loue indeede vnto his Brethren the lewes, in wi­shing to be separated from Christ for them? Goe you and doe so, (and you shall haue a better treasure in Heauen) for vs Protestants your Brethren in the same alloy, I wonder wee heare of no Fathers heere: nor any bragge of their aboundance, at least such a Catho­lique verity as this is, can afford whole thraues of Fa­thers I neede not doubt. But Roscius noster, noluit age­re, aut crudior fuit. Wee must be faine to be with­out them, whom hee cannot name: neither here, nor for workes of Supererogation. No maruaile; for Causa est conclamata.

XV.

WHat is meant by workes of Supererroga­tion wee may collect out of the Texts of Scripture cited, viz. that man in the state of Grace, and assisted by Gods grace, may doe some things councelled, and not commaunded or exacted in rigour. Many particulars are produced: it is com­monly instanced, in virginitie, and wilfull pouertie. For my part I know no Doctrine of our English Church against Euangelicall Counsels. Priuate reso­lutions this way or that way, are but opinions, and may as well be reiected as admitted: I willingly sub­scribe vnto antiquitie for the poynt of Counsels Euan­gelicall: For, Quod ex voluntate est, laudis est am­plioris, saith Philastrius. God putteth the yoake of Virginitie vpon no man, but leaueth it to those that can and will vndergoe it: Therefore Nazianzen well resolued; Wee haue Lawes amongst vs, that binde of necessitie: others, which be left vnto our free-choyce, to keepe them or not: so as if wee keepe them, wee shall be rewarded: if we keepe them not, no feare of punish­ment or danger to be vndergone therefore.

But I deny thereupon workes of Supererrogation, to be laide vp in store for imployments: such indeede you call workes of Supererrogation: not the things [Page 104] onely done by assistance of Gods grace, as councelled on­ly, and not commanded. Which were it so, and no o­therwise, Whence it appeareth, that man by assistance of Gods grace, may doe some things coun­selled. And these we call workes of su­pererogation. I would not contend with you: but then your Magazin would be emptie enough of Church­treasure. The truth is, as faitors vse, you play fast and loose: For although a man in some one poynt may doe more than is exacted, in many other things hee doth much lesse than he should doe. A man professeth continency and single life, hee must precisely keepe it. He chastiseth and bringeth vnder his body, with fa­sting, praying, lying on the ground, &c. the better to keepe it: as those ancient Ascetae and Anachorites did, in their meruailous and admirable Scleragogie; This was more than they needed to haue done, out of strict commaund: But were they not defectiue? Came they home, thinke wee, in many other things com­maunded, required vnder that fearefull dictate, Doe this, and liue? Now, set the Hares head against the Goose giblets; let one score pay another, and then much wil not be left to satisfie for others: well for him that can answere for one. If a man could in all things keepe the whole Law, and haue no neede at all to say, Forgiue mee my trespasses, then hee might happely Supererogate: as in opinion of the Aduersary, the blessed Virgin may: till then, that wee meete with such perfect liuers, wee may conclude rather for sub­tererogation, than supererogation any way. So this is your Doctrine of Supererogation vnto the Law: that of Counsells Euangelicall, is but of pretence to extenuate and palliate the enormitie of the o­ther.

[Page 105] Mathew 19. 21. In our owne Bibles our Doctrine is crossed thus. If thou wilt be perfect, goe and sell that thou hast, and giue to the poore, and thou shalt haue treasure in Heauen: then come and follow me. A Councell I grant: no Imperious forme of Precept. If thou wilt; not, Doe this: Left to choyce and liberty, to doe, or not. Christ tyeth no man, but leaueth him to doe, or not doe. But doth Christ say; When thou hast so done, thou shalt haue enough remaining in store, to make satis­faction for another? No. He goeth no farther then me­rit, in their owne Language, thus: Thou shalt haue treasure laide vp for thee in Heauen. For thee: Not, by thee, for thine owne vse and employment, against thy neede: Not for others, borrowing out of thy store: viz. Thou shalt haue it; in effect for thy selfe; appropri­ated to thee: not to conferre or bestow it vpon other that neede. Farre short of your supererogation.

1 Cor. 7. 25. 28. Now concerning Virgins, 1 haue no commandement of the Lord, yet I giue my iudgement; you reade Councell, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord, to be faithfull: He that giueth her in mariage, doth well; but he that giueth her not in mariage, doth better. This hoe aduised, and gaue his counsell as you will haue it, and so let it be: Man to keepe himselfe sin­gle and alone, especially as those times then went, and as the times succeeding were to be: But so to doe, was a worke of supererogation: More I grant, then they were tyed vnto by any Law of God, which leaueth them at liberty, and to themselues: but let me see, if Saint Paul hath any such inference, as, out of this same worke they could satisfie for their owne offences other­wise [Page 106] committed; or other mens offences beside their owne, or out of their supernumerary perfections, adde any thing else vnto the Churches Stocke. He that is able to receiue this counsell, let him receiue and follow it all he can; and when as he hath so done, he shall be­nefit his owne Soule: no profit wi [...]l thence out, more then exemplary accrue vnto another. These are indeed the workes of Supererogation, which you meane: The other are onely ti [...]ular, and doe but halfe it. So you wholy abuse and circumuent your Proselites, in plea­ding for one, and p [...]inting out another.

Mathew 19. 12. is of the former stampe; He that is able to receiue it, let him receiue it: leaueth it at liber­ty without tye or precept. [...]. He ordained this course for them that could receiue it; as saith Eusebius. This may suffice: for Luke 10. 25. thou shalt finde nothing vnto purpose.

Fathers for the point wee may looke after, but not See one Fa­ther for the same, in stead of many I could pro­duce. see. It is a vaine and false brag; you could produce many: All that you had heard of by relation of your Infor­mers (for poore man your selfe are not guilty of them) wee shall finde in the case of keeping the Law. Saint Chrysostome should haue gone amongst them there: For so C. W. B. quoted them vnto your hand: all that you could doe, was to part him from the Fellowship, and bring him in alone in this particular. And yet he hath nothing for supererogation: His plea is for possi­bility to keepe the Law, (of which in due place.) Now keeping of the Law reflecteth vpon Precept. Precepts and Counsels, in your owne Learning, by your owne Confession, are two distinct seuerals: Your prooses out [Page 107] of Scripture, were all for Counsels, not Precepts: and now Saint Chrysostome is summoned to speake for Pre­cepts: the possibility of keeping them. So, What would this man haue? what would he say? who floateth be­twixt Counsels and Precepts thus vncertaine, vp and downe he knoweth not whether.

XVI.

AQuestion of obscurity, which better might haue beene ouer-passed in silence; fitting ra­ther Schooles, then popular eares: especially the differences hanging on such niceties; and the controuerted particulars of no great moment in fine, vpon due examination. For it is confessed that free will is a Power of the reasonable Soule; and peculiar vnder Heauen to man, which is indued with freedome to doe, or not to doe: whereby they make choyce of one end rather then of another, and of some meanes ra­ther then of other, vpon aduice and deliberation of the vnderstanding, chiefe Councellor to the will.

This Power was conferred vpon man at first, in the day of his Creat on, when he was made a liuing Soule. In state of Nature intire, a naturall faculty, not any su­pernaturall endowment at all: whereby most freely and [Page 108] absolutely he was Lord of his owne actions, and could doe or not doe what he pleased and would. That liber­ty was much empaired by sinne, not extinct, or amoli­shed in corrupted Nature, such as now it is. The Coun­cell of Trent rightly so defineth it, Sess. 6. Cant. 5. And we professe, Non amissimus Naturam sed gratiam. As rightly is it by that Counsell determined, Liberum ar­bitrium non quidem extinctum esse, sed viribus atte­nuatum. The question is all of these vires remaining, and quatenus attenuatum liberum arbitrium: The Church of England, Artic. 10. concludeth thus. The condition of man after the fall of Adam, is such, that he cannot turne nor prepare himselfe by his owne naturall strength, and good workes, to faith and calling vpon God: Wherefore we haue no power to doe good workes, pleasant and acceptable vnto God, without the grace of God by Christ preuenting vs, that we may haue a good will and working with vs, when we haue that good will. Man is here considered in a two-fold state, of Nature depraued, and restored. In that, Free-will is denyed vn­to man, for workes of righteousnesse before conuersion; not for workes of Nature, or of Morality. In the se­cond, Free-will is granted vnto man, When we haue that good will, what is it else? and By our Free-will, assisted by Grace, worke out our saluation vnto the end. This is not that opinion condemned in the Councell of Trent: Sess 6. Can. 5. which taketh away free-will from man af­ter preuenting Grace, in cooperation vnto increase of Grace; for it is said, that Grace, infused first, and had, worketh together with our good will.

So it is not denyed, but free-will is, In vs, subsisting, [Page 109] not in title onely. It is not said, that by the [...]all of Adam wee haue vtterly lost all of vs our free-will, as if the Soule were cleane defeated and disfurnished of that Power: So that this blunderer stumbleth at a straw, and impudently belyeth our Profession. What some haue thought or taught, is nothing to vs. No Church is to be charged with priuate opinions. Man in state of Corruption, hath freedome of will in Actions Naturall and Ciuill: Secondly, Man in state of Corruption, hath free-will in matters Morall. Thirdly, Man hath free-will in Actions of Piety, and such as belong vnto his salua­tion: But quatenus, and quale, is the Question, as much amongst your selues, as with vs. For the concurrence of Grace assisting, with Free-will: The corresponden­cy of Free well, with Prescience, Prouidence, and Pre­destination, is much debated in your owne Schooles. Intricate Disputes are hereupon inferred: Questions al­most inextricable; such, as Armachanus studied twenty yeeres to resolue one of them, and was faine to giue it ouer without an [...], I haue found it. Wee resolue thus farre. First, with Saint Augustine, Lib. 1. cont. 2. Epistolas Pelagianorum cap. 2. Quis nostrum dicit, quod primi hominis peccato perierit arbitrium de hu­mano genere? Libertas quidem perijt per peccatum: sed illa quae in Paradiso fuit habendi plenā cum immor­talitate iustitiam: Doth any of vs affirme, that Free­will is perished vtterly from man by the fall of Adam? Freedome is perished, I grant by sinne: but that freedome which was in Paradise, of hauing righteousnesse with immortality. Againe, we confesse with the same Saint Augustine, Man is not meerely passiue in all workes of [Page 110] Grace, to glory: For, Qui creauit te sine te, non salua­bit te si [...]e te. He that made thee alone without thy helpe, will not saue thee alone without thy concurrance. Man is to worke, that will haue reward.

In Conclusion, the Condition of Man since the fall of Adam, is such, that he cannot turne, nor prepare himselfe to God, by, or through his owne naturall or humane power and strength. This is the Doctrine of the Church of England. Preuented by Grace, and assi­sted therewith, he then putteth to his hand to procure augmentation of that Grace, and continuance vnto the end. No man commeth to God, but hee is drawen. Drawen, hee runneth or walketh, as his assistance is, and his owne agility and disposition to the end. This is enough: And the wisdome of the Church hath not ventured farre, to put a tye of Obedience vpon mens beliefe, in points of inextricable obscurity almost, of the concordance in working of Grace, and Predestination with Free-will. Moderate spirits would well and wisely sit them downe by temperate courses, and not clamor without rage, where is no cause; nor delight to set the Peace of the Church on hurres, onely for faction, and some priuate sinister indirect ends of their owne.

Contrary to our owne Bibles, it is not which we reade, 1 Cor. 7. 37. He that standeth sted fast in his heart, hauing no necessity, but hath power ouer his owne will, and hath so decreed, that he will keepe his Virgin, doth well. So it is confessed he doth, and that hee may haue power so to doe: For, it is not absolute, as if euery one had such Power, but Conditionall: If any haue such Power. The Apostic saith; That man hath Power, if he be not tyed: [Page 111] which Text may as well demolish, as build vp Free-will. For here is supposed, at least some time, an ouer-awing, and ouer-commanding; Necessity, or Coaction. Again, this Freedome specified here, is but in bono morali, and no more. It may tend to Piety, I grant: but it is not in­tentione primâ; and directly it is onely occasionally, as else-where, 1 Cor. 9. Am I not free? or Acts 5. Was it not in thy Power? That of Deuter. 30. 19. is more to purpose. I call Heauen and Earth this day to record a­gainst you, that I haue set before you life and death, bles­sing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seede may liue. For this is directly in point of Piety, and performance of duty immediate vnto God. Neither was it spoken to men according to generall no­tion of them, and their generall state, in case of aliena­tion from God; in state of Nature onely, and Naturall endowments: of which it is consented, I thinke, They cannot choose life; but to men preuented by Grace, cal­led to Life, assisted with much and many concurrances of Grace: This is not contrary to our Tenent, as is plaine in the Article before alleaged.

That of Ioshua 24. 15. is to the same purpose, al­most in the very same words: one answere will serue to both. The Article denieth free-will quoad points of Pietie, to mere naturall men onely, in the state of de­prauation: but auoucheth it in state of Grace, with See more: Eccles. 15. 14. concurrence of Assistance Ecclesiasticus 15. 14. is not to purpose. The wise man speaketh of what was; not what is: in the state of innocency before the fall; not of deprauation being falne. God from the beginning made man, and left him in the hand of his owne coun­sell. [Page 112] In 2 Sam. 12. I finde not for freewill, but onely this Verse 17. that Dauid would not eate meate, but refused it: which place, if ignorantly alledged, pro­ueth this fellow, as hee hath beene discouered often, a plaine blunderer: if with aduise; a shamelesse slan­derer, that would impute vnto Protestants such a sencelesse assertion, that man had not free-will to eate if hee would, for such is the inference vpon that alle­gation.

In Matth. 23. 37. There is an opposition of mans wilfulnesse vnto Gods will. God would haue called Iudah: Iudah would not: therefore freely men re­nounce the calling of Grace: and freely runne them­selues, without any absolute irreuersible decree, vpon Perdition: which I graunt; being the purpose and in­tent of those succeeding Texts of Scripture, with ma­ny moe to purpose in Gods Booke. How this is done; how farre it extendeth, I list not to dispute. It is for Schooles, not for Pulpits; searching wits are at stand therein: common capacities must not be surcharged with it. It is wilfulnesse, or more, to deny free-will: and it is wisdome and truth to deny free-will: To de­ny Is it not then plaine wilful­nesse to denye Freewill? the being, is so. And I wish with Scotus in 1. dist. 39. that a man so wilfull were well cudgelled, vntill hee confessed, it stood in mans power to desist from beating him: But to giue such an absolute sway to free-will, as many doe, is little lesse than flat impiety against God; against Saint Paul I am sure; It is not of him that willeth, or him that runneth. Truth is in the middle betwixt two extreames, euermore, and here also.

[Page 113] What the Fathers teach wee know: and where See Fathers that affirme the same. S. Iren. Lib. 4. cap. 7. they exceede, interpret them gently as you also doe. For take them at large, and they lauish so farre some­time, that your greatest Patrons of free-will dare not ioyne issue with them: not as if those worthie lights did any way faile, or darkenesse possessed their cleare vnderstandings: but being to deale against fatall ne­cessity of the Pagans: against impieties of the Mani­chees, to cleare that imputation of belieuing, with­out further enquiry of resolution; they extended the power of freewill to the vtmost; especially, hauing then no cause to feare, ante mota certamina Pelagia­na; there being no Pelagius yet risen vp in the world, an enemy of Grace, and aduauncer of Nature beyond degrees of power or possibility. Thus your selues acknowledge as well as wee, and therefore to Ire­naeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Epiphanius, and (who hath much more to purpose than all the rest together) Chrysostome, though you name him not, because you knew it not: and to Augustine also in his former writings, it might so be answered, that they spake of free-will, not in respect of Grace, but of Nature; yet I will particularly fall in with you, to each seuerall Fa­ther in his order.

Irenaeus Lib. 4. cap. 7. hath these words, as your In­former C. W. B. setteth them downe. Almightie God hath put in man a power of Election, as well as he hath done in the Angels. And againe, cap. 72. If it were not in our power to doe or not to doe these things, what cause had the Apostle, and long before that, our Lord himselfe, to giue vs counsell what to doe, and from what [Page 114] to abstaine. This latter testimony is not in the Gagger: His Master hath it: and I alledge it, to let all Catho­liques see, what an Ideot this poore animall is. C. W. B. hauing produced these two Texts of Irenaeus, cited in his Margin lib. 4. cap. 7. and ibid. cap. 72. This goose, because hee would not gagge vs too much, made choyce of one, and wisely too; for, by errour of the Printer, it was put cap. 7. in which Chapter is nothing to purpose; not a word of Angels, or of free­will: whereas it should haue beene cap. 71. Which hee not knowing, because hee hath all by retaile: a poore fellow, that (I thinke) knoweth not who Ire­naeus was, followed the errour of the Printer, and so sent vs to see nothing there. But let him passe: To the place I answere. Irenaeus attributeth vnto man, as hee may, free-will, before and after his fall: but so, after, as with Grace, to men in state of Grace. The discourse is long, and to purpose; but mis-alledged heere, and mis-applyed by the Gagger.

Epiphanius, how commeth hee in betwixt Irenaeus and Tertullian? being so much younger than eyther of them: especially, rightly disposed in the Instructor. Howsoeuer, I answere, that hee there disputeth a­gainst the Pharises: one of whose opinions was, that all things came to passe through fatal necessity. Which being so, there can be no choyce, nor free-will. But experience sheweth, and Scripture cleareth it, there is free-will: therefore fatall necessitie is not at all. As true as Gospel: Nothing touching vs, who graunt it as much as themselues doe, that obiect thus vnto vs.

[Page 115] Tertullian in his second Booke against Marcion: the Chapter you knew not, because you were not told; for your Instructor had it not. It is Chapter V. dis­courseth thus. He proueth against Marcion, that God created all things out of goodnesse, because hee was good. Nor was the fall of man any worke of his at all, but to be imputed vnto free-will. A power and facultie originally in man, according to Gods good­nesse, and mans nature and condition. Who could not haue deserued well or ill: nor haue beene puni­shed or rewarded, except hee had beene left vnto his owne choyce, and not necessitated vnto either. Thus he, at large; and thus also we. Contenting himselfe with the generall being, working, and concurring of Free-will, which wee deny not, with Gods grace.

Not to trouble the Reader with any moe. This is enough that which is questioned, is as well questio­ned at home with the Church of Rome themselues, as with and betwixt vs: that which heere is proued, is not questioned: Homini dedit Deus eligendi arbitri­um quod sequatur. Ante hominem vita & mors: si deliqueris, non Natura in culpa est, sed defectus eligen­tis. Wee beleeue it, (as well as the Author of the Hy­pognosticon, vnder Saint Austines name) with the certaintie of our faith, and preach it as an vndoubted verity, that in man there is free-will. And with Saint Augustine himselfe, Lib. 1. de Ciuit. Wee are no way enforced, either by admitting Gods prescience, to take away the freedome of mans will: or by admitting the freedome of mans will to deny, which were an haynous matter, Gods fore-knowledge of the things to come: but [Page 116] both wee embrace, both mee freely and faithfully con­fesse. Thus that iudicious Father in C. W. B. though wee can hardly explicate the concurrence of both: and thinke it not fit to discourse vnto vulgar capacities of such mysticall poynts. Will it content you? Our con­clusion and yours is all one. Wee cannot deny free­dome of will: which who-so doth, is no Catholique: no nor Protestant.

XVII.

THe Commandements of God are per­fect, euen as himselfe is perfect: and therefore the rule of our life and acti­ons, in ordine ad Deum, for the attai­ning of eternall happinesse in Heauen: all of them tendered vnto vs vnder that condition, and high commaunding forme, Do this and liue for euer, the stile, in ordinary, vnto the Law of the highest: a condition so requisite in euery part, that the Delinquent but in one, is guilty of all, and lyable vnto punishment for breach of all.

Humane Lawes are commonly but vpon misde­meanors precedent, to be corrected and preuented: For, ex malis moribus bonae Leges: good Lawes come from euill lines: as Phisicke is [...], Restora­tiue, [Page 117] to repaire empayrings in the outward man. But Gods Law, as all his waies are saide to be, was of ano­ther fashion; elder than transgression; was Doe this and liue: as Physicke is also [...] preserua­tiue, to preuent the disease before it breake out: to keepe off transgression not yet in being, God gaue the Law.

When it was first said to man, Doe this and liue, there was no question of possibility to doe it. God at the first made man right, saith the sonne of Syrach, and left him in the hands of his owne counsell. Hee might not haue eaten, God did not compell or neces­sitate him ot it: which if hee had done, hee had liued for euer. Such was his case, his state, and his abilitie in his originall being. The Law was then verbum ab­breuiatum; Thou shalt not eate. One word, not tenne words, as anon afterwards. The annexum then the same which afterwards: If thou eate, thou shalt dye the death. The commaundement enlarged vnto more particulars, as Sinne increased: but the condition still the same, liue, or dic: so that the Law was elder than transgression, and had respect, not to weakenesse as it is now, but to power and possibilitie; which man then had, when as first the commandement Doe this, went forth to be obserued.

Then it was possible to keepe the Law. God com­maunded that which man might haue done. The que­stion is of possibility since, whether or no it be now possible which was then. Touching which possibility, and impossibility, I answere out of your owne schoole learning with Durand. Lib. 1. dist. 42. qu. 2. There is a [Page 118] two-fold possibilitiy and impossibilitie. First, a thing is possible in respect of actiue or passiue power and ca­pabilitie incident naturally. As thus. It is possible that the fire should heate and warme mee actiuely: and I be warmed of the fire passiuely: because there is that naturall actiue power in the fire to doe it: and that naturall passiue capability in mee to receiue it. So that is saide to be impossible, as many wayes, where there is no such power nor capability in the creature, as, viz. for a man to flye, or a worme to walke.

Secondly, a thing is possible, when there is a certaine habitude, reference, proportion, and correspondency betwixt the termes: as betwixt a man and a liuing creature: the one hath an habitude vnto the other. Impossible is, where no such habitude is: as euen and odde; two and three: It is not possible, that what is euen should be odde: or what is odde should be euen: that two should be three: or three become two. Here is implyed a contradiction: as in this, Truth to be false: God deny himselfe. Thus contradictorily, it is pos­sible, not impossible to keepe Gods commandement: For there is no contradiction implied here. There is an habitude betwixt the termes. For there was in man created, as he came forth of the hands of his Maker, an actiue power to obserue them: and in them, when they were tendred, a passiue possibility to be obser­ued; which one day shall come againe into act, name­ly, in that state of perfection in Heauen. But at present, as the state now standeth, this capability is not an­swered: this possibility is not brought into act, in re­gard of fore-staling hindrances and impeachments. [Page 119] And so our answere is vnto that question, Whether it be possible for a man to keepe the Law and Commande­ments of God, Negatiue: It is not possible for a man in ordinary course of Nature, stantibus vt nunc, to attaine to that perfection in this life, to keepe the Commandements precisely.

I say in ordinary course it is not possible, because of impeachments. But simply it is not impossible for God, because there is an habitude betwixt the termes, to aduance man in nature, by a speciall and peculiar assistance of Grace, to that height of perfection, to keepe all the Commandements of God. It is not im­possible: for the power: yet for act, set Christ Iesus aside, it was neuer done since the fall of Adam. Nor standing the ordinary course of Nature, and dispen­sation of Grace, shall euer be done in this world. For to keepe the Commandements, is to be without sin, to keepe them all, and singular, in all poynts, at all times: not in some things onely at all times. Nor in all things at sometimes onely.

Thus then, that is possible which man can doe: that falleth within the verge of his Power to doe. Either meerely of himselfe, or else by assistance of some con­current. It is confessed, I suppose, that no man of him­selfe, in himselfe considered, can possibly now keepe all Gods Commandemenrs. For there being two origi­nals of Actions in Agents, Power and Will; a man may haue power to doe, but no will. As Diues had to releeue Lazarus. A man may haue will, and no power; as Agar had to relieue her sonne Ismael almost affamished. To an Act consummate, both Power and Will must con­curre. [Page 120] Et Non caret effectu quod voluere duo: Either mans will is wanting to doe what he can; or his power not sufficient to doe what hee would. Now for Assi­stance, where man faileth of himselfe, he must haue re­course vnto some abetting hability. As the man in pri­son, that cannot helpe himselfe, must be relieued by some other. God must here doe it, or none else: for, of him is all our sufficiency and might. God can by his Power, which is illimited, aduance any thing so farre vnto perfection, as hee will not doe it, in regard of his owne purpose and decree: in regard of order, and course in Nature. He can make Nature now altogether pure, as he did at first by supernaturall endowments; and as hee will doe at last in confirmed state of Glory: But things standing as they doe, and must, he will not doe it; and so it is impossible for man to attaine it, but onely by some dispensation, and peculiar eleuation: but in such cases of singularity, it must Constare what God wil doe. If it be a word gone out of his mouth, it is not impos­sible: if he haue said it, it is impossible. Take here heed then least we iustle his will and power together; which doing, we shall fasten many incongruities, absurdities, and inconueniences vpon his Courses, and Dispensati­ons in the World.

Againe, Man as he is patient, in respect of God as­sisting, though Agent in himselfe, and his performing, must be considered three wayes; in a threefold state, for a threefold time, as hath already beene touched: Of Nature, Grace, and Glory. And that of Nature, two wayes: Made by God, with all sufficiency; depraued by the Diuell, to all dissability: As once it was, as now [Page 121] it is. The Question is not meant of Naturall state, at all; what then man could doe: Any thing then, what now he can doe: Nothing at all now. Nor is it intended of the State of Glory, what hee shall be able then to doe. It is a state of perfection confessed vpon all hands; of Perfection, without any Imperfections: And there­fore performable euery way of all Gods Commande­ments, in all points, and at all times: but the question is, of ordinary Grace in Regeneration, how farre it doth or may enable him now in this World.

Thirdly, that to keepe Gods Commandements, is to obserue and doe what God commandeth to be done. Not onely in part, as to keepe precisely and to an haire, some of the Statutes; or some branches, or clauses of those Statutes: or at sometimes onely, but for euer; in all parts: of any one, and euery Commandement, all points must be kept and obserued.

Fourthly, wee consider what they command, and how: which is comprehended in two heads. Spirituall Obedience, from and with the Heart: Perfect Obedience, with all the Heart. For, as God is a Spirit, so those that worship him, must worship him in spirit and in truth: not onely externally, with cap and knee. God is perfect, and accordingly the rule is; Be you perfect, as I am per­fect. Such as he is, such be his Lawes; and such obedi­ence vnto his Lawes is required of him that serueth God: But still seruatis subiecti proprietatibus, as the sub­iect is capable of perfection. For nothing can be per­fect, as God is perfect: that is, in the selfe-same degree of Perfection; for so it should be God; but respectiuely perfect, in conformation like vnto him, as humane per­fections [Page 122] can be enabled, not in iust proportion.

God requireth not perfection as himselfe hath it, nor yet perfection exceeding the proportion of the Sub­iect. Not the same here, which is required in Heauen; nor here of all men alike: but as he scattereth, so he re­quireth; as hee hath conferred two Talents, or fiue, so he exacteth. So that, at last to adde limits to this ro­uing Proposition, I resolue it thus: No man in the state of Grace regenerate, by any ordinary course or assi­stance of Grace, euer did or can obserue all the Com­mandements of God, in euery part; no, not in that de­gree which God hath fitted him vnto, and requireth of him, at all times: At some time he may, in some parti­culars; or peraduenture in all particulars in some time, or some particulars in all time. Now let vs see how the Texts contrary this: or how the Fathers are of another opinion.

Philip. 4. 13. I can doe all things in Christ that ena­bleth Contrary to express words of their owne Bible. me. Therefore keepe the Commandements of God. Therefore any man may doe it: Therefore euery man may keepe them. As if whatsoeuer Saint Paul could doe, might haue beene performed by any ordina­ry Christian: As if Saint Paul were not a man alone, of transcendent endowments, beyond ordinary alloy; who saith of himselfe, He was in sufferings beyond them all: who faith of himselfe, Hee was rapt vp into the third Heauen, and heard things that neuer man heard. Secondly, what All things could hee doe? He that saith, All, ex [...]mpteth none; and so you take it at a large extent. Could he make Contradictions true? could hee Prophecy, or speake with Tongues, where, and when [Page 123] he would? Could hee walke on the Waters, or in the Ayre at pleasure? And yet he saith; I can doe all things. All things extended, includeth these things. Other­wise, Quo warranto doth it follow, that amongst those All things, which Saint Paul could doe, the kee­ping of Gods Commandements should be ranked? If it be reioyned, That must be included. I reply, it is the Question: and so ought to be proued, not begged.

Againe, I answere; Pauls performing, goeth no far­ther then Christs enabling: I can doe all things. But how? In Christ inabling me. That is, so farre as Christ should or did inable him: but how appeareth that this is one of those things, in which, or whereto Christ would inable him? So againe, this is the question, and must be proued, not begged; beside, Christ might ena­ble him now, and not anon: many times, but not euer; in some things inable him, not in all.

And yet farther, that All, hath a limitation. All those things he could doe, of the which he spake, viz. want, and abound; suffer and endure prosperity and ad­uersity alike, through the Grace of Christ Iesus which did assist him. So Chrysostome, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Lombard, Thomas, Lyra, Caietan: So the Text it selfe to any man that shall but view it, Saint Paul meant no­thing lesse, then that in the whole course of his life, hee was able to keepe the entire Law of GOD, in euery point, which is the state to be made good, and yet was Saint Paul able to doe and performe as much, as any other man could performe.

1 Iohn 5. 3. This is the loue of God, that wee keepe his Commandements. It is so: and what of that? Herein [Page 124] we shew our loue to God, that we keepe his Comman­dements: That is, in effect, as we loue him, so we keepe his Commandements; and as we keepe his Comman­dements, so we loue him. Perfect or imperfect: in all or in part it is not said. Indeed, we loue in part, not as wee should; we keepe his Commandements in part, not as we should, or would in all.

But his Commandements are not grieuous. What of that? Therefore possible to be kept in euery point, at all times, by any man? I deny that. For, I see no such se­quell to be inferred. Grieuous, is simply or respectiuely. In regard of those many incumbrances of Moses Law, the Law of Christ Iesus was not grieuous. Againe, a thing may be weighty, and yet not in reputation or esteeme, vnto some men; who will runne with that weight easily, or vndergoe that burthen willingly. For to a willing minde, what is grieuous, though it be im­pregnable, inexpugnable, impossible? The Heathen man could tell vs, that the Romane Legions went often with alacrity vpon that peece of Seruice, from whence they knew and were assured, they should neuer come off with life. Weighty and insupportable are two things. Weighty and grieuous, are two things. To those that loue God, nothing is heauy for God: not for the thing it selfe, but because of Loue; which maketh that seeme light, which indeed is heauy, and giueth men, if not actiuity beyond power, yet will beyond possibility of Power to doe.

See more. But first heare a reason, that interlopeth betwixt these testimonies of holy Writ. A reason or two: for so it is. The first, A man is not bound to impos­sibilities: [Page 125] but a man is bound to keepe the Commande­ments, Briefly, if the Commande­ments were impossible, they could binde no man: For it is not to bee conceiued, how one should sinne, in a thing which hee could not possibly auoid. and is lyable to punishment for breach of them. I answere: It is true, no man is tyed to simple Impossi­bilities, where there is no habitude betwixt the termes. As to be immortall in this life; to flye, or walke in the Ayre, or on the Waters. Such impossibility is not be­twixt the Law of God, and mans performance. Se­condly, when the Commandements were giuen, there was not onely a possibility, but ability and sufficiency in man to keepe Gods Law: For in effect and substance it was all one, Eate and dye, with Doe this and liue. The particulars were explained in time, the Nature of Obligation altered not: If since there hath accrued an impossibility of Consequence, what is this to that suf­ficiency which was before, when the Law was first giuen; and man tyed to Obedience, as Adam was?

Againe, it is confessed with Saint Augustine, that It is not to be conceiued how one should sin in a thing which hee could not pos­sibly auoid. sinne is not sinne, except it be voluntary He that cannot possibly auoid necessity of sinning, is iniuriously dealt withall, if he be punished for sinning: But no man is so necessitated, either actiuely in regard of the ouer-awing and determining decree of God, vnauoidable, vnresista­ble. No man is so necessitated passiuely. For, as hath beene said, betwixt mans Actiue possibility, and the Passiue possibility of Gods Law, there was at first, na­turally is, and finally shall be, a Correspondency. If in­terim, stantibus vt nunc, impediments, incumbrances make it impossible, man may thanke himselfe that hath lost his power of performing.

Now see more, and see as little. Ecclus. 15. 15. a place twice or thrice alleaged by this Trifler against the Pro­testants, [Page 126] whom hee knoweth not to receiue the Booke as Canonicall: and therefore not bound to stand vnto the authority of the same, or subscribe vnto the asserti­on. But I quarrell it not: I accept the authority, and an­swere it out of the Text. They obserue his Commande­ments so farre, as to doe their best, and testifie their good will. Which proueth, in his opinion, rather a de­fect, then any possibility of perfection. If thou wilt, thou shalt obserue the Commandements, and testifie thy good will.

Ezech. 36. 27. I will put my spirit in the middest of you, and will make you to walke in my statutes. It is the effect and operation of Gods Spirit to doe this. But the Prophet doth not say; They shall not stumble, nor fall, as many walkers doe, who yet attaine their iournies end in peace, and goe on in their course with commen­dation. The Prophet addeth: And you shall keepe my Iudgements, and doe them. I will take no aduantage vpon the word Iudgements; Let it goe for the morall Law of God. He keepeth the Law, that doth what hee can: and hath defects and infirmities pardoned him. As Dauid is said to haue done, who yet fell foule moe times then one.

Mathew 11. 30. speaketh of a yoake, the same in ef­fect with 1 Iohn 5. 3. That which is not heauy to bee borne, is not impossible to be kept: but Gods Comman­dements are not heauy: for they are the yoake, which Christ saith, is easie. I answere, Christ speaketh not pri­marily of Gods Commandements there, but of the Polity of Grace in the Gospell of Peace, in regard of the Polity of the Law, to which hee preferreth it as [Page 127] easier, and lesse cumbersome, for causes well collected and obserued by Maldonate out of the Fathers. You may see other expositions in Iansenius: but nothing for your dreame of perfection.

Againe, in this argumentation, that which is not heauie to be borne, is not impossible to be kept; the Pro­position is absolutely false. For it is iugum, though dulce: as feathers are onus, though alleuians: as wheeles, though cause of motion, vnto a Coach.

Matthew 19. 17. Is not to purpose. The question is not, whether To keepe Gods Commandements be the ready way and means to enter into life: that Scripture saith so, and Protestants approue it, for them that can doe it. But whether no man otherwise entreth in­to life: whether euery one that entreth into life, hath personally kept Gods Commandements: whether it be possible for them to doe it, This Protestants deny. This that Scripture saith not. Againe, it is not heere proposed as a condition vnto him, but as a Conuicti­on; who came in the vanitie of his minde, trusting in his owne worth. And is proposed as a necessary im­plication of the Law vnto him, who was a Lawyer by Profession, and proposed his question onely De faci­endis, the Tenor of the Law: not de credendis, the Tenet of the Gospell. And doubtlesse if Saluation be sought by onely doing, the workes of the Law must needes be done. But how doth this follow, if those that seeke Saluation by their owne worke, must be put ouer to performe the workes of the Law, therefore all men must precisely keepe the law? the foolish pre­sumption of some foole hardy vndertaker, is no preiu­dice [Page 128] vnto wiser men. Nor tye for them to venture on the same follies.

Iohn 14. 15. If you loue mee keepe my Commande­ments. And adde if you will in the same Chapter, If any man loue mee hee will keepe my word. And Chap­ter 15. If you keepe my Commandements, you abide in my loue. All which, and others of that Nature, proue this, Gods Commandements must be kept: they con­clude not the manner and measure of the thing, How, wherein, how farre they may be kept. Secondly, I answere out of Iansenius, Christ doth not vnderstand the whole Law of God; but some part of the Law of the New Testament: ea scilicet quae modo tradidi, of Faith in mee: and Loue amongst your selues. Nor doth our Sauiour here promise any ability to doe it: or specifie any performance of it: but exhorteth them rather to shew their loue vnto him, by striuing to doe what hee gaue them in charge, rather than to weepe and take-on for his departure. Thus Iansenius one of your owne side.

Rom. 13. 8. He that hath charity hath fulfilled the Law. True, hee that hath it in gradu summo: but e­uery Regenerate man hath charitie. True, at least in remisse degrees. Saint Paul speaketh of the Perfection of Charity; and of perfect fulfilling of the Law; or else of Charity with imperfections: and so of answe­rable fulfilling of the Law. Euery true regenerate man hath Charity. True: and so fulfilleth the Law in ha­uing it. But sometime more, sometime lesse: and so accordingly fulfilleth the Law. Againe, the Apostle saith by way of supposition, He that hath charity: [Page 129] hee doth not auouch that any man hath it, so as is sufficient totally to fulfill the Law. So that at least, the text cited is not to purpose. Beside, Saint Paul infer­reth it by way of exhortation, Because it is the fulfil­ling of the Law. And the nearer a man commeth vnto perfect loue, the nearer hee is to fulfill the Law. Now in Exhortations to performance, we vse to ayme at the highest, and set vp the best, for markes and obiects. Which the Apostle did: not as perswaded all men would attaine, or could attaine vnto it, but to incite them to indeauour vtterly.

Iosua 11. 15. 22. 5. Psalm. 17. 3. Luke 1. 6. are ex­amples of men that are remembred to haue walked in Gods Commandements, and kept his Lawes. A thing done; therefore not impossible to be done. To which I answere, first, as this Rouer shooteth his bolt at them, there is no consequence: Some men haue done it, ther­fore euery man, or any man, may doe it: For they happely might doe it by extraordinary assistance; and by miraculous grace: but the Proposition is of ordi­nary course. Secondly, it is no where said that these holy men, all of them, at all times, did keepe all the Commandements of God. They did their best, and it was accepted by God.

That of Ioshua is to be taken and vnderstood, onely of one particular kinde; Namely the execution of Gods iustice vpon the Cananites, and the Inhabitants of the Land of Canaan: And yet hee failed euen in that, and kept not all, as is cleare in the case of the Gibeonites. The man as well might haue brought out Moses and Aron, whose commendation is, That, as the Lord [Page 130] commanded, so did they. And yet we know there were some things, in which they failed both: for which cause they entred not into the Land of Canaan ouer Iordan.

Dauid saith, Psalm. 17. 3. That there was no ini­quity in him. Which if you take at full extent, you must answere your Proselites vnto this Question, What was the Case of Vriah and his Wife, if hee kept all the Commandements of God: and no iniquitie was found in him? Sure we must take it of the time be­fore his fall. And suppose the Psalme to haue beene made before that. For in that action hee cannot be ex­cused. He notoriously broke the Law in two enormi­ous sinnes, of Murther & Adultery at one time: Then, there was iniquitie in his hands; at least.

That of Zacharie and Elizabeth, is of more impor­tance, Luke 1. For it is said, They walked in all the Commandements of God without blame. But first one singular example is not concluding for all, or for a common course. It neuer was denied, but God might, extraordinarily, aduance some one or other vnto such an height of Perfection, as fully and perfectly to keepe all his commandements poynt per poynt. God might haue done it: but hee neuer did it. Neuer man attained such a pitch. Secondly, it is not said, that They kept the commandements of God, which was this mans vndertaking. But they walked in them: in which course they might haue rubbes, diuersions, pul­backes, slidings, fals. Then, they walked in them, vn­taxable, vnblameable, not complained of. Not that God could finde no fault with them, but that men [Page 131] could not blame them; nor say, blacke is their eye. Gods eyes are tenne thousand times brighter than the Sunne, and can discry blemishes where men cannot. The keeping his Commaundements must not be ac­cording to the view and censure of men, but after the estimate of God. But they were iust before him too. So they might be, and yet not keepe all his Comman­dements. For euen the iust man falleth seauen times a day. Perfection is three-fold, in different degrees: Actuall euer, and in being: incident onely to the Saints in glory. Actuall not in-being, but desire: re­ferring all euermore vnto God, by consecrating all vn­to his Glory. And Habituall, when in purpose a man loueth God aboue all, and is ready to leaue all other things for Gods sake. This man is vnblameable euen before God: not because hee cannot be reprehended: but because hee is not reprehended; God in mercy accepting his will and desire, for his deed. Thus Bel­larmine himselfe hath answered the place, being to oppose the Pelagians. Many moe places might be al­ledged, to as little purpose, which either proue that which is not denied: or proue it in part, and so are de­fectiue. Now Fathers wee may see, to as little pur­pose, some few heere remembred. His good Master C. W. B. could haue afforded him moe. The first is, Origen hom. 9. in Iosua. But what hee saith, the good simple man knoweth not, because his instructor did not let him vnderstand, as being not fully informed from Bellarmine, himselfe. But thus it standeth. Ori­gen, figuratiuely, as his manner is, maketh these sorts of men in the Church: Viros, mulieres, infantes, pro­selytos. [Page 132] Those whom hee compareth vnto Women, he exhorteth, to striue what they may, to attaine to per­fection of Men in christianitie. Now hee calleth them Mulieres, comparing them to Women, who say, I cannot doe as it is written; Goe sell all, and giue it to the poore: nor yet turne to him my other cheeke that striketh mee vpon one: nor blesse him that curseth mee. Caetera similia quae mandantur, qui dicit implere non possum, quid tibi videtur aliud, quàm inter mulieres, quae nihil virile possunt, esse numerandus? Hee that faith, I cannot doe these, and such other things as these, which be commaunded, seemeth hee not worthily to be accounted amongst women? Origen heere speaketh of Perfection, and degrees of Proficiency. Who questi­oneth it? and insinuateth that a man might keepe those Precepts of the Gospell. Who Doubteth of it? but doth Origen say it is possible, for a man to keepe all the Commandements of God? Shew me that, and I haue done.

Cyril Lib. 4. contra Iulian: So your director told you; perhaps through error of the Printer. And you good Innocent, belieued him. But go consult with Cy­ril, and you shall finde it in his third Booke, about the middle, as Bellarmine directed your Director. In the Law it was written, as saith Cyril there, Thou shalt not couet. It is possible, to keepe this Commaunde­ment, saith Bellarmine, through assistance of Grace, and so, not to couet at all. Which thing, if St. Cyryl said, hee said not onely more than hee can make good, but more also than is required. More than Bellarmine would haue him say, or doth desire at his hands. Nay [Page 133] more than he would approue in him, or make good, if he should say it. For Non concupiscec, thou shalt not couet, goeth on so farre, as to exclude, euen veniall sins. Which needeth not. For our Masters yeelde vnto them, and exclude no more but mortall sinnes. It is possible to fulfill the Law. Why? Because the Law forbiddeth and condemneth onely mortall sinnes. But a man cannot possibly auoide veniall sinnes. Those therefore the Law forbiddeth not. They may be Prae­ter, beside the intent of the Law: They are not contra against the Law. Againe, Non concupisces, pricketh vp to that fomes peccati, the sourse, nurse, and fomentati­on of sinne, which our Masters confesse, is not extinct, cannot cease in the Regenerate. If Saint Cyril saide, that Non concupisces, may be performed: that is, that the sustentation of Sinne may cease, he said that which Bellarmine will not defend. And you, Sir Puny, what are you? For in this life, that fomes peccati ceaseth not; which your men maintaine against Prosper Dys [...] ­deus, or Faustus Socinus, and such impes of Sathan.

But indeede, nor so, nor so, Cyril restrayneth Non concupisces, thou shalt not couet or desire, vnto one particular Act, obiectiuely, the not-lusting after or de­siring of a Woman. This Christ forb [...]d beyond the Law: which at least was taken by them to inhibite no more but the outward act. And this may be done: many haue done it, I make no question. As for Con­cupiscence in generall, it is apparant hee held it not, as is imagined: and held it altogether vnmasterable; for hee saith, Res est, vt opinor, ad quam pertingi nequeat: It is in my opinion of that condition, as no man can at­taine [Page 134] vnto, vtpote incomprehensibilis & quodam modo supra naturam, as being out of mans reach, and com­passe altogether, and in a sort aboue the assise of Nature. Thus Cyril, albeit hee nameth Concupiscence, yet ta­keth it not so, as the aduersary pretendeth, for any Concupiscence, in large extent, but onely in specie for that kinde of Concupiscence, and no more, which is in carnall affection to a Woman. Many haue attained vn­to this perfection: neuer any vnto that, but Iesus Christ, in one flesh, without sinne. Saint Hilary vpon Psalm. 118. saith somewhat, it seemeth, but not that which you would haue him say. It is not hard, are his words, if our will be but present to fulfill the Com­maundement of God. Thus your Master C W. B. out of Bellarmine, jugler as hee was: and thus you, as false a Traytour as hee As if it had beene Saint Hilaries minde, A man that will may easily keepe the Com­maundements; and whole Law of God, who nor said it, nor yet thought it: For hee vpon these words, of the 119. Psalm. Thy Commandement is exceeding large, expoundeth large in a two fold sence. First, because the knowledge of Gods Law doth infinitely extend and aduance the vnderstanding of mans Ignorance: that is, Make ignorant men to vnderstand and know very much: Or else, because there are many parts of it: many dueties required in it: so that hee which can­not keepe one, may keepe another: and please God in one, as hee may displease him in another. It neither be­ing required of any man to performe all: nor possible for any man, to performe all. How like you this Do­ctrine Sir? This is Hilaries resolution? thus and no [Page 135] other way he concludeth, that it i [...] possible to keepe the Law. You shall haue his words at large: not, as they are curtailed by false knaues, to deceiue men. Latum plauè est, siue quod in infinitum cognitionem humanae ignorantiae extendit: Siue quod multa sunt in quib us Dei praecept is obtemperatur at (que) placetur, secundum di­uisiones & munera gratiarum. Non enim abomnibus omnia expectantur: ne (que) vniuersi vniuersa ad summam placendi implere possunt. Alius [...]nio placet: Simpli­citate fidei promeretur alius: alius vitia eleemosynis re­dimit, &c. Latum igitur mandatum Dei est, & in om­nia spei nostrae genera diffunditur, vt non difficile sit praecepto Domini obtemperare, cum latum & diffusum sit ad placendum officiosae religionis varietate. It is then particular obedience which he speaketh of, to any one point or precept of the Law. Hilary to that purpose sets it downe praecepto, not praeceptis, not vnto the whole Law, as is pretended. So that much collusion hath been in this Testimony. First by Bellarmine, who taketh it by halfes for his aduantage. Then by our English Suc­cedor, who geldeth it more, to make it serue as an Eu­nuch, the Babylonian turnes.

Next Saint Basil pronounceth it an impiety to say, Lastly, Saint Basill who saith it is an impious thing to say, that the comman­dements of God are im­possible. Impossibilia esse spiritus sancti praecepta. Our English Iugler representeth it. That the Commandements of God are impossible. Of God. For of the Spirit. Why? what materiall difference? The Spirit is God: and God is a Spirit. Yet a difference betwixt the Commande­ments of God, and, Commandements of the Spirit. For marke. Saint Basil explaining those words, Attende tibi, saith, they may be conceiued of two wayes. Cor­porally: [Page 136] looke to thy Body, and the things thereof. Spi­ritually; and that which appertaineth vnto the state of thy Soule. And he addeth, they must be taken for the things of the soule: because, that which God comman­deth, as you will haue it, or as he speaketh, The Com­mandements of the Spirit, are not impossible. But to at­tend a mans body corporally, is impossible: For it cannot be, that euery part of a mans body should be so perpetually in his Eye, as that attendance be still vpon it. The Eye cannot discerne it selfe, nor yet any part of the head, the backe, or inward parts. This is impossible: therefore this is not the meaning. For the Spirit would not command things impossible: that is, impossible in themselues, where there is an impossibility betwixt the termes. So that in Saint Basil, impossibility, is that im­possibility which is not actionis susceptiua. For as Ha­lensis obserueth; the Irrefragable Doctor. Possibility is of two kinds. Actiua, and Actionis susceptiua. Par. 3. memb. 5. art. 1. Now no man saith it is impossible to keepe any, or all Gods Commandements; because in, and of themselues, they are not keepeable. The Eye is not susceptiua actionis, to behold or see the things be­hind. But that which the Spirit there commandeth, is in it selfe possible to be done. So Basil saith as little to the purpose, as any other Writer doth whatsoeuer; being arightly vnderstood, and not peruerted in his meaning. See Basil, and if this be not his meaning, let me be held as honest as this Gagger, that peruerteth his sence a contrary way, that is, a false knaue.

Hierome lastly, in his third Booke against the Pela­gians, who pleaded then, as our Romane Catholiques [Page 137] doe now, hath these words: God hath commanded, things possible. No man doubteth. Possible in them­selues, absolutely: though not to vs, as the Case now standeth respectiuely. Possible vnto vs, when they were first commanded: though not so possible, since the com­mandement. For God made man right, and gaue him a Law: Since that hee hath intangled himselfe many wayes. Possible now in part, though not in all: to some men, albeit not generally vnto all. It plainly appeareth what Hierome meant: for he addeth, Sed quia homines possibilia non faciunt, idcircò omnis mundus subditus est Deo, & indiget misericordiâ eius. But because men doe not that which of it selfe is possible, therefore all the World is subiected vnto God, and standeth in neede of his mercy. So that hee explaineth his owne meaning: They were possible in themselues, though not possible vnto man. Secondly, some things possible at some time, to some men, though not to all men at all times. And so is that to be vnderstood which Bellarmine hath out of the same Hierome in Mat. 5. omitted by this Colle­ctor; because not found in his good Founder C. W. B. Multi praecepta Dei, imbecillitate suâ, non Sanctorum viribus aestimantes, putant esse impossibilia, quae praecepta sunt; to wit, those Precepts explained vpon the Law, Loue your enemies, Doe good to those that hate you: Et dicunt sufficere virtutibus, non edisse inimicos. Caeterum Diligere plus praecipi, quam humana Natura patiatur: Sciendum est ergo Christum non impossibilia praecipere, sed perfecta. Quae fecit Dauid in Saul & Absolon. Ste­phanus quo (que) Martyr, pro inimicis lapidantibus depre­catus est. Many men, measuring the Commandements [Page 138] of God, not by the performings of Saints, but their owne weaknesse, account things impossible, by God commanded, and account it enough for a vertuous man, not to hate his enemies: As for that, To loue them, it is a Precept beyond humane possibility. But wee must know, Christ commanded not impossible, but perfect things. Such as Dauid did in Saul, and towards Absolon. And that bles­sed Martyr Stephen, prayed for them that stoned him. So it is not obscure what the Fathers meant by that, It is possible to keepe the L [...]w. In it selfe not impossible. At some times not impossible. In part not impossible, they neuer came to this presumption. Any man: at any time: All the Law.

Therefore Iustine Martyr against Tryphon saith, vpon that Text, Cursed is euery one that doth not obserue all the Precepts of the Law to doe them. [...]. Your selues dare not say it, (and what the Iewes durst not say, you dare sweare;) that any man hath per­fectly kept them all. But there are that haue obser­ued some more, some lesse, in those things that were commanded. I grant with Hierome, Lib. 2. c. Pela­gian: That many men haue liued iust and righteous. But I doe not grant that euer any man was without sinne: Sine omni autem peccato fuisse, omnino non assen­tior. If any man imagine hee hath obtained that perfe­ction, Aut superbus aut stultus est, He is no letter then a proud foole. All that I can challenge in the height of my perfection, is, but onely that of Saint Augustine, Meritum meum, misericordia Domini; The mercies of [Page 139] the most high, are my merits. Therefore wee professe with earnest deprecation, Enter not into iudgement with thy seruants O Lord: For in thy sight shall no flesh be iustified. And, If thou shalt be seuere to marke what is done amisse, who, O Lord, shall endure it?

Iob neuer aduanced his perfection, to the fulfilling of all that God commanded, though 27. 6. he vseth those words in your Translation, Non reprehendit me Cor meum. My heart hath not reproued me, all my dayes. For his meaning is, As long as I liue I will maintaine my Innocency, that I haue not dissembled in my heart. This I will stand to euerlastingly, and not betray my owne Cause. Otherwise as Saint Gregory hath obserued here, Se pe [...]cesse superius accusat. He hath formerly accu­sed himselfe of sinne. Nor doth God excuse him from all breach of the Commandement, who giueth him that Testimony, 1. 22. Ioh did not sinne. For it is limited, In all this: and yet not sinne in that sort, as to Charge God with iniustice. Sciendum est: We are to know, saith Gregory, that there are some kinde of sinnes which the righteous men canauoid: and there are sinnes which the most righteous cannot auoid. If sins: then needs against some Commandement. For no Sinne, but is a Trans­gression of the Law. If against the Law: then the Law is not kept in doing them: and if the most Righteous cannot but doe them, surely the most Righteous cannot keepe the Law. This was once the Doctrine of the Ro­mane Church: For Gregory hath it, that was Bishop of Rome; in his Morals, Lib. 27. and 7 Chapter vpon Iob. Hath that Church then left her ancient Faith?

XVII.

COntrouersies are sometime multiplied vn­necessarily, by these Romance Catholiques; to iangle the more: and sometime hudled vp by confounding many, to deceiue the more: as in this present Question of Faith iustifying: a great Controuersie: And workes concurring: as maine a diuersity, vnto Saluation. Though distinction of parts be fit to teach, and giueth life and lustre vnto discourse; yet seeing it hath pleased this fellow to confound these two, we must goe on with him in his wild-goose race vp and downe.

To iustifie is a word of Christian learning onely: yet taken and deriued from externall Courts, and iudi­ciary proceedings in Cases of Accusation and Defence. In which regard it hath a three-fold extent, vpon a three-fold seuerall act: First to make iust and righteous. Secondly, to make more iust and righteous. Thirdly, to declare and pronounce iust and righteous. Not ex­actly obserued in humane Courts I grant: For no Iudge can make a man what he is not: he can finde him what he is, and make him appeare so more and more by eui­dence; and at last declare him, and pronounce him so by publike sentence of absolution. But for those three [Page 141] seuerall acts, in the iustification of a Sinner, the Scrip­ture plainely (it cannot be denied) doth distinguish them thus.

Rom. 4. 5. He that belieueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly. Augustine vpon the 30. Psalme expoun­deth it thus. Who is it that iustifieth the Wicked? Hee that of a wicked man maketh a righteous. So, Rom. 3. 20. 24. and 1 Cor. 6. 11. For there is a two-fold state of man in this world: The one Originall; as he is con­ceiued and borne in sinne, and accordingly produ­ceth in life and actions, the cursed workes of a bitter roote: The other Acquisite, renewed according to the Spirit, vnto the state of perfection with God. Of Na­ture, wherein: Of Grace, whereto. In Nature, there is nothing cleane, or pure, that can please God, or be ac­cepted of him: Hee is not iust that is in this state. In that of Grace, a man is iust when hee is changed: which must haue concurrence of two things. Priuati­on of being to that which was; the Body of sinne. A new constitution vnto God, in another state. In which, hee that is altered in state: changed in condition: transformed in minde: renewed in soule: regenerate and borne a new to God by Grace, is iust: in the state of iustification: ceasing to be what hee was: becom­ming what he was not before.

Thus to be changed, is to be a new Creature. The act is saide by Dauid, Psalm. 51. To create: Which be­ing a worke of Omnipotent power, exceedeth the in­dowment of any Creature. It is not therefore of our selues, from, or by our selues. But this change is, the worke of the right hand of the most high, operating [Page 142] powerfully, as hee can: and actiuely, as hee will. Wrought it is by God: by God alone: Man, or Mans free-will is not author hereof. Therefore no merit in­terveneth: therefore not to be ascribed to our selues. None here but Christ preuenting vs: the Author of our integritie: crowne of our felicitie: and consum­mator of our glorie.

Secondly, to iustifie, is to giue increase, and augmen­tation vnto that first Article, as to be more iust in pro­cesse and profectu: by increase of Grace, and the fruit of that Spirit, by which they are renewed in the in­ner man. In naturall action and passion it plainely ap­peareth. Cold water is made warme vpon the fire: heere is an alteration of the propertie. Warme water is made hotter by continuing on the fire, with an augmentation and accesse of that heate. So I vnder­stand it, Apoc. 22. Qui iustus est, iustificetur adhuc. Hee that is iust, let him become more iust, by accesse of Gods Grace euer, day by day.

Thirdly, to iustifie is to declare and pronounce one iust. as, Prou. 8. He that iustifieth the wicked, and con­demneth the righteous, is alike abominable before the Lord. So againe in the 50. Psalme, That thou mayest be iustified in thy sayings, and cleare when thou art iudged. God is not otherwise iustified, but by being knowne, acknowledged, and confessed iust in all his wayes. As he is said to be magnified, when his noble acts are made knowne, and men doe praise him for his mercy, goodnesse, and saluation.

Iustification properly is in the first acceptance. A Sinner is then iustified when hee is made iust: that is, [Page 143] translated from state of Nature, to state of Grace, as Colos. 1. 13. Who hath deliuered vs from the power of darkenesse, and hath translated vs into the Kingdome of his deere Sonne. Which is motion, as they say, be­twixt two termes, and consisteth in forgiuenesse of sinnes primarily; and Grace infused secondarily: Both the act of Gods Spirit in man, but applyed, or rather obtained through Faith: which representeth first God willing, and ready to forgiue and renew. Draweth neere vnto him: closeth in fast with him. Adhereth vnto him inseparab [...]y, with, I will not let thee goe, ex­cept thou blesse. And God doth returne, I will blesse thee: pardon thy sinnes for my names sake, and accept thee as mineowne in Christ my sonne, whose Bloud hath made attonement for Man. So that properly to speake, God onely iustifieth, who alone imputeth not, but pardoneth sinne: Who onely can and doth tran­slate vs from death vnto life, renueth a right Spirit: and createth a new heart within vs. Causally, and a­ctiuely God doth it. But because God was drawne thereto by our Faith, which laying hands vpon his mercy, in Christ, obtayneth this Freedome, and new­nesse, and renewing from him, Faith is saide to iustifie instrumentally. And Faith alone to doe it without co­partners in the act: which is in instanti, as Gods im­mediate workes are all done; and not long adoing, as wee know. The Soule of man is the subiect of this act: In which, vnto which, are necessarily required certaine preparations, and preuious d [...]spositions to the purpose. As knowledge of God, our selues, his Law, his iustice, iealousie, iudgement, &c. Feare, Hope, Con­trition, [Page 144] Loue, desire of, purpose for, a new life, and such like. But these are all with, and from Faith: which in the very act of iustification, are not actiue, though ha­bitually there, then, before, and after: at least, some of them, perhaps not all. Iustification is not but in the Church: Faith is the life and originall of the Church: as appeareth by the Scriptures, by the Subiect, and performance of Faith. So that worthily may the prin­cipall indowment of Grace, be ascribed vnto the roote and originall of Christian Piety, Faith. Fides prima datur, saith Saint Augustine: ex qua caetera impetran­tur. In the first signification then of iustification, the which properly is iustification, wee acknowledge in­strumentally Faith alone, and Causally God alone. In the second and third, beside God and Faith, wee yeeld to Hope, and Holinesse, and Sanctification, and the fruits of the Spirit in good workes. But both these are not Iustification: rather Fruits, and Consequents, and ef­fects, & appendants of Iustification; then Iustification, which is a solitary act.

So that well, and truly, and according to the tenet of Antiquity, is it resolued by our Church, Artic. 11. We are accounted righteous before God, onely for the merit of our Lord and Sauiour Iesus Christ, by faith, and not for our owne workes or deseruing. Our Iustification, in the act thereof, is onely the worke of God, for Christs sake: whose death and Passion apprehended by Faith, which is the sole peculiar worke of Faith to doe, as it hath made an attonement betwixt God and vs, so hath it procured remission of our Sinnes at his hands, and thereupon a new state of Grace: not for any [Page 145] merit, or deseruing of our own, which is vtterly exclu­ded in this Act. Thus Thomas 1. 2. q. 114. ar. 7. Nul­lo modo aliquis potest sibi mereri reparationem post lapsum. Restauration after fall, that is Iustification of a sinner, no man can procure, or deserue vnto himselfe. To whom agreeth the Councell of Trent Sess. vi. can. viij. and your owne men confesse it is gratuita. And therefore, as our Article saith, not for our owne workes or deseruings. Further our Church proceedeth not, to the augmentation, or declaration, of iustification there. But inferreth: Wherefore, that we are iustified by faith alone, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort: as it is indeede: and your long disputes may intangle the simple, but not infringe the truth, nor in­deede discent from it. Fides non absoluit iustificatio­nem, (saith Casalius, and wee admit it) but sola iustifi­cat; and hee admitteth that: For so haue antiquitie a­uouched generally, as himselfe and Cassander doe con­fesse, Origen, Hilary, and many others, to haue resol­ued so.

But this is contrary vnto our Bible, 1 Corinth. 13. 2. Though I haue all faith, so that I could remoue moun­taines, and haue no charitie, I am nothing. Therefore only faith doth not iustifie. Why? because Faith with­out Charity doth not iustifie: for the greatest Faith that can be, without it, is nothing. As if it were not in euery Protestants mouth: and confessed by these op­posers, that howbeit Faith alone doth iustifie, yet, not that Faith which is alone doth iustifie: Fides sola, but not solitaria. Faith that is without Charitie doth not iustifie: but Faith may yet iustifie without Charitie. [Page 146] They haue their seuerall distinct acts; and the act of Faith is to iustifie: though both are vertues incident to a iust man. As if the Protestants that affirme onely Faith doth iustifie, did withall maintaine that all Faith did iustifie: or as, if hee that proposeth a thing condi­tionally, must needes imply the condition to be reall and true. It is a supposition, if I had all Faith, &c. but a supposition of impossibility: For it is impossible that all Faith, should be without Charitie; though some may be, and is without it. Beside, I can answere, that the Faith which iustified, when it did iustifie, (to admit the Supposition of possibilitie) was not then without Charitie, though afterwards it was. For, in your opinion, iustifying Faith may diminish, and abo­lish, and be lost. Now iustification being in an instant; may eftsoones be lost againe: Why not? and so a se­peration of Faith, and Loue. Secondly, it is contrary to Iam. 2. 24. You see then how that by workes a man is iustified, and not by Faith only. In this poynt of Iusti­fication, as mine and thine, are the common barretters of the World, so Faith and good Workes haue broken the peace. It is the errour of the Protestants, say the Papists, that Faith onely iustifieth. It is the errour of the Papists, say the Protestants, that Workes doe iusti­fie. Flat ad oppositum, at least in tormes. And whe­ther should a man belieue? Nay more, this difference seemeth very ancient, and in being when those names of opposition, Protestants and Papists, were not heard of in the world. For Saint Paul saith: By Faith, with­out the workes of the Law. And Saint Iames saith, as positiuely, by Workes, and not alone by Faith. Scrip­ture [Page 147] against Scripture; Apostle against Apostle; Paul against Iames; Iames against Paul. Is Christ diuided? or the Spirit irresolued? or at oddes? God forbid. At oddes they were then, as wee are now. I would that wee were at no more oddes now, than they then were: Controuersies soone might be at an end, and Christs Coate diuided, soone made vp againe, which is dis­mantled with new rentts daily.

Saint Paul had great contentions, all dayes of his life, in the whole course of his ministery; with halfe-Christians, false-Christians, those of Concision, as hee termeth them. That neged as necessary vnto Saluati­on, workes, and obseruing of the Law. As if Christ without them did not profit any thing: against these hee aduaunceth the excellency and worth of Faith: and depresseth the condition of any or all those works of the Law, whereupon they insisted; on which they relied: whereof they gloried Saint Iames on the o­ther side, opposeth as much Simon Magus, Menan­der, their adherents, and that damnable Sect of the Gnosticks, that liuing in all brothelry, and horrid im­pieties; cast off all care and opinion, and account of good workes: as being for imperfect ones, for simple ones, and beginners in Christianity, not to be regar­ded, or insued of, by themselues, who would be coun­ted perfect men in their Generations; and through Faith alone, as they pretended, of neete acquaintance and alliance with God. Against these Saint Iames op­poseth the necessitie of workes. But neither doth Saint Paul deny workes, to the Regenerate: nor Saint Iames deny the act of Faith. Secondly, I answere here, that [Page 148] Saint Paul speaketh of Iustification in attaining it: which in respect of man, is confessed to be the act of Faith. Saint Iames, of Iustification now obtayned: which necessarily is not seperate from workes. Iustus factus, through the Grace of Christ: is Iustus decla­ratus, by his holy life and conuersation. And so Saint Iames is expounded by your selues: or else hath ac­cesse of Iustification: as it is also taught by your owne men.

Iames 2. 14. What doth it profit though a man saith hee hath faith, and hath no workes? Can faith saue him? Nothing at all. Not at all. For a better saith then that which Saint Iames meant, the Faith of the Gnostiques, the Deuils had. Beside, it is a faith onely supposed, presumed, and in opinion. If a man (say he) hath faith. A manifest insinuation it was not reall. A Faith boasted of, but not had. So that this Faith, and that other of the Protestants, Caelo & solo disparantur. Nor can they be compared as they are. For the Faith of the Protestants (generall or speciall, I dispute not now) is a Faith wrought and infused by God, through the Grace of Christ: Liuing: liuely: actiue: fruitfull: declaring the roote by the good fruit: they neuer se­perate them in their Doctrine. And your men doe blame them, because they neuer seperate, the Spring and water-course, Faith and good workes, but they professe it must and doth worke by Loue. And there­fore it is a lying imputation, that good workes, are not necessary to Saluation. All Writers, old and new, as Cassander saith in generall, doe with ioynt consent teach, that Faith must bring forth the fruit of good [Page 149] workes. Otherwise, It is a dead faith without workes. And hee produceth the Confession of the Protestants thus: Fatendum est, haec opera quae à iustificatis fiunt, ad salutem; id est regnum Dei & vitam aeternam con­sequendam, esse necessaria, iuxta illud, si vis ad vitam ingredi, serua mandata: It must be confessed, that the workes which are done of iustified men, are necessary to obtaine Saluation: that is, to purchase the Kingdome of God, a [...]deternall life: according vnto that, If thou wilt enter into life, keepe the Commandements. And the Church of England expressely teacheth, Artic. 12. Albeit that good workes, which are the fruits of faith, and follow after Iustification, cannot put away sinnes, and indure the seueritie of Gods iudgement, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and doe necessarily spring out from a true and liuely Faith. Insomuch, as that by them a true and liuely faith, may as euidently be knowne, as a Tree is discerned by the fruit. I adde, as this mans Spirit is discerned by his lying. That of Matth. 7. 22. is so farre from being expresse in the point, that it is farre from being to pur­pose. It is not for iustifying of a sinner by workes, but rather for relapsing of one iustified by Grace.

See Fathers that affirme the same. Namely, that which wee doe teach: that Faith alone iustifieth: For so all these three named doe: Origen, Hilary, and Am­brose. Origen, saith Cassander, clearely declareth, in his Commentaries vpon the Epistle to the Romans, Solâ fide, absque operibus, aliquos fuisse iusti­ficatos: That some haue beene iustified by Faith a­lone, without any workes at all. The Theefe vpon [Page 150] the Crosse was not saued by workes, which hee had not. Faith alone saued him, in the mercies of Christ: but this being speciall, and therefore extra­ordinary, may admit an exception for common vse. Therefore in Rom. 3. he speaketh plaine, in generall, not with that limitation of some. Iustification of Faith a­lone sufficeth: albeit a man hath not done any workes. As direct a Protestant as euer wrote, Caluin, or Chem­nitius could say no more. But in Rom. 5. he is otherwise minded. If so: what, why vrge you the witnesse of him, that saith and vnsaith the same thing? But it is not so. Origen is wronged by you. His words are: Faith cannot be reputed vnto Iustice to such, as beleeue Christ, and yet put not off the old man, with his Acts. Doe Protestants say it can be? We distinguish Historicall, and Iustifying Faith. You doe difference Faith in De­gree, if in nothing else. Beliefe, may be before, without Iustification; a generall assent, without application, or adhesion. Origen is in this also, a perfect Protestant. It is their Doctrine, That there is a Faith which iustifieth not. It is Origens Doctrine absolutely. Origen saith; Which beleeueth Christ: He doth not say, Which belee­ueth in Christ. Thus per omnia, in all points he sideth with the Protestants in their Faith, concerning Faith as you propose it. Secondly, see Hilary vpon Math. 7. And doe: See him Protestant, to thy confirmation. See him Papist to thy confusion. The saluation of Nations, are his words, is through faith: and in the Precepts of the Lord, the life of all men. Doth this man speake a­gainst the Iustification of a man by Faith, that ascribeth saluation vnto Faith? And Can. 8. in Math. vnto onely [Page 151] Faith. And else-where as he is cited by Cassander. A Christo per fidem remissio est, quod lex laxare non pote­rat. Fides enim sola Iustificat. Remission of sinnes is from Christ: which could not be released by the Law. For onely Faith iustifieth. Saint Ambrose runneth the same way with Origen and Hilary in Comment. vpon the Epistle to the Romans. Hoc etiam constitutum est à Deo, vt qui credit in Christum, saluus sit, sine opere, solâ fide, gratis accipiens remissionem peccatorum. It is so ordai­ned by God, that whosoeuer beleeueth in Christ, is made partaker of saluation, by faith alone, without workes, re­ceiuing forgiuenesse of sinnes. In conclusion, it is con­fessed vpon all hands, by the most lerned in the Church of Rome, that many of the ancient Fathers, ascribe Iustification vnto Faith alone. Casalius in his second Booke, and 16. Chapter, allayeth their saying, and we approue it, but implyedly he giueth to vnderstand, that Doctores Sancti, doe affirme, that sola fides iustificat; Faith alone is that which iustifieth. No new Gospell therefore, as this Goose gagleth.

XIX.

IN the former Proposition the Prote­stants were belyed in the Case of good workes, as excluding their necessity vnto Saluation. For, though Faith alone acted in the act of Iustification, yet there ne­cessarily followed in ordinary course, an [Page 152] haruest of good workes. Now the valew of those workes is next to be questioned, in the point concerning merit, and desert, wherein this Gagger, as else-where, lyeth out aloofe in ambiguities: for he distinguisheth not of workes, nor merit; nor the termes how farre they are meritorious: nor how they deserue what they haue.

Workes are considered before or after Iustification: In the state of Nature or of Grace, workes are not all of one kinde. There are some good, and so farre good, as that they cannot be done to any euill end. Such as are directed vnto God immediately, to honour him, to loue him, and to feare him. Others so euill, that no intent or purpose can make them good: to commit Adultery, doe murther, blaspheme God. Others good in them­selues, and in a generality, which may yet be done to an ill intent and purpose; to giue Almes to be seene of men; euill in a generall notion, as to goe to the Stewes: yet good in the designment, to conuert a sinner. Others indifferent euery way. Now in the Proposition, not any of these are meritorious, according to the Doctrine of the Protestants, saith the Gagger generally: Not me­ritorious: what is that? Your Schooles assigne vs a two-fold merit of Congruity, of Condignity: that, where Retribution, or reward is not due, yet conueni­ency requireth recompensation: this, where reward is rightly due, and the denying thereof is iniustice and wrong vnto the party. Here is no distinction of merit at all. We are not giuen to vnderstand, whether is in­tended Merit of Condignity or Congruity. We know that in the Doctrine of the Romane Schooles (and vn­lesse [Page 153] wee did know it otherwise, this fellow would not tell vs.) Merit of Congruity is not commonly meant, as scarce vouchsafed the name of Merit. Good workes therefore said to be meritorious, are so vnderstood to be, ex condigno; which that a worke may so be, these Conditions are required. That it bee morally good: Freely wrought: by man in this life: In the state of Grace, and friendship with God; which hath annexed Gods Promise of Reward. All which Conditions, I cannot conceiue that any Protestant doth deny vnto good workes, the fruits of Faith, liuely and liuing. For first, euill workes are rewardable, but with due desert: that is, Gods wrath, and second death. Worke, s secondly, of compulsion, are not worth Gramercy. 1 Cor. 9. 17. and thirdly, after death, working doth cease. In the state of Grace to be wrought, is the Protestants Te­nent, that precisely hold; first, Faith is necessary, before good workes can be acceptable to God: For God had first respect to Abel, say they, and afterward vnto his Sacrifice. Deus non habet gratum offerentem propter munera, sed munera propter offerentem, saith Gregor. hom. 9. in Ezech. and then they maintaine, that as God doth Crowne his owne workes in vs, so he doth it, ha­uing promised so to doe. This is your owne Doctrine in the Romane Schooles: And so farre the Protestants, for these Conditions, goe along with you.

Now if your Texts doe contrary this, expresly, or obliquely, looke you to it: it concerneth you as much as vs. First, Math. 5. 12. Reioyce, and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in Heauen. Reward, you say, is due debt; and debt is vpon desert. But this desert, [Page 154] whence came it? and what is it? Ex gratia ipsius, saith Tertullian, non proprietate nostrâ. In the state of Grace men onely merit, your selues teach: then all their merit is of Grace; As of Grace, so ex compacto, God hath promised, therefore due, to be required. This is your fift and last Condition vnto merit. Reward in Heauen, no man denyeth: Reward appointed for our good workes, all confesse: If this be your merit, we contra­dict See more, 1 Cor. 9. &c. it not. And this is your merit that you plead for. All your Texts of Scripture, Math. 10. 42. 2 Cor. 5. 10. 1 Cor. 9. 17. 18. 25. Heb. 11. 26. Psal. 18. 20. and many moe in the same course and kinde, speake directly this way, and no other; so that the man fighteth with his shadow, and taketh a ferne bush for a Foxe to hunt.

As idle in allegation of his Fathers, as impertinent See Fathers that affirme the same, S. Ambrose, de Apolog. Da­uid, ca. 6. S. Hier. lib. 3. cont. Pelag. S. Aug. de spi­rit, & lit. cap. vlt. in his Texts of Scripture. For these places of August. Hierome, and Ambrose, produced by this iugler, to be seene, are meerely for another matter: and so to that end recited by his instructor C. W. B. a man of more lear­ning, and better iudgement to proue that all the best workes of the righteous are not sinnes, but truly good workes, as proceeding out of a good roote. That man, had this fellow beene but a gagler, would haue afforded him Fathers enough from Ignatius along for many a­ges, to purpose as is specified, in this point. And yet Ignatius wrote in Greeke, and could not vnderstand merit: and those that wrote in Latine, did vse the word, but with no such intent as is supposed, nor as is put vpon them by these later Tormentors of other mens meaning. The Fathers who vse it, tooke vp the word, as [Page 155] they found it, in ordinary vse and custome with men in those times, not for to deserue, which in our Language, implyeth merit ex condigno: but to incur, to procure, to purchase: as Tacitus hath it in the life of Agricola; Iijs virtutibus iram Caij Caesaris meritus est: By these ver­tues he incurred the anger of Caius Caesar. Which vse of the Tongue, the inferior Ages mistaking, haue built vp I know not what great Towers of Babel vnto them­selues, in contestation with, and presumption against GOD, which the ancient Fathers neuer dreamed of, whose ioynt vnaminous and orthodoxall Doctrine is, that which we will remember in Leoes words, Non de qualitate nostrorum operum pendet coelestium mensura donorum.

In conclusion, touching good workes, the Church of England considereth them two wayes, Artic. 12. 13. First as they are, or may be done before Iustification had and obtained; done by men meerely naturall, and in the state of alienation from God: and then as they are done after Regeneration, by the inspiration and as­sistance of Gods Spirit. Concerning the first, Workes done before the grace of Christ, saith Artic. 13. and the inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasing vnto God: for as much as they spring not of Faith in Iesus Christ, nei­ther doe they make men meet to receiue Grace: or as the Schoole Authors say, deserue Grace of congruity. Yea, rather for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done; we doubt not but they haue the nature of sinne. And so our Conclusion is, Good workes thus, and in this sort, merit not at all, vnlesse you meane Hell, and Gods wrath.

[Page 156] For good workes done after Iustification, which onely and alone are indeed good workes: The Church of England in the 12 Artic. concludeth thus, 1. They spring from a true and liuely Faith. 2. They declare a true and liuely Faith. 3. They are pleasing and accep­table to God. 4. They cannot put away our sinnes, nor endure the seuerity of Gods iudgement, to wit, not of themselues: considered in themselues: no, not as issuing from their Fountaine, Faith: because Rem [...]ssion is in Christ, gratuitum: and pardon must preceede before that they can succeede. Touching their merit and de­sert, here is concluded nothing: but the meaning of the Church in the Doctrine of her Schooles, is directly this: That the workes of Gods Saints, in Faith and Charity, are rewardable here, and in the World to come; both in generall, as good workes: and in parti­cular, as such good workes, some more, some lesse, ac­cording to measure, and proportion: it being a rule in Nature and Grace both, that whatsoeuer is receiued, is receiued, as the Donce can receiue it, not as the Donor can conferre it. Which procuring of reward at Gods hand, both for things Temporall and Eternall, the phrase of Antiquity hath called merit, vpon the vse of the Tongue in those dayes, and no otherwise, though much mistaken afterward.

XX.

THere is no such Conclusion or Article ten­dred vnto the Church of England: or resol­ued of, vnto vs as of Faith. Opinions haue varied, and may keepe at large: each one contenting himselfe with his owne priuate: sobeit hee disturbe not the peace of the Church: nor impose his priuate iudgement, to be held of all. It is held by some I grant, that iustifying Faith, that excellent gift of God, is not conferred vnto any but to the Elect and predesti­nated vnto life. The wicked that perish eternally from God, as they neuer were in the state of Grace, so neuer were they indued with true Faith. Secondly, as conse­quent hereunto, that Faith once had cannot be lost, or shaken out or off wholy from man, but continueth in­extinguible, indefeisable. And therfore thirdly, those that once haue been indowed with that Transcendent guift, are sure to be saued eternally; nor cease to be, and stand [...]ustified before God. These are opinions, and defended, but not of all Protestants, not of the Church of Eng­land, but opposed and refelled at home, abroad, as this fellow cannot but know, if he know any thing in these points: which for the maior part are fitter for Schooles then popular discourses: and may be held or not held, without heresie either way.

That Faith once had (the propounded Conclusion) cannot be lost, may be interpreted, and is, moe wayes [Page 158] then one. Whether not lost at all: whether totally or finally lost. Men are diuided in this Tenent. Some suppose neither totally nor finally: Some totally, but not finally: Some both totally and finally. Which is indeed the assertion of Antiquity, and your Schoole. Some perceyuing the current of iudgements for the losse thereof totally and finally; and considering also at least probability, of Scripture consenting, put in a new distinction, of God, and Man: of the first and second causes of Faith and Iustification. In regard of Man, his weakenesse, insufficiency, and opposition a­gainst him: in respect of second causes concurring in this action, Faith once had, may be lost they say. But in regard of God, considering his counsell and pur­pose vnchangeable, reflecting on his absolute decree irreuersable, faith once had cannot totally or finally be lost, nor they perish eternally that were endowed therewith. Now, which of all these waies will you vnderstand the position, Faith had may be lost? For my part, I know your meaning well enough: but you should haue explayned it, and not haue couertly rested in ambiguities. You meane, it may be lost totally, and finally: in regard of God, who made no such absolute irreuersable decree: as also in respect of second causes in man, both without him, and about him, and against him. I determine nothing in this Question positiuely, which the Church of England leaueth at libertie vnto vs, though the learnedst in the Church of England as­sent vnto Antiquity in their Tenent: which the Pro­testants of Germany maintaine at this day: hauing as­sented therein vnto the Church of Rome, in the Diot [Page 159] at Ralisbone, by Bucer and others, vpon these grounds. First Ezech. 18. 24. 26. If the righteous turne away from his righteousnesse, and commit iniquitie: and doe according vnto all the abominations that the wicked man doth, shall hee liue? all his righteousnesse that hee hath done shall not be remembred: but in his trans­gression that hee hath committed, and in his sinne that hee hath sinned, in them shall hee die. And againe, re­peated with like asseueration, and reduplication: vers. 26. againe, Ezech. 33. 12. The righteousnesse of the righteous shall not deliuer him, in the day of his trans­gression. And againe, The wickednesse of the wicked shall not cause him to fall, in the day that hee returneth from his wickednesse: neither shall the righteous liue for his righteousnesse, in the day that hee sinneth. And verse 13. If hee commit iniquitie, all his righteousnesse shall be no more remembred, but for his iniquitie that hee hath committed, hee shall die for the same. Which againe is repeated verse 18. Therefore the righteous may lose his righteousnesse, abandon his faith, dye in his sinnes; and receiue the reward of his Transgressi­ons in his auersion from God, hell fire.

Againe, Matth. 12. 44. The vncleane spirit eiected, returneth vnto his former residence, entreth, possedeth his former state, and the case of that man is worse than the beginning. Sathan is not eiected, but where the par­tie is in the state of Grace with God: being regenerate by faith. Reposseding is not but by relapse into sinne: nor a worse state, but where a man dyeth in sinne, Luke 8. 13. They on the rocke, are they who when they heare, receiue the word with ioy, who for a while be­lieue, [Page 160] and in time of temptation fall away. Iohn 15. 2. Euery branch that beareth not fruit in mee, hee taketh away. Matthew 24. 12. Because iniquitie shall be in­creased, the charitie of many shall grow cold. Surely it was hot, that groweth cold: and charitie inlarged, is not but the fruit of a liuing faith, which if it continu­ed in statu quo, the charitie of many could not waxe cold. Therefore once had, may be lost, say they.

Againe, Rom. 11. 20. 21. Thou standest by Faith, be not high-minded, but feare: and feare is not but where change may be. Here change may be: or why doth it follow? Take heede least hee also spare not thee. The reason is, Any man may haue that which another had. Now 1 Timoth. 6. 20. Some haue erred concerning faith. And 1 Timoth. 1. 18. 19. holding faith and a good conscience, which some hauing put away concer­ning faith, haue made shipwracke: Nor was it onely for those times, but fore-told of succeeding ages, 1 Ti­moth. 4. In the latter dayes some shall depart from the faith, Gal. 5. 4. Saint Paul spake not vpon supposition of impossibility, Yee are abolished from Christ, whosoe­uer are iustified by the Law, yee are fallen from Grace. For many were so, that hauing belieued, and being baptized, did euacuate Christ by their owne righteous­nesse in the Law. Of whom Saint Paul complayneth in all that Epistle to the Galathians, and elsewhere. Nor in point of onely Heresie was Faith by them lost, but also of good liuing, and conuersation, 2 Pet. 2. 20. Where those that had escaped the filthinesse of the World; therefore washed and made cleane, through the knowledge of our Lord and Sauiour Iesus Christ: [Page 161] Therefore iustified truely by Faith: are yet intangled againe therein, and ouercome. Therefore lapsed from Faith: as is expressed vers. 21. and 22. ensuing.

Infinite are the testimonies of Scriptures to this purpose, insisted vpon by the auouchers. I adde but one of them. Heb. 6. 4. It is impossible, that they which were once enlightned, and haue tasted of the heauenly gift, and were made partakers of the holy Ghost, and haue tasted of the good word of God, and of the power of the world to come, (if these were not iustified, they know not who were: if these had not faith, where was it to be found) if they fall away, should be renued a­gaine by repentance: seeing they crucifie againe the Sonne of God vnto themselues, and make a mocke of him.

Thus Scripture speaketh plaine. Their Reasons from 1. Scripture are euident. Man is not likely in state of Grace to be of an higher alloy then Angels were in state of Glory: than Adam was in state of Innocen­cy: For Grace is but a conformitie thereto, and no conformitie exceedeth the Architype: At most it is but an equalitie thereto: and equals are of the same proportion. Now if Adam in Paradise, and Lucifer in Heauen, did fall and loose their originall state, the one totally, the other eternally, what greater assurance hath any man in state of Proficiency, not of Consum­mation?

Againe, Faith must needes be lost, where it cannot 2. consist. It cannot consist where God will not abide. God will not abide, where hee is disobeyed: hee is [Page 162] disobeyed, where mortall sinne is committed: the most righteous man liuing vpon the face of the earth, conti­nually doth or may in this sort transgresse: Who can tell how oft hee offendeth? Cleanse thy seruant from pre­sumptuous sinnes. Thou wilt haue no fellowship at all with the deceitfull; Nor shall any euill dwell with thee.

Saul was at first the Childe of God: called accor­ding to the election of Grace: not onely temporall, 3. for the Kingdome of Israel, but also eternall for the heauenly Kingdome. In opinion of Antiquitie thus hee was: and yet afterward hee fell, it is confessed; totally all say: Eternally these say, that maintaine iusti­fying Faith cannot be lost. But if Saul were not of Gods Children in grace, inducd with Faith, and the holy Spirit: yet Salomon was, there is no question with them, because hee was a Writer of holy writ, and wrote as hee was enspired by God. If they did not graunt it, the Scripture would euict it. For 2 Sa­muel 7. God speaketh of him literally: though of Christ Iesus, intentionally, I will be his father, and he shall be my sonne: And in the 12. Chapter of the same Booke, Hee called his name Salomon, and the Lord lo­ued him: and sent by the hand of Nathan the Prophet, and called his name beloued of the Lord, because the Lord loued him indeede: Yet Sal [...]mon fell, as Saint Augustine and Saint Chrysostome are cleare for it, at least temporally, and totally too, when hee went and serued other gods. If Salomon were neuer the Childe of God, yet Dauid was without contradiction: and [Page 163] Saint Peter without nay: Yet Dauid fell foule in that act of murther and adultery, and lost his Faith and present state of Grace: if Dauid had perished in that his Sinne, what had become of his Soule for euer? It was not possible hee should, in regard of the pur­pose of Grace; but had it beene so, where had he bin? Surely hee that desired a new heart to be created, had not that heart which he had before his fall: For Cre­ation is production from not being, vnto being. Saint Peter was a chosen vessell of Christ Iesus, and if euer was any, the Childe of God. Yet hee denyed Iesus Christ with an oath, which was peccatum lethale, as Saint Augustine prooueth in his 66. Tractat. vp­on Saint Iohn. Chirst prayed for him, that his faith might not fayle: But his Prayer was, for the end, not the act. That hee might not fall finally, and hee did not: but not that not totally, for so hee did. His infir­mitie appeared in his fall: Gods mercy was seene in his restauration.

Simon Magus was an Heretique, an Arch-here­tique, the father of Heretiques, and first begotten of the Deuill: yet Simon Magus was a Christian once, and baptized, and belieued, and brought forth fruits of new life, and followed Philip a certaine time. He belieued, it is said, but not truely. It is not said, he be­lieued not truely. Saint Luke saith hee belieued, in the same termes, with the same words, to the same intent and purpose, that hee speaketh of others, that belieued truely, & constantly: Where the Holy Ghost putteth no difference, what man hath any warrant to distin­guish? [Page 164] The Scripture doth not so much as insinuate the hypocrisie of Simon Magus then: and what is hee, that would haue his nay belieued, before Saint Lukes yea? Iudas was a Reprobate, and cast away for euer. Our Sauiour calleth him the Sonne of per­dition, and saith it had beene good hee had neuer beene borne: Yet Iudas was numbred with the twelue A­postles: had all the Prerogatiues which they enioy­ed. God gaue him to Christ as well as Peter or Iohn. And if hee perished onely in the number of them that were giuen vnto Christ, doubtlesse hee was first ran­ked in that number: and perishing, ceased to be of that number, as ceasing to be of that number he pe­rished.

Beside, if Faith had cannot be lost, the Dogge cannot be said, to returne vnto his vomit: nor the Swine to wallowing in the myre. If righteousnesse had cannot be lost, why doe wee pray continually against that, Leade vs not into temptation? Why did the Apo­stle chastice and bring vnder his body, least he should become a cast-away? Why should hee admonish as hee doth, Hee that standeth, let him take heede lest hee fall? And Worke out your Saluation with feare and trembling. Againe, say they, totally it may be lost; for Faith is an adhesion vnto God. Sinne seperateth man from God: and maketh a diuision in that first Coniunction: but by repentance it is againe restored, and recouery gayned after fall. Totally lost, is not then euer finally, eternally, nor ineuitably lost; For yet wilt thou returne and refresh mee, and bring vp [Page 165] my life from the gates of death againe. And as the Tree that is cut downe at the stemme, so long as the stocke remaineth in the ground, yet by the sent of wa­ters it will recouer, (saith Iob,) and againe, shew forth the branches: So, so long as men in the Church haue meanes in Christ, it is possible to be renued by Repentance. Possible they say. Necessary say some, because of that necessitating purpose of God, where­by hee is saued, and could not perish, that was appoin­ted vnto life vnchangeably. So then they teach, that are thus perswaded, Faith totally may be lost. Faith totally lost, may eternally be lost: and also not be lost eternally, though totally for a time. Because God a­gaine will restore them to Grace: and except hee would doe so, they could not rise to Grace: but be­cause his will is not put into practise by his power, he necessitateth no man so irreuersably vnto life nor death, those that haue lapsed totally, may also perish finally. It will be vrged by them, which is here said by you, What needes there any further proofe, where holy Scripture is so plaine? and they graunt in a case so fully cleared and resolued in Scripture, no further proofe needeth as necessarily required: yet for illustra­tion, and assurance, a concurring assent of many is re­quisite of congruitie. Wherfore they bring Fathers for their purpose. Ignatius, the ancientest this day extant: of whose writings there is little or no question, in his Epistle to the Magnesians, pag. 26. diuideth man­kinde into two sorts of Coynes, as hee speaketh there: and explicating his meaning, saith, hee doth not so [Page 166] intend it, as if hee meant two distinct Natures in man, [...] &c. That one and the same man, is, sometime the Childe of God, and againe the Childe of the Deuill. If hee liue godly, he is a man of God: if wickedly, the Childe of the Deuill: not so by Nature, but from his owne depraued will. And speaking elsewhere of con­stancy in persecution, saith; Albeit I am exceedingly strengthened in God, yet ought I to feare so much the rather. And againe, [...]. I doe not know whether I am worthy or not.

Clement in his Constitutions, 5. 26. [...], &c. The Holy Spirit is continually assistant with those that possesse him, so long as they are worthy so to haue him. From whomsoeuer this holy Spirit is diuided, Hee leaueth them destitute and forsaken, and deliuered vp vnto the wicked Spirit. I know the Author is questioned vpon his honestie; at least hee is ancient: but I hold him honest, and perswade my selfe I can proue him so to be, as hee seemeth, for my part: Tertullian, in de praescript. Cap. iij. Et hoc mirum opinor, vt pro­batus aliquis retro postea excidat? Saul bonus prae ce­teris liuore posteà euertitue. Dauid vir bonus secun­dum cor Domini: postea caedis & stupri reus. Salo­mon omni gratiâ & sapientia donatus à Domino, ad Idololatriam à mulieribus inducitur. Soli enim dei filio seruabatur sine delicto permanere. As if it were a thing so strange that any Man approued by God, should afterward relapse from Grace. Saul, a man [Page 167] better then the rest, was ouertaken and vndone at length through Enuy. Dauid was a good man, and according vnto the Lords heart: yet afterward guilty of murther and adultery. Salomon inducd with all grace and wise­dome from the Lord, was by women brought ouer vnto Idolatry. For why, it was reserued to the Sonne of God alone to be without sinne. What then, if a B [...]shop, a Deacon, a Virgin, a Widow, a Teacher, a Martyr, haue swarued from his rule, shall Heresie therefore haue the better of Truth? Doe wee estimate and approue Faith by Mens Persons, or not rather Persons by Faith? Onely the faithfull man is a wiseman: Onely a Christian man is of account: No man is a Christian, but he that conti­nueth vnto the end. Thus farre he.

Cyprian is through for the point, Epist. 7. Parum est adipisci potuisse aliquid. Plus est quod adeptus es posse seruare, sicut & fides ipsa, & Natiuitas salutaris, non accepta sed custodita viuisicat. Nec statim consecu­tio, sed consummatio, hominem Deo seruat. Dominus hoc magisterio suo docuit dicens, Ecce sanus factus es, sani noli peccare, nequid tibi deteriu [...]: fiat. Puta hoc il­lum & Confessori suo dicere, Ecce Confessor factus es, sani noli peccare, nequid [...] deterius fiat. Salomon deni (que) & Saul, & caeteri multi, quam diu in vijs Domini ambulauerunt, datam sibi gratiam tenere potuerunt, recedente ab ijs disciplinâ Dominica recessit & gratia. Goulartius here talketh to no purpose, in the Cloudes, totally or finally it skilleth not, the Grace of God de­parted away from them; therefore they lost their Faith [Page 168] in Saint Cyprians iudgement, by which they stood at first in Gods fauour.

And in Nazianzens too, who writeth thus of Saul, in his Apologie vnto his Father, Pag. 37. [...]. Annoynted hee was, and made partaker of the holy Spirit: and then at that time was Spirituall. I dare not speake otherwise of him. Nay, more then so, hee prophecyed. And yet for all that, be­cause hee suffered not himselfe to be wholy and entirely directed by the Spirit, nor became perfectly and sincerely another man, what neede I relate the Tragicall end, which hee vnder-went? Saint Hierome forsaketh not his Masters direction, Lib. 2. aduersus Pelagianos. Ne beatum dixeris, quempiam ante mortem. Quamdiù e­nim viuimus in certamine sumus: quamdiù in certa­mine, nulla est certa victoria. Call no man happy vntill he be dead. So long as we liue, wee are to striue and con­tend: so long as there is opposition against vs, so long we are not assured of the victory. And else-where against Iouinian, he teacheth, that vntill a man repent, Faith is cast off by sinne, and the party in disfauour with God.

Saint Augustine proposeth it as an Article of his Creede, de Corrept. & gratiâ. 13. Credendum est quos­dam de filijs perditionis non accepto dono perseuer andi vs (que) in finem, in fide quae per dilectionem operatur inci­pere viuere: & aliquandiù fideliter & iustè viuere, & posteà cadere ne (que) de hac vitâ priusquam eis id contin­gat auferri. And againe, Ad quam vocationem per­tinere [Page 169] nullus est homo, ab hominibus certâ asseue­ratione dicendus, nisi cum de hoc saecule exierit. In hac autem vitâ humanâ quae tentatio est su­per terram, qui videtur stare videat ne ca­dat.

And lastly, Gregory Lib. 6. in primum Regum. Quia Iudicium omnipotentis Dei imperscruta­bile est, vnde veniat, & quo vadat homo, nescit: quia sciri non potest, an quis in gratia quam recepit perseuerare in perpetuum debeat. Because the Iudgements of GOD Almighty are vnsear­chable, man doth not know either whence hee commeth, or whether hee goeth; because it cannot be knowne, whether a man shall euer stand with­out falling in that Grace, which hee hath re­ceiued.

It was a Stoicall paradox grounded vpon their fatall necessity and concatenation of Causes, that vertues once had, cannot be lost at all. Seneca thus in his 50 Epistle. Semel tradidi boni possessio per­petua est. Non dediscitur virtus. Fideliter sedent quae in locum suum veniunt. Good once had, is held for euer in possession. Vertue is not againe to bee learned. For what thing soeuer hath obtained the proper place, resteth therein without alteration. If any such necessity be inferred by any, it is but o­pinion, not decision; priuate opinion, not pub­lique resolution, which a man may follow or a­bandon [Page 170] at pleasure, not to be blamed for resolu­tion. So, or so.

In course of Christianity, and seruice of God. Finis coronat actus: It is the end that crowneth the Act. In mans profession of Loue, Feare, and Obedience of God. Nil [...]praesumitur esse actum dum restat aliquid ad agendum. The Law presu­meth nothing at all is done, so long as resteth any thing to be done. Non quid egeris, sed quid super­sit curandum: si dixisti Sufficit, Defecisti. It is not respected what is already performed by them, but what remaineth yet vnfinished. If thou say it is enough, thou art fallen off, and faintest. For Le­uit. 22. Euer the tayle of the whole burnt Offe­ring was offered. Many begin to build, but doe not all set vp the roofe. Many thousands came out of Aegypt, but few of them passed ouer Ior­dan. Asa was good till the go [...]te vexed him. Ionathan followed the Chace till hee met with Honey. Many are good till they haue cause to be badde, and then vertunt omnia ad extre­mum: They end in the flesh, that begun in the Spirit. The Conclusion of all is, [...]. A man is not happy so long as hee li­ueth, because it is vncertaine what shall become of him, saith Saint Basil vpon the first Psalme. These are the resolutions of many, if not most [Page 171] Protestant Diuines: as priuate men of Protestant Churches, in their Decisions; and Resolutions. I am sure, the Church of England, doth not tender it to be taught or belieued, that Faith had, cannot be lost againe. Priuate opinions of men. are no Gospels of the Church. I am of this opi­nion, another is of that. I maintaine Faith can­not be lost totally or finally: another verily per­swadeth himselfe it may be lost, both totally and finally. Hee that once was, in regard of iustify­ing Faith, and Grace, the Childe of God, may become the Childe of Sinne, Wrath, Death, Hell, and Destruction. to neither of these, doe I sub­scribe, as de fide, being vndecided, vndetermi­ned, in the Church: Lei euery man abound in his owne sense and vnderstanding, what is it to mee, so be it hee keepe Faith, Peace. Charitie, and a good Conscience? The very Church of Geneua it selfe, as I was told by one of the chiefe Ministers thereof, doth not maintaine these pri­uate opinions of the principall Pastors of that Church. So that, what honesty can there be in this rambling Companion, who ranketh it with the Errours of the Protestants, That Faith had cannot be lost. Which, if it were an errour, as I dispute not that, is as much or more opposed by Protestants, as propugned. As much refelled by Protestants, as Papists. Sir Gagger, to let the [Page 172] World see your ignorance, or impudency, or both, I haue laide these parts together out of Protestant Diuines. I iustifie no priuate opini­ons. Those that hold the one or other, are old enough; let them answere for themselues. And so I proceede.

XXI.

DAmned and Saued diuide Mankinde. Not any hath come forth of the loins of A­dam, but, as this Gaggler will himself confesse, is necessarily ranged in one of these Ranks; either with the Damned or the Saued, Sheep or Goats, vpon the left hand or the right.

But he, whosoeuer, that is é censa damnandorum vel saluandorum, finally and eternally damned or saued, as one day actiuely all shall bee, is so damned or saued, not without God's will, according to the purpose of his decree, at least consequent, though not antece­dent; who doth whatsoeuer hee will in heauen and earth; who worketh all things according to the counsell of his will, the highest Rule, supremest Law; nothing beyond it, against it, without it. So Damned or Saued, are so ordained by God.

Whatsoeuer God willeth, commeth to passe: and whatsoeuer commeth to passe, commeth so to passe, because God hath said, So, and not otherwise, it shall come to passe; either positiuely, by disposing it; or else permissiuely, by giuing way, and suffering it so to come to passe, as it doth come to passe. This his [Page 178] will, as nor himself, began not in time: it is and was eternall, as he is: euer, I am; not, I will be or haue bin. Whatsoeuer is done in processe of time, was so seen, so disposed of, and ordered before all Time: for, he is not measured but by Eternity, which is Tota simul, & perfecta possessio sui; The totall and perfect possession of it self.

If then there bee Damned and Saued, as there are, God's eternall will did so determine of them & their finall estate, from all Eternity: and, after that deter­mination of God, they are damned or saued ineuita­bly; not onely according vnto Prescience, but also according to Predestination, say the Roman schools; in which, this Fellow would seem to haue sent some idle houres after their fleeing Predecessors.

What then? Why, surely the poore man meant well to the Catholique Cause, and would say some­what, though no matter what, which he did not vn­derstand, nor could vtter. He thought well, though he could not handsomly tell his Tale; which should haue been marshald thus:

Man, in curiosity, hath presumed farre vpon, and waded deep into the hidden Secrets of the Almigh­ty; no-where more, or with greater Presumption, than where that grand Apostle stood at gaze, with O the depth! and in consideration cried out, How vn­searchable are his waies! who yet was admitted into Councell of State, and rapt vp into the third heauen.

In the point of Election for Life, and Reprobation [Page 179] vnto Death, Protestants and Papists are many wayes at oddes in opposition, and each diuided at home a­mongst themselues; not for the Thing, which all re­solue, but for the Manner, in which they differ; a­greeing in the Main, that It is so; disagreeing on the By, How it cometh so? as if God meant to reserue no Secrets vnto himself, but impart them all to men; as if it were not enough to saue some, and cast others off, but he must giue account of dooing so.

Some Protestants, and no mo but some, haue con­sidered God, for this effect of his will, in reference to Peter and Iudas, thus; that Peter was saued, because that God would haue him saued absolutely; and re­solued to saue him necessarily, because hee wo [...]ld so, and no further; that Iudas was damned as necessarily, because that God, as absolute to decree, as om [...]ipo­tent to effect, did primarily so resolue concerni [...]g him, and so determine touching him, without respect of any thing but his owne will: insomuch that Peter could not perish, though he would; nor Iudas be sa­ued, doo what he could.

This is not the doctrine of the Protestants: the Lutherans in Germany detest and abhorre it. It is the priuate fansie of some men, I grant: but what are O­pinions, vnto Decisions? priuate Opinions, vnto re­ceiued and decided doctrines? The Church of Eng­land hath not taught it, doth not beleeue it, hath op­posed it; wisely contenting herself with this Quoús (que) and Limitation, Art. 17. We must receiue God's promises in such wise as they be generally set forth to vs in holy scrip­ture; and not presuming to determine of When, How, Wherfore, or Whom; Secrets reserued to God alone. So [Page 180] this Goose the Gagger may put his Gag into the Bils of many of his owne Gaggle, as well as into others Lagges; who presume as farre, and wander as wide, sometime as they do, though more couertly in their tearms.

Our Bible, in expresse words, saith what we beleeue: it teacheth not contrary to that which is resolued in Contrary to the expresse words of their owne Bible. the Church of England: the positiue doctrine wher­of is no other, but what this Wittall confirmeth out of Scripture; that God at the beginning made not death, as Wisd. 1. 13. because she hath learned out of S. Paul, that Through sinne, death came into the world: whereof God was neither Aurthor nor Abettor; but Hee, the Father of lies, a Lier, a Murderer from the beginning, in procuring the Fall of man.

Sinne being entred, and by sinne death, and so all mankinde in the Masse of perdition, God fitted and prepared a Restorer, a Mediator, the Man Christ Ie­sus; that so, Whosoeuer beleeued in him, should not perish, but haue euer lasting life, out of his mercy both free and meer, because he was not willing, that any should perish, but all should come vnto Repentance, as 2. Pet. 3. 9. and be saued.

So large was his Mercy, so enlarged his Loue, that out of his good pleasure it was his will, All men to bee saued, and to come to knowledge of the Truth. Shew a con­trary resolution of the Church of England, and gag vp my mouth, Sir Goose, for euer: else goe gaggle on the Green.

For particular opinions, So or so, aetatem habent; let them speak for themselues: and so be it they rent not the peace of the Church, let them abound in [Page 181] their priuate senses. I nor teach nor beleeue any such Paradox; nor the Church whereof I am, and you should be, a Member, positiuely.

Wee need see no more, except to more purpose: See more Ose 13. 9, &c. the places are adrem, but touch not vs. They speak home, and to purpose, which they should declare: but we are not interest in opposition. Vrge them a­gainst those who do vndertake to maintain, that men are damned necessarily.

See Fathers we may, but wee shall not need: wee See Fathers, that affirm the same. beleeue what they should say, and go hand in hand with what they doo say dogmatically: but see them all we cannot if we would, vnlesse we would go seek when we need not; and if wee would, might blowe the seeke for some of them, and after long search be neuer the neer in finding them.

For Saint Augustine; what or where wil you tell S. Aug. lib. 1. ciuit. vs, or are you able to informe vs, that hee affirmeth? You mean, he affirmeth somewhat in his first Book of the City of God: and I knowe he doth, more by much than you can report me. You haue had some acquaintance with some Particulars there, as you met them by chance in your perambulation of some trans-scripts of other mens Notes, and haue now forgotten where, and what. Else, what man, but such a Scribbler, would so loosely, in a point of oppositi­on, and therefore like enough of examination, haue referred vs to Saint Austen, in his first Book de Dei Ciuitate? Something you would say, I knowe not what: and therefore till you let me knowe, I say no­thing to what you haue said, I cannot tell how.

I haue seene and read Tertullian, in that place re­membred, Tert. de O­rat. cap. 8. [Page 182] expounding that Petition in our Lords Prayer, Lead vs not into temptation; who proposeth it resolued and de fide: and I knowe no man that doub­teth of it, that God tempteth no man, Quasi aut igno­ret fidem cuiusque, aut deijcere sit consentiens, as out of Ig­norance what hee can performe, or as consenting to vndoe him. But this passage, there is nothing in Tertullian that I can ghesse at, that we should see. And Sir, doth this passage come home to purpose, of decree vnto life or death? Or knowe you any Protestant not so perswaded? No, thou fore-head of brass, and tongue of Say, wee are fully resolued with Tertullian, that Diaboli est infirmitas et malitia; beeing taught by the Prophet to professe, Our destruction is of our selues, our saluation of the Lord.

S. Cyprian they may see, that think it worth their S. Cyprian Lib. 4. Epist. 2. labour, Lib. 4. Epist. 2. or as other Editions haue it, Epist. 52. and there is nothing to purpose, but by consequence; hauing cited that saying, euen now re­membred, Wisd. 1. 13. God made not death, thus he in­ferreth against the Nouatians, rigorous men, that denied repentance to lapsed Christians after Bap­tism: Vtique qui neminem vult perire, cupit peccatores poe­nitentiam agere, et per poenitentiam denuo ad vitam redire: Because he would not that any should perish, his desire is that Sinners should repent, and by Repentance reuert to life a­gaine. Doe Protestants deny Returne of the Laps [...]d vnto God? or Grace to Repentants after Fall? If we doe, this testimony may gagge our mouthes; if not, as we do not, then gaggeth it your owne mouth, Sir Goose.

Saint Ambrose will not, nor Saint Augustine, nor S. Ambrose Lib. 2. de Cain et Abel will n [...]t that we refer vnto God the preuaricati­on of Adam, or treason of Iudas, though hee knew the sin before it was committed. [Page 183] any else, whose brains are his owne, as yours are not. God fore-sawe it in Adam, and in Iudas: but Presci­ence inferreth not Predestination. For, not because foreseene, therefore effected; but because effected, therefore foreseene. The Treason of Iudas, the Fall of Adam, God fore-sawe, and suffred; this is cer­taine: God was Author of neyther Positiuely. That Good which they had, they had from God: this Woe and Vnhappinesse came from themselues. Pri­uate opinions we vndertake not: you should not in discretion, much lesse in honesty, impute it vnto vs. Your ayme is against the Church of England. Quar­rell that if you can: vndertake against it, if you dare. For what my word is past, I will make it good a­gainst all your Bandogges of Belzebub whatsoeuer; That Church maintaineth nothing against the Faith of the antient Church of Christ, resolued on for 500 yeeres.

XXII.

NOw you ramble indeed: your penne runs too fast: your malice sent your wit, I suppose, on wooll-gathering. Where finde you this conclusion in the Church of England? where in any mans mouth or writings in the Church of England; that Euery one ought so to [Page 184] assure himselfe. Hee that saith Euery one, excepteth none, not genera singulorum, any kinde of men; not sin­gulos generum, no particular man. Be you well in your wits to bely your selfe in belying of vs, and so soone to forget what you said but now?

For those that maintaine, as you say the Prote­stants doe, that some are damned, and some are saued by an ineuitable decree, cannot bee of opinion, ex­cept their braines were made like yours, of the pap of an apple, that Euery one ought infallibly to assure him­selfe of his saluation; which implieth a contradiction vnto that other Tenet. So that in one of these two, auoyd it if you can, you haue belyed your selfe, to bely vs.

And bely vs you do. For, where do you find it thus concluded by the Church of England? Answere on your Honesty, if you can: nay, bely them you doe, that come somewhat to your purpose; whose priuate opinions you make publique decisions of Faith. Bel­larmine, your grand Dictator of controuersies, from whose tables you or your Informers haue swept to­gether all these scrappes and fragments, in your bare abbridgement, proposeth the assertion, honestly and truly in restrained tearms, of Verè fidelis and Iusti­ficatus; That, not Euery one, but Euery true beleeuer, ought so to be assured; that no man is or can bee so assured, but the man that is iustified before God. And that is not euery one, as you bely them: They teach not; that euery man is iustified.

This opinion is an inference vpon that former, of Necessity of Election vnto life; and therefore those Protestants, who make not the former an Article of [Page 185] their Creed, build vpon no such infallibility vnto themselues, nor prescribe it to be beleeued of others: And those that so doe, are not peraduenture so for­lorne, as such a simple man as you may imagine, ha­uing Papists of reckoning to beare them company, and Fathers, Reasons, and Scriptures therefore.

Ambrose Catharine was no Baby, as great a Stick­ler as any in the Councell of Trent; in his owne opi­nion, superior to most; in all mens iudgement, infe­rior to none: who, for ought I knowe, went as farre as any, in particular and ordinary assurance of saluati­on, Before, In, After the Councell of Trent, against Dominicus a Soto, that maintained the contrary.

Silly man as you are, you can play in ambiguities, and talk at randome freely, when no man is neere to oppose or contradict you. Your Masters can teach you, that Assurance is twofold in this discourse: In respect of the Obiect, knowne, belieued; in regard of the Subject, beleeuing, knowing: As man relieth vp­on his Euidence; or as is his Euidence to rely vpon. Euidence is diuine or humane, from God or Man. Euidence diuine, if apprehended, is euer certaine, and infallible, both for the necessity of our object, God, in whom is nor change nor shadow of change; as also for the manner of determining the Euidence, whereby that is certaine and necessary for effect, which is but contingent otherwise in it selfe.

Euidence most cleere, assurance most certaine in it selfe, is contingent, vncertaine, as we may both vse it or dispose it, that are heere and there, of and on: because man is irresolute in his waies, and vncon­stant [Page 186] in his works. God is to vs, as wee are to him; knowne, as farre as wee can reach to apprehend him.

Thus then for those men that assert infallibility of assurance: Their meaning may bee, for ought you know, I am sure, for ought you haue said to the con­trary, that in regard of God, faithfull and true; in respect of his promises, Yea and Amen, euery Childe of God, renued by Grace, may and ought infallibly assure himselfe of his owne Saluation procured in Christ: who yet, in regard of his owne Infirmity and Inconstancy, cannot chuse but wauer in his assu­rance, and feare the worst, though he hope the best.

This was Austens resolution, if Bellarmine say right: Ex promissione Christi potest vnusquisque, vt S. Augusti­nus rectè docet, colligere se transusse à morte ad vitam, et in iudicium non ventre: Euery man may collect thus out of the promise of Christ; but with what assurance, the que­stion is: thereto Saint Augustine doth not proceed. Weresolue, saith he there, that a man may collect it by in­fallible assurance, and diuine, if wee looke into the faithful­nesse of him that promiseth: but if wee consider our owne disposition, we assigne no more but probable and coniectu­ral assurance. This Bellarmine assigneth. This is enough. Faction may transport a man to wrangle for more; but when once they ioyne issue, the difference will not be much.

Much or little, great or small, thus or so, the Church of England is not touched, that designeth nei­ther. Vngratefull Colt you are, that spurne with your heeles at the brests that gaue you life; if not to God, yet to nature; and impute more vnto her, then she meant or intended to determine or maintaine.

[Page 187] Indeed, contrary, as you bely them; consonant, Contrary to their owne Bible. agreeing, as they beleeue and maintaine: They neuer went against these words of Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 9. 27. Lest, by any meanes, when I preached to others, I my selfe should be a Cast-away: But they say you mistake, and mis-apply those words, and therein goe against your owne Directors. For, their Tenet is, that Saint Paul was assured of his saluation: whether by ordinary diuine Faith, or extraordinary diuine Reuelation, I enquire not at present, nor much care. I take, which you ignorantly doo contradict, or vnlearnedly doo oppose. Secondly, you oppose plain Scripture, in your Bibles: for, Saint Paul, a Iew by birth, as Bel­larmine resolueth, semper se in numero Electorum point, cùm de Praedestinatione loquitur, Rom. 8. 9, 11. & Eph. 1. accounteth himself euer in the Roll of Elect, wheresoeuer he mentioneth Predestination, as in the 8. 9, 11. chapters to the Romans, and 1. to the Ephesians. And yet say Therefore S. Paul himself was not assu­red infallibly. you, He was not assured infallibly. He dissembled ther­fore; thought one thing, said another. So much is That Apostle beholding to you.

They neuer went against him that you intend, in those other two Texts of Rom. 11. 20. Philip. 2. 12. For to him that continueth faithfull vnto the end, is ap­pointed the reward of eternall life. And yet it is pos­sible, and I could doo it, to puzzle such a Lozzell as your self, with expositions of those Texts that might well put off your application: but I vndertake no priuate opinions or peculiar interest. I iustifie no man but the Church of England. That I can doo against your Betters: that I will perform against your self.

A cleanly Put-off, but too common, and therefore A point of doctrine so improbable, that we will not labour to ouerthrowe it by any fur­ther proof of Fathers. [Page 188] to be smiled-at for your pouerty. You will not labour to ouerthrowe it by proof of Fathers. For why? Your good Patrons were themselues to-seek: and you haue but reuersions from other me [...] trenchers. If it were so improbable, as you would haue vs suppose it, Ca­tharine could not haue maintained it as he hath done; nor put Dominicus à Soto, no Baby, so to it, as I knowe hee hath; nor backed it with authorities of Austen and others. If so improbable, I maruell, the Coun­cell of Trent did so hardly passe it: and two Legates of three, or foure at most, professe, it went too soon out of their fingers, and came to resolution, before it had throughly been decided. What Spirit directed that Councell in this, where the Principall, in a sort, complains of surreption? This I haue from no He­retick: Catharine related it from their mouthes. He, you haue heard, was an Arch-bishop of great name, and as learned as many were in Trent. But I proceed.

XXIII.

THis fellow, it seemeth, had but little em­ploiment, when he vndertook to abridge our Controuersies; he is so apt and dispo­sed to enlarge them, and set them at odds, who would willingly haue been quiet. Such Bouti­feus as he is, hinc ad malam crucem: quibus quieta mo [...]ere magna merces, that loue to see the waters troubled; and take the very questioning of things that might [Page 189] rest; a sufficient hire to set them on worke, that the Father of Diuision may applaude them, and crie; Oh, well done. For, concerning Angell-keepers, what needed this Thesis? A thing not defined in any Coun­cell; no not in that last Conuenticle of Trent, be­cause free, and in Opinion euery way. The most that can be sayd against Opposers, is that of Vasques, disputing this Diuinitie probleme, Sine graui temerita­tis notâ negare non licet: VVee cannot deny without very great rashnes, that euery man hath his Angell-keeper.

To this I subscribe with all my heart: so doth the Church of England, for ought I knowe. Indeede I do not finde Decision or Resolution one way or o­ther in the Confession publike of our Church. No more do I in any Councell generall or particular to my remembrance, in any age. The reason is; no man did question it, all held it a truth: and what needed decision where no scruple was? The opinion of the antient Schoole, (the Fathers of the Church), is po­sitiue and affi [...]matiue for Angel-Keepers: the saying of Saint Augustine is well knowne, Parum est fecisse Angelos tuos, fecisti et custodes par [...]ulorum. It sufficed not; my God, that thou madest them thine Angels; thou crea­tedst them keepers of the little ones. The later Schoole runnes mightily the same way, though both with some differences, How, and To Whom, and when de­puted.

Before Origens time, (and he liued long within 300 yeeres after Christ) as himselfe relateth, Tract. 5. vpon Saint Mathew, there were two different opinions in the Church: The former maintained, that onely those had Angell-keepers deputed vnto them, who [Page 190] were of the number of Gods elect, from the first in­stant of their Natiuity: The other, that none but such holy men indeed had Angel-guardians, but from the day of their Baptisme and new Birth in Christ, assigned them, not before, or from their Na­tiuitie.

This was the opinion of Antiquitie, and no more; not as the Church of Rome hath enlarged it, that Euery man liuing, good and bad, from the verie first instant of life, to the last gaspe, hath an Angel-guar­dian deputed vnto him, as I could make manifest, if need were: and Basil is punctuall and expresse vpon the 33. Psal. page 221. and the 48. Psal. page 247. Nor doth the Master of Sentences otherwise con­ceiue it then, Vt quisque Electorum habeat Angelum ad sui protectum atque custodiam specialiter deputatum. In 2. d. 11. So that, hic Magister non tenetur: our Roman Vndertakers haue forsaken not alone the Fathers, but their owne Doctor Peter Lumbard, to enlarge the point.

And yet this giddy Goose-gaggler must prate, he knoweth not what, against the Church of England, concerning Angell-keepers in this point: who with as good reason, and to as great purpose, mought haue stirred touching Guardians of Kingdomes, Cities, Corporations, Elements, and ordering of the world; touching the time when, the maner how, the extent how farre, and many other like speculations, all disputed of among Diuines in the Church, none resolued of as de fide by Diuines for the Church. So that had we denied it, no such great matter: for, salus Ecclesiae non vertitur in istis: the Church may sub­sist [Page 191] and prosper without any such determined reso­lution. But, seeing we beleeue and professe it too, his lips would bee gagged, and his idle brains garbled at the least, for charging vs with such an vntroth.

What is so contrary, can you tell, to the expresse words of our owne Bible? Not well, [...] wis. Yes, th [...] Contrary to expresse words of their owne Bible, Mat. 18. 10 they had not their Angell-keeper. For, Mat. 18. 10. wee read the contrary; not to that which wee deny: for, we deny it not. If wee should deny it, yet this Text, thus cited, would not conuince vs: for, do you finde Angelus cus [...]s, Keeper or Guardian there? Put on your considering Cap some what closer to your Cocks­comb. Angell I finde, and their Angels I finde; In Heauen their Angels alway behold the face of my Father which is in Heauen: but Angels and Angell-keeper are two seuerall words, importing seueral offices in those heauenly Subsistences, as I conceiue it. And there­fore That cannot inforce This, except there were no Angels, but Angels-Guardians in Heauen. Again, I finde Their Angels, by appropriation: but appropri­ation is in moe respects than one. Their friends and well-willers they might well bee, though not Guar­dians to attend them; their Guardians sometime, vpon speciall imploiments; their Patrones assigned extraordinarily in Acts of Gods prouidence, so ma­ny, so diuerse, especially on parties of their allot­ment.

But I take not aduantage as I might: for, I admit the Tenet concerning Keeping-Angels, though vnto­wardly maintained by this poor Catholique Com­panion. This I question; the Object of Protection, Therefore they had their Angell­keeper. at randon specified in the Gag. Their and They, who [Page 192] were those They? Euery one, say you, if you say what you should. So teach your new Masters, that neuer so learned it of their Fore-fathers. In the now Doc­trine of the Romane Schooles, Euery man liuing hath his Angell-keeper, Iew, Gentile, Turk, Christian, Pagan, Epicure, Atheist, Antichrist himselfe, and peraduen­ture diuell and all. For Euery one, in your opinion, hath his Angell-keeper, without restraint, or limitation. Are the words of our Bible expresse for this? I cannot finde it in any of mine; the contrary rather. They are Little-ones who haue this Guard assigned. Their Angels putteth vs back to them, formerly mentio­ned and infisted vpon. If Little ones; then not Great­ones, then not all; and certainely not all, though Great ones: for these Little ones are Great indeed. Great with God, high in his bookes, though Little in the world, two wayes; through contempt of others, and their owne account, out of Humility and Opinion. There­fore now what? Euery man hath his Angell-keeper? No, some haue, and not all. Therefore you are a blunderer in this Text, of as little vnderstanding or lesse in that which followeth.

Psal. 91. 11, 12. The Prophet assureth thus from God: Hee shall giue his Angels charge concerning thee, to keepe thee in all thy waies. They shall beare thee vp in their hands, lest thou dash thy foote against a stone. But this Text will not reach vnto euery man, Simon Magus, Mahomet, or such like, but either restrainedly vnto Christ Iesus incarnate in our flesh, in all things, sinne onely excepted; tempted as we are, and subject to in­firmities: and so Irenaeus, Eusebius, Augustine, and others doe expound it; as did also the diuell in his [Page 193] combate with Christ; and then, it is not to purpose: for though it be granted, which your Schooles dis­pute, that Christ incarnate had his Angell-keeper, a thing absurd, injurious, idle, if not impious, yet it go­eth no farther but to one particular, and him onely, as Head of the Church; and will confine this Keepe­rage to the Church. Or it may be vnderstood more enlargedly, of all those that it belongeth vnto; that is, Those that dwell vnder the shadow of the most High, that haue made the Lord their refuge, euen the most High God their habitation; that is, of them in the Church, at least, if not onely of The righteous in the Church: as, after Ignatius, the major part of Authors haue ex­pounded it. Take it how you will, this way or that, it prooueth not, that Euery one, in generall tearmes, hath his Angell-keeper: but the Protestants Tenent, Some haue, onely, and no more.

Saint Cyril of Alexandria is not ad oppositum: he This very passage Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Lib. 4. con. Iulian. appli­eth to our Angel-kee­per. doth applie it to our Angell-keeper. And let him in good time, a Gods name so apply it. I know no reaso­nable man but will embrace his application, and bee glad to be assured of such a Guardian. But that Our Angel, Sir Gagger, in your language, vnto whom, I pray, is it applied? To Iohn a- N [...]ke and Iohn a- Stile with you. To euery man in your Ashdod language, Antichrist and All, you cannot auoyd it: for Anti­christ with you, is a singular man: therefore, if Euery man haue his Angell-keeper, Antichrist, a man, must haue his; auoid this if you can. Now see if S. Cyril applieth this very passage as you would haue him.

See then how handsomely your Texts and Propo­sition hang together. That is conceiued in these ge­nerall [Page 194] termes, Euery man hath his Angell-keeper, in opi­nion of your Masters (for I think you cannot tell what they teach, nor your self what to hold), the ex­plication is for singuligenerum, Euery man liuing vpon Earth. The proofes out of Scripture are restrained, and speake onely for some men, a Peculiar People; the Righteous onely, the sonnes of God, at least, that liue within the pale of the Church, and haue interest in the Couenant of Grace. Therefore, though They had their Angels Guardians, yet it followeth not, All and Euery one hath so.

Go and see, good Reader, those places, moe; not Proofes for Euery mans Angell-keeper, but as plaine See more, Acts 12. 14. 1. Cor. 11. 10. Euidences of this fellowes witlesse allegations. For first, those Angels mentioned, 1. Cor. 11. 10. may, for ought he knoweth out of the Text, be other Angels extraordinarily sent. It is not said, They were His or Theirs, but indeterminately, The Angels. Therefore ought a woman to haue power vpon her head, because of the Angells. Secondly, They may bee Angels of the Church in generall, and not peculiarly of that man or this. Thirdly, Whosoeuer, or whose-soeuer those Angels were, we find them not in the Wildernes, among the Tents of Cedar, or at Babylon; but in Sion, in the Church, the Chappell, in the Chancell; not onely spiritually, in the Church of the Redeemed, but ma­terially, in the place of Diuine Seruice, vpon an Ho­liday; In locosancto, actione sacra. So that these are no Rangers amongst the beasts of the Forrest: they haue their seuerall walks in the Church-pale.

That Angell, Acts 12. 14. is One, a speciall one, an Angell-keeper indeed, Leiger with Saint Peter in his [Page 195] life; but yet such an Angell, as for whom Euery man is neuer theneere. He enlargeth not the Guardianship vnto All, but confineth it vnto Some; A man in the Church, a member of the Church. Nay, say you, The Church in him, prouided for him, built vpon him, committed to him. Saint Peter's Angel, that great Apostle, of him speaketh Rhode, it is his Angel.

Thus we haue seene all we are likely to see. The poore man can afford vs no Fathers heere; his rea­ding, it seemeth, would not reach vnto that, and his good Masters were not at hand to help him. I could furnish him, if hee would thank mee, to better pur­pose, then his Scriptures haue: but want, I suppose, he will rather, then be beholding to a Protestant. To conclude, wee will not deny him, that Euery man hath his Angell-keeper; but within the Church at least, not rambling abroad. Are they not all of them ministring spirits, sent forth to minister? To whom? where? Not to euery man vnder heauen, but with restriction, Who shall be heyres of saluation; In offensiue sort against their foes; in defensiue manner for their good. Thus the Scriptures speake, and no otherwise: thus the Fathers taught, and no otherwise. Not Euery man, but Euery Christian man, at his Birth, or at his Baptisme, hath his Guardian Angell depu­ted to him.

XXIIII.

WIth Ly and all, Sir Gagger. Not pray for vs? Now, I pray you, who saith so? No man will say or think so, that beleeueth in his Creed, The communion of Saints, and can tell what connexion of the two parts of the Church of the Redeemed there is, the one militant heere in Earth; the other Regnant and Triumphant in Heauen. Now a principall part of that Communion and Society which they haue with vs, is, to recom­mend our state and necessities vnto God our Father. To which end God Almighty hath, as wee professe in our Collect vpon Michaelmas Day, appointed the Seruice of men and Angels in a wonderfull sort.

But somewhat there was, or the man mistook. Their Praying for vs may bee considered two waies; either in Generall, or in Particular. For the peace of Sion: the prosperity of Ierusalem: the state and con­dition of the Church militant in earth; thus in ge­nerall. For Manasses in Captiuity, Hezechiah belea­guered by Senacherib. For this man or that man in particular, vpon speciall motiues and occasions: and that likewise two waies; either ordinarily, and of common course; or specially, by Delegation in ex­traordinary seruice.

[Page 197] Now this Proposition, Holy Angels pray for vs, doth not limit nor explaine the tearmes, but is ambigu­ous; as this peddler most an end frameth all in his Pack, to calumniate, and to deceiue. Whether All Angels pray for All men; or All for some men; or some for all; or some for some; who can tell, that was not of counsell to his pen and purpose? As it lyeth lurking in fraudulent tearmes, I can answere both waies, and contradictory waies. First, Holy An­gels pray not for vs; and truly too. Nor shall this Goose hiscere against my answere, viz. Not euery holy Angell in speciall, for euery man in particular; Not at all times, vpon any or all occasions. I can al­so answer, and truly too; Holy Angels pray for vs. And so this Gagger may goe shoo the Goose. That is, It is a principall part of their performance in Hea­uen, as they magnifie their Maker eternally, so to re­commend vnto Him, vncessantly, the Estate and good beeing of the Church of the Redeemed, as yet in great Tribulations. I adde yet further, At all times, some of them pray for the particular estate of some priuate Men, Cities, States, Societies or Countries: And the Holy Angell-keepers, for their speciall charges commended vnto their trust by God, at sometime, some of them for all, for some, vpon special occasion, employment, or designation, as extraordinarily they may and doe vndertake.

Now to come home to your loose & laxe affirma­tion: Contrary to expresse words in your owne Bibles, Zach. 1. 9, 10, 11. Your expresse words in our Bible are not so ex­presse, as to speake to your purpose: that of Zachar. 1. 9. 10. runneth thus: O Lord of hosts, how long wilt thou net haue mercy vpon Ierusalem, and on the Cities of Iuda, [Page 198] against which thou hast had indignation these 70 yeeres? For, it followeth not, because this one Angell prayed for Ierusalem in Captiuity, any Angel doth pray for any or euery man. This was extraordinary: your supposall must bee ordinary. This was occasionall, for his employment: your Angels must not bee so allotted. Happely this was their Angell-Guardian; Michael, Prince of the Synagogue. Pleade thus for An­gell-keepers, none will gayn-say you. They pray for vs, no question at all. This was in a peculiar case, for restoring Ierusalem and Iuda, according to promise, in appointed time, 70 yeeres designed by the Pro­phets. So the question was idle like your selfe, Whe­ther Now what, I pray you, is a praier, if this be not? this were not a Prayer? The question well ordred, should haue beene, Whether All Angels, at all times, doe not in particular pray for euery particular man, as this Angell heere did for Sion? To the former wee answere positiuely, Yea; to the second, negatiuely, No. Nor can this instance euict that.

Tobie 12. 12. Raphael telleth Tobias thus: When thou didst pray, and Sara thy daughter-in-law, I did bring the remembrance of your praiers before the Holy One. First, what an Addle-head are you, that trump in the Pro­testants way with this Testimony, which your Ma­sters can tell you (for, happely your ignorance knoweth not so much) they esteem of no otherwise than a Talmudicall Tale? Secondly, how can you accord this Tale with your owne Tenents? Raphael both speaketh heer as their Angell-keeper, and carri­eth himself so in that whole negotiation. Raphael was of the highest Hierarchy; next to Michael and Ga­briel, in your account. Your selues teach, that An­gels [Page 199] of that Hierarchie are not Custodes, nor imploi­ed vnto men: but all imployed ordinarily, are of the inferiour and lowest rank. Riddle me, riddle mee: what is this? You told vs of one that could vntie knots: let him vntie this, or cut it in pieces; for, it troubleth vs not a little.

That Angell, Reuel. 8. 4. from whose hands the smoke of incense ascended, which is expressed to haue been the prayers of Saints, who was he? can you tell mee? whether the Angell of the Couenant, Christ Iesus himself; or Michael, the Protector of the Church, do you knowe? or some other Angell, are you assured? Was his imployment ordinary or extraordinary, can any tell? Mysticall, you may be sure, this Passage is: and can you draw Arguments from such Testimo­nies? Your great vnderstanding doth happely think, Yea: the common resolution is for, Nay. But how­soeuer the praiers of all Saints, that is, of the Church, were offred to God in the hands of an Angell, their Mediator, therefore All Angels pray for all men; or some Angels for some men ordinarily? I deny the necessity of this doctrine. When you say more, you shall heare further; but much more, I beleeue, you cannot: for, you fail of your wonted Cue, See more, and See Fathers that affirm it: neither Scripture nor Fathers heer.

In Conclusion, from whence drew you forth this imputation, that The holy Angels pray not for vs? For, Bellarmine, your Polstar and Cynosura in point of Con­trouersie, doth confesse, It is not denied, that Sancti, and so Angell orant pro nobis, saltem in genere secundum Scriptur as. And those that assent, as most doo, a [...] the [Page 200] Church of England doth, vnto Angell-keepers, will not stand with you for it, that orant pro nobis, not onely in genere, but in particulari. Your desire is onely for priuate aduantage, to keep a Faction on foot: and therefore you flutter in dubious tearms; Holy Angels pray not for vs: which is, or true, or false, as it may be taken.

XXV.

PRay to them, if you like it; or to Saint Loiola, if you please: we cannot hinder you from playing the fools, and expo­sing your selues to bee laughed-at for your labours. I say, as Iosua sometime said, in a case not very much vnlike, Call vpon what Saints or Angels you will: go serue Baal or Astaroth, if you fansie it. We in the Church of England will call vnto the Lord of Heauen and Earth, by immediate addresse, without intercession of Mediators; hauing warrant most sufficient, by direction and inuitation, Psalm 50. 15. Call vpon me in the time of trouble; so I will beare thee, and deliuer thee. Doo you knowe any man so vnaduised, that will go about, when hee may well go streight? or will sue for assistance, and that also vncertain, when he needeth none? Perhaps there is no such great impiety in saying, Sancte Laurenti, ora pro me: but in my opinion, till I am better informed, [Page 201] it is grand foolery, to say, Sancta Catharina, ora pro me; where I may say, cum effectu, vnto God himself, Miserere mei, Deus: Lord, haue mercy vpon me. If you might haue accesse vnto his Holinesse at pleasure, would you vse the mediation of Cardinall Barberino, if there bee any such, though the Pope's Nephew? I suppose not: if you did, I say no more, but The Vi­car of Saint Fooles be your ghostly father.

But our Bible is against our Doctrine. In good Contrary to their owne Bible. time: how so? For, Iacob saith, Gen. 48. 16. The Angell which redeemed mee (you read, deliuereth mee) from all euill, blesse these Lads: where, first, you bely your owne reading. You read, Angelus qui er uit me. Is that deli­uereth, in the present Tense, in your Grammar? It is to all, but you, in the Time past, that hath deliuered. Now, what such difference, that it should bee noted, betwixt deliuered and redeemed? indeed, that hath taken me out. Secondly, read it how you will, it is not to purpose. You propose it thus; That we may not: you proue the lawfulnes, quia factum: so you may proue theft, murder, and what not? It is a priuate fact of Iacob, there related by Moses: and the Acts, no not of the best men, are no rules of actions vnto others. We should liue by Precept, not by Practice. Our Saui­our said not, What seest thou? but, What readest thou? But thirdly, I will take no such exception: I admit it ruleable euery way. Iacob did well: wee may doo so as Iacob did, and yet not pray to Angels.

Therefore, fourthly, I answer contradictorily to That this was spoken to a true An­gell, and not to Christ. your inference. This is not spoken to, but of an An­gell; secondly, not of a created Angel, but of Christ. Thirdly, Christ is a true Angell. This Fellow must [Page 202] go learn to speak, before hee write; what to put in Print, before hee publish it; to vnderstand Diuinity, before he babble in it. Is Christ an Angell, and not a true one? Is he a false or a counterfet Angell? in ap­pearance, in collusion, not in substance? Who euer heard such Stuffe from a Priest's lips? Christ is an Angell, not created, a true Angell, of an higher alloy, Prince of Angels, as of men; a mighty Angell, The Angell of the Couenant.

And this was spoken of him by the Patriarch Ia­cob: The God of Bethel, as hee is called, that spake with Iacob in Bethel, and met him there, who wrastled with him, who blessed him, who told not his name, being secret; spoken of him, by commemoration; not vnto him, by inuocation: That Angell which deliuered mee, blesse these.

The man had, I knowe not how, some intimation from some other, that we would reply, that this An­gell Basil. l. 3. c. Eunomium. & S. Chrys. ho. 7. in laud. S. Pauli, and vpon 1. of Col. and S. Hier. vpon 66 of Esay. heer specified, as indeed wee beleeue it, was Christ himself, and no created Angell: and there­fore, to gag our mouthes, hee preuents our answer; that in the opinion of Saint Basil, Chrysostome, and Hierome, it was not Christ, but a created Angell: and therefore who for shame can say he praied not to him?

Wisely, I warrant you; as if it could not bee auoy­ded, but he was then prayed vnto, because in the opi­nion of these men, hee was a created Angell: which is no consequence, except it were granted, that none but created Angels were to bee prayed vnto, on any hand, at any time, vpon any occasion. Now, who for shame will thus reason, to shame himselfe, but hee, that eyther is past shame, or through ignorance [Page 203] not capable of it? It is good to vncase such a Moun­tebanke, that he may be knowne what he is. But I go from him, to this, the point in question.

These Fathers opined, That Angel was not Christ, but a created Angel: and what then? As if as many were not of a contrary opinion. But were it not so, no more can be collected then this, that in some mens o­piniō Iacob spake of a created angel; & thence, in some mens opinion, not by any expresse words of our Bibles, which we were promised to haue, this was not Christ. Which if it were so, as this Gagger can neuer proue it so, I will vndertake against him if hee dare: yet wee answer first, Then it was Iacobs Guar­dian at least, as Tostatus, and Iesuites that I haue seene, imagine. Now the case of Angels-keepers, in point of Aduocation & Inuocation, is much different from other Angels not Guardians; as being continually at­tendant, alway at hand, though inuisibly: & therfore though we might say, Sancte Angele Custos, ora pro me; it followeth not, we may say, Sancte Gabriel, ora pro me.

But lastly, heere is no Inuocation nor Intercession, nor praying vnto any Angell Custos or not Custos, ordinary or extraordinarily attendant. It is a desire directed by Iacob vnto God, to send his Angel for that seruice and employment, to blesse & keep those Lads. It is no addresse vnto that Holy Angel, whosoeuer he was. Which being so, & so far from express words pretended, were not this fellow past all shame, he Which beeing so, who for shame can say, He pray­ed not vnto him? would shame to say, Iacob prayed vnto an Angel. But of this, and this Question elsewhere more at large. Thither gang this Gaggler, and I shall gag him, I am sure, in this point of praying vnto Angels and Saints.

XXVI.

SEale vp thy Lips for euer, thou lying tongue. Said euer any Protestant, An­gels cannot helpe vs? Name mee the man that may thus bee blotted, or hot burning coles bee thy portion, thou Ly­er, and misborne El [...]e of the Father of lies. It is con­trary indeed to expresse words of our owne Bibles, not alone in the places rightly produced, but many moe; and more to purpose then some of these are; contrary to sense, reason, beliefe, and experience; contrary to our teaching, our meaning our drea­ming. We beleeue & confesse of Holy Angels, They can, will, haue, doe help vs, ordinarily, extraordinarily: toties quoties, they are employed, as the mighty Executioners of the Almighties will, for his seruants, against his foes.

And yet see the pouerty of this fellowes vnder­takings! He is to prooue, that Angels can help vs. His first proofe is, Daniel 10. 13. Michael, one of the chiefe Princes, came to help mee. I question not the mea­ning of that Text. I yeeld it. But I maruaile, this fel­lowe can set it downe, Angels help vs; and come in with this proofe, which should bee expresse; and therefore name Angels; where Princes, not An­gels [Page 205] are remembred; and so remembred, as sensu pri­mo, they may bee taken for some temporall Poten­tate, some of the Satrapaes of the King of Persia. But the Prince of the Kingdome of Persia withstood mee twen­ty daies: but lo, Michael, one of the chief Princes, came to help mee: and I remained there by the Kings of Persia: are these words expresse, for Angels helping? They are, I grant, for their help; but farre from expresse, which are so mysticall.

That of Acts 12. in Saint Peter's case, is indeed expresse: and nothing can be more plaine, for proofe, then that place, which representeth a performance of that delegation, Hee hath giuen his Angels charge concerning thee: a thing neuer questioned, denied, doubted, dreamed of by any Protestant, that I know. To proue himselfe an honest man, it were good this accuser would name the man. But somewhat there is in it, though he cannot tell what. We deny to ad­dresse our selues in time of need, vnto Angels for me­diation, or intercession; and we doe deny it, because we hold it needlesse, vnnecessary, as no part of our duty, as vnbehoouefull, & to no purpose; because we are perswaded, that ordinarily, in euery exigent, at all times, no Angel, not attendant without remoue, can take notice of vs, vnderstand our state instantly, pitty vs in misery, and so relieue vs. This is not for any inualidity of power, nor for auersnes of will. If they know it, they are willing; if willing, they are sufficient. The want proceedeth not from them: it is from disability in ourselues, to acquaint them ordi­narily with our states: which needs wee must doe, if wee will looke that they should help vs. This is [Page 206] that which this fellow should pitch vpon; but then he were gon, and not able to say bough to a Goose: now hee hath somwhat to say at least, and make a shew a­mongst the Gaggle, though it be with a loud lye, that They cannot help vs, as we say.

And yet we haue a shew of Fathers, and are sent to see, first, Iustin Martyr, Apol. 2. and no more, C. W. See Fathers that affirme what hath beene said touching Angels. B. This mans founder hath these words, The host of the good Angels we worship and adore. Which if it were so, is not concerning any thing that hath beene said touching Angels, by this Gaggler hitherto. But C. W. B. had it from Bellarmine: and he followed, I know not what translation. The Text of Iustin Martyr, page 137 of Robert Steuens edit. in Greeke is this: [...]. We confesse, saith that Father, that we are Atheists in re­gard of any worship that wee giue vnto those esteemed Gods; but not so in respect of the true God: him, and his Sonne that came from him, and hath taught both vs these things, and also the Host of good Angels, that are different from the other bad that followed him, and were likened vnto him, as also the Spirit of propheticall predictions, we worship and adore, honouring them in verity and in truth. This is the Text of Iustin, meant by this man, word for word related in his owne language, as he did write, and ex­pressed thereout punctually. And now Sir, what ad­uantage from Iustin Martyr? What haue your Prose­lytes seen in him? Your Translator, Perionius, mistook his Author, and Bellarmine was glad to make aduan­tage of it: and your Instructer took it as he found it. [Page 207] As for your selfe, I think you are innocent of all. Otherwise then so, it cannot bee taken. For, though wee should yeeld it, Angels are to bee worshipped; yet not with diuine worship your selues confesse; with such as is due vnto God alone. But if any wor­ship bee giuen them heer, it is, point par point, that which is due to God. See what it is to blunder so.

This was for worshipping of Angels. S. Ambrose succedeth in his Book, de Viduis, for praying vnto Angels. So the man flits to and fro: Angels are to be beseeched, who are deputed our Guardians; ther­fore not all Angels, but onely Guardians. And is this to purpose; Angels pray for vs; or We may pray to them indefinitely? But I let the rest alone. I haue answered else-where these and other places, and whatsoeuer other, beside these, haue hitherto come to my know­ledge from our opposites in the point of inuocation.

XXVII.

I Doo not belieue you, that you can name For, some such my self haue met with. any Protestant that wil defend this, That no Saint, deceased, hath appeared after death. Your word is no Gospell. It is a Catho­lique Trick now-a-daies, to cog and lie, to cast any aspersion vpon Protestants. If you haue met with some such, it had been well you had named [Page 208] vs the men. Your luck and experience hath been bet­ter than mine: I neuer yet met with any such Deni­ers. Perhaps, in your ranging vp and downe, you haue met with some ignorant & simple people, that, hearing your talk of Apparitions, thought you coniu­red; and, not knowing the meaning of the word, would not beleeue you vpon any hand: and, as your custom is, you publish it for the doctrine of the Pro­testants, that No man euer appeared, no not extraordi­narily, after death.

But to purpose. We may conceiue your meaning two waies; eyther as in common course of kinde, or else vpon extraordinary course. Apparitions haue been, and may be; but, as works of wonder, dispensati­ons of the right hand of the most High. Apparitions are not ordinary, nor of common dispensation. And infinite impostures, iuggling tricks, and collusions, haue beene obtruded at all times vpon the world, especially within the last 500 yeeres, by coozening & cheating knaues, vnder vaile and couert of Appa­ritions; principally, to delude poore superstitious people, with that opinion of Purgatory, to make merchandize of the pardons. But why not as proba­ble, that some Saints haue appeared from Heauen, as some Popes haue come from Hell? Both at Gods good pleasure extraordinarily, who doth all things as hee will in Heauen and Earth. What, if The soules of the Righteous be in the hands of God; are his hands so shortned, that no where but in Heauen they can bee in his hands? God may send them, no doubt, extra­ordinarily. No cessation of pain is to the one; no impairing of happinesse, vnto the other: they carry [Page 209] their heauen and hell about with them wheresoeuer they be. So that, in no diuersity of opinion, we might well passe-by your Texts to no purpose.

And indeed to no purpose: for, Mat. 17. 3. we read, There appeared vnto them, Moses and Elias talking with them: which apply to your Thesis, No Saint, deceased, hath appeared vnto any; and aduise how handsomely it agreeth thereto. For, doo you not knowe, or haue you heard of it, that Moses by some Authors is repu­ted not dead? as by Hillary, Can. 20. vpon Mathew; by Saint Ambrose, in his second Book of Cain & Abel; but translated by God into Paradise, as Helias was af­terward: asserted of late by no Babies of your owne; Ioh. Arboreus, lib. 11. Theosophias, and Ambrose Catharine vpon Gen. 3? If that bee so, you may go seek a new Text, to prooue apparitions of dead men by. It will be answered, These were not dead. For, if Moses be liuing, Elias is sure: you hold him yet aliue; and why not both aliue, seeing both must come, and oppose against Antichrist, and bee slaine by him before Dooms-day? Mend your conclusion, and make it thus: Therefore Saints haue appeared to some on earth; and Therefore Saints decea­sed haue ap­pearea to some on earth I will warrant, no man will quarrell your assertion.

But your second Text of Mat. 27. 52. cometh home to your minde. They were Saints indeed, deceased, but restored to life; and peraduenture vnto eternall life, in bodies as well as soules. They appeared vnto many; the Text is plain: and I beleeue, you neuer met with any such, that, when you shewed this Text, would deny their appearing; which is expresse. And yet it is not well applied by you: for, your apparitions, as I conceiue it (inform me, if I doo mis-take you), [Page 210] are not in bodyes restored to life, or raised vp out of the dust, but in bodies assumed, or some other way. These men appeared in their owne bodies, which were laid into, and rose vp out of the graues; and so, not very fitting your purpose.

As for Onias the high Priest, who beeing dead, ap­peared vnto Iudas Macchabeus, let him iustifie it that hath written it. If he report the story as it was; very good; it may be done. I see nothing to the contrary; if not true, no great hurt at all: your puling-whining soules in Purgatory, get nothing by the bargaine, That some Saints deceased, haue appeared. For these were in Heauen, of which there is constat for their ap­pearing: at least prooue you they were in Purgatory, to which your apparitions tend. But the truth is, there are many Schoens & Parasangs betwixt those wōdrous works of God, and those iuggling tricks in the Ro­mane Church; deuised onely to make the Priests pot to seethe, and fill the Popes purse by collusion.

XXVIII.

SPeake out, and speak plaine. What mean you by what passeth? All things that are done on earth? in al places? at al times? by all persons? ordinarily? of them­selues? or som saints? som things in som [Page 211] places, at some times? by some persons? extraordi­narily? by reuelation, or some such like meanes? No Protestant will deny the one: no Papist hath hi­therto dared affirme the other. Dare you abide by it? if you doe, take vp the bucklers, and see what will follow. Your generall position will beare ey­ther interpretation. Wee affirme, that all Saints de­parted knowe something on Earth; as namely, The beeing of a Church: That some Saints departed knowe something heere done extraordinarily, by re­uelation, intimation or otherwise.

As your position is captiously put downe: so is your first proofe from the Text of Luke 16. 29. Sophi­stically affixed. There Abraham knew, that there were Moses and the Prophets bookes in earth, which hee himselfe had neuer seene. Indeed Abraham was dead long before Moses wrote. And after Moses wrote, till the time that Abraham answered thus (if it were an History, and not a Parable), were many mo hundred yeeres. In all which time, no Protestant will deny, but Abraham might know when he was in Paradise, that God had left such bookes vnto Israel. Now this is not ad idem, nor prooueth the question: For, your position is, what passeth, not what hath passed: your proofe is for, what hath passed; and not, for what passeth. A maine dif­ference betwixt these two. I cannot tell what you intend to write next: but I can tell, you haue plaid the Goose in your Gag: and hereafter when your worthy work putteth forth head to view, I shall bee able to say what Animal it is. Abrahā knew som 2000 yeers after his death. Put the case so, that Moses & the Prophets were in the hands of the Iewes, and direc­tors [Page 212] of them in their course vnto God: therefore Abraham knew what Rabbi Gamaliel taught Saint Paul such a day, in his Auditory. Is this a good con­sequence now in your Logick? A coozener, a cob­ler might reason so. Yet this is your reason, cap, apee. I answer directly: First, Abraham's case is not euery mans. Secondly, Abraham's knowledge might bee extraordinary: our Quaere is of ordinary knowledge. Thirdly, Abraham might know in long tract of time, which he could not so at an instant; and wee make question of present knowledge: for, that is required vnto your purpose onely. That which S. Augustine witnesseth, we deny not: that which we deny, hee witnesseth not. Hee witnesseth there, that Abraham At Saint August. wit­nesseth, Lib. de cura mor­tis. cap. 14. knew of Moses. He telleth not how he came to know of Moses; nor what Abraham or Moses can know touch­ing vs.

In the next, as much ridiculous. Iohn 5. 45, our Sa­uiour there telleth the Iewes thus: Do not think, that I will accuse you to my Father. There is one that accuseth you, euen Moses, in whom you trust. Vpon citing this Text, it may seem, the man was som what conscious, that it was not [...], as it should bee, expresse; that the Thesis was, of knowing what is done vpon earth; the proofe, of accusing vnto God in heauen. Therefore, to help it, we haue an argument, a consequence infer­red vpon that Antecedent thus: How could Moses, dead 2000 yeeres before, accuse those that were liuing, if the Saints deceased, knowe not what passeth in the earth? If so; then take heed that Moses accuse not you for a fool, as very an one, as euer went without the priuiledge of a bable; who so childishly imagine, that God set in [Page 213] iudgement, the Iewes were arraigned, euery mothers sonne. And Moses did, as the diuell with Iob, came and accused them, euery one in particular, of euery crime committed: for so it must be. Doubtlesse Mo­ses had worke enough to doe; especially in those last, worst, tumultuous times. You should haue let vs knowne, who was of their Councell, who their Aduocate against Moses; and whether it came to a demurrer or not.

But good man Wiseacres, learne of your Masters, to take things aright. By Moses, is not vnderstood his person, then in Paradise, dead or aliue; but Moses wri­tings, the Law of Moses, that in which the Iewes did so much trust. So it is not personall: it is instru­mentall: his writings accuse you, and will condemne you. So Caietan, Maldonate, and who not? or if perso­nall, Moses himselfe, why then thus they take it: It is his office, it will be performed by him at the Resur­rection, and day of Doome: Moses then will stand vp and accuse you. Any way take it, it cannot conclude, that Saints in Heauen do knowe, by any ordinary course, what passeth continually vpon earth. What Saints are said to know, and what not; how many waies, to what purposes and ends, I could let the Reader see, and gagge vp this gabbler for euer: but I haue don it already elsewhere, in that point to which this tendeth of Inuocation: of which notwithstan­ding I must say som what heere: for it followeth next in order.

XXIX.

WEE say not so. You either mistake vs, or bely vs. The Saints pray for vs all in generall; all Saints for vs; or euery Saint for vs: that is, for the Church militant on earth. You shall finde, if you enquire, that the Caluinists themselues, as you call them, or Puritans, hold this.

I adde, The Saints pray for vs in particular; some particular Saint, for some particular man, in some speciall cause, some time. And to come more particularly to it: The Question is not, whether Saints departed doe pray vnto God: that is con­fessed on both sides; all Saints doe, by prayer, in­tercession, supplication, as well as thanksgiuing. It is confessed they pray for others, and for themselues Nor can any be so senslesse as to say they pray for them selues. too, by all but this addle-pate, who prates he know­eth not what, and measureth other mens senses by his owne senslesnesse. It is euident they doe, Apocal. 6. 10. How long O Lord holy and true! doest thou not iudge and auenge our bloud on them that dwell vpon the earth? The fellow neuer heard, that the soules of the Righteous pray for their consummation in glory: such an infant is hee in these speculations which are so common.

Again, it is not denied they pray for vs, in regard of [Page 215] that Communion of Saints, whereof this holy per­formance is a principall and main part; for vs in ge­nerall, out of fellow-feeling and commiseration of our miseries which themselues haue tasted in this valley of tears; for their friends in particular, whom they remember, whose state they recommend vnto God in praier; they hauing lost no endowment in their Soule in Glory, which did accrue vnto them vpon Earth. And as for Loue and Charity vnto their brethren, which makes them so forward to do them good, that is exceedingly enlarged there. Monica, Saint Augustine's Mother, for instance, departing this life before her Sonne, I make no doubt, being seate [...] in those Heauenly Palaces, might and did remember her sonne on earth, recommend his estate vnto our blessed Sauiour, pray for him in generall; his good Constancy, Perseuerance, and Confirmation in the course of his Christian Profession and Priestly Fun­ction; and not onely so, but might remember him in some particular occasions, occurrences and actions, with which in her life-time she was acquainted. And yet Saint Augustine had nor could haue any warran [...] at all to pray vnto her for her remembrance of him, or assistance in things that fell out afterwards, after her death; because there was not, nor yet could bee, any ordinary course certain, whereby hee might ac­quaint her with his particulars after her death: which is all in all for inuocation.

To come home to the point. It should not be put, as heer it is, that they pray for vs: for, without questi­on, they doo; and it is confessed by all Protestants, that they doo pray for vs in generall, all, without limi­tation; [Page 216] in particular, in some cases. But it should haue been specified, when, for what, by what meanes, and how, they doo, and doo not, pray for vs: but of these, and such like necessary Inferences as these, this Dreamer thought not, or else would take no notice. So hard a thing is it, to knowe or set down the state of a Controuersie right: so vnwilling, at least, men are to come to tearms of commerce, and some a­greement, who minde nothing but faction and dis­turbance.

This being premised, we proceed to see how con­trary the Doctrine of the Protestants is vnto their Contrary to their owne Bible. owne Bible. Apoc. 5. 8. our Bibles read thus: The 24 Elders fell down before the Lamb, hauing euery one of them Harps, and golden Vials full of Odors, which are the Praiers of Saints. Heer 24 Elders are represented; but, in a vision. Then who told this Smatterer in diuinity, who they were? It is exprest, that these Odors were the Prayers of Saints: but is it expressed, who they were that pre­sented them? or what Prayers? or what Saints? The Praiers of Saints on Earth. But then, except a man be a Saint on Earth, Intercession vnto, Mediati­on of Saints in Heauen will doo him no good at all. Presented by Saints in Heauen: but, Quo warran­to? For, not because this vision was in Heauen repre­sented, therefore the Action and Actors intended, were also heauenly; and the thing represented, no where done but there. Such obscure Prophesies, not yet vnderstood, that you can say, by any, are neuer assumed for Proofs in point of Controuersie, but of men that vphold a desperate forlorn cause, for want of cleerer Proofs.

[Page 217] For the Text, Irenaeus inclineth to take it of those Prayers which the Church of GOD offreth vpon Earth, lib. 4. cap. 33: Quoniam ergo Nomen Filij proprium Patris est, & in Deo omnipotenti, per Iesum Christum offert Ecclesia, bene ait secundum vtraque: in omni loco incensum offertur Nomini meo, & sacrificium purum. Incensa autem Iohannes in Apocalypsi, Orationes ait esse Sanctorum: which is again repeated by that mvsticall Diuine, Apocal. 8. And the smoke of the incense, which are the Pray­ers of Saints, went vp from the hand of the Angell before God. No more is collected, or can bee, from these Texts, but this, that Prayer is compared to Incense; according vnto that in the Psalm, Let their Praier bee set forth in thy sight like incense; and let the lifting-vp of their hands bee as the euening sacrifice. But, concluded it cannot be from these mysticall Visions, that these Saints prayed vnto that Angell; that the 24 Elders represented the Angels; that those Praiers were ad­dressed from men vpon Earth; that the Vision ex­pressed a thing ordinary, and done; that any man of discretion or vnderstanding in Diuinity or common reason, would haue gone in hand to haue prooued a thing controuerted and obscure, by that which is much more obscure, as this Fellow doth.

In Macchab. 2. 15. 14. thus we read: This is a louer of the Brethren, who prayeth much for the people, and for the holy City; to wit, Ieremias the Prophet: and from thence the conclusion is, Therefore they pray for vs. To weet, you should haue added, the Prophets or the Iewes. In­deed in a Dream, worthy (no doubt) to be beleeued, verse 11. For, so Iudas dreamed, and you beleeue it; and draw vs a Conclusion from your Dream thus: [Page 218] Therefore they, Ieremy and Onias, if you will, pray for vs: In a Dream too. So the Doctrine is a Dream; the proof, a Dream: a Dreamer related it: a Drea­mer recorded it; and a Dreamer doth tell & beleeue it. So, Qui amant, ipsi sibi somnia fingunt: men are apt to beleeue Dreams, when the Dream is for their pur­pose. Admit it no Dream: let it be a story, and res gesta. Ieremy might wel pray for them in generall, as hauing not forgot them in Heauen, whom he did know vpon earth. In some particular he might, eyther by extraordinary relation, or Diuine Reuelation, or howsoeuer; and yet you be farre enough from buil­ding your imagined deuice from thence; that there­fore we may pray vnto them: if yet you were able to make it good, how Ieremy then in Limbo (for this was before Christ harrowed hell, and therefore farre enough from God), could pray for the Iewes, as he is said, who might as soone and as wel pray for them­selues, as he might, and were in possibility to be heard as soone as he.

For the Text of Ier. 15. 1. Though Moses and Sa­muel stood before mee, yet my minde could not bee towards this people, I haue acquainted you with what I think thereof elsewhere. You adde out of Bellarmine, touch­ing Hierom in his Comment. vpon that place: and Saint Gregory 9. of his Morals, 12. that they gather, how Moses and Samuel, after their death, both could and did sometimes pray for the same people. Bellarmine addeth Chrysostome. How is hee omitted? Did you forget him? for you looked vpon all alike, secure what a­ny of them, or all of them said, more then was ten­dred to your hands.

[Page 219] First, Hierome in his Comment. saith thus, nor more, nor lesse: Hos enim legimus, irae Domini pro po­pulo restitisse, et iam impendeniem auertisse sententiam. Etsi, inquit, illi steterint, vel in conspectu meo, vel contra me, quorum vni dixit Deus, Dimitte me, et percutiam po­pulum istum: tamen non exaudiam, quoniam consummata sunt scelera populi delinquentis: For wee reade, that these men, in the peoples case, and their defence, opposed against the wrath of God, and put by the sentence ready to bee put into execution. Although, saith hee, that these men shall stand, eyther in my presence, or against me, vnto one of which God sometime said, Let me alone, and I will smite this peo­ple: yet I will not heare, because the sinnes of this wicked people are consummate. Now, from which of these words doth your wisdome collect, that Hierome made his conclusion, that Moses and Samuel, beeing both dead, could yet, and also did, pray for that people? It is to bee gathered, they did it sometime. Some­time in their life they did it, it may bee gathered, be­cause it is cleere. But this, beeing dead, is a glosse of your owne, an addition to Hierom, that corrupteth Hierome: It dropt from your pen: hee hath it not. That which is to bee collected from thence, is; If Moses and Samuel, who liuing, appeased Gods wrath to the people, were now againe aliue, and should pray for this people, as sometime they did, yet I would not bee intreated now of them, as I was then; nor giue way to their petitions, as then I did: because now, The iniquity of the Ammonite is fully ripe: the If an Horse or an Asse should pray, &c. sinnes of this people are now consummate, which then were but growing in the blade. Your Horse or your Asse, though like your selfe in vnderstanding, [Page 220] would not so conclude, if, as Balaam's Asse once did, the poore beast could speake: as worthily you doe, and like your selfe. If an Horse or an Asse should pray, &c. You would haue said, bray: that is fitter for such an Animal as you.

Saint Gregory saith lesse, Moral. 9. 12. For, he but onely repeateth the Text of Ieremie, and enquireth why the Prophet did rather insist vpon Moses and Samuel, then any other? And his answere thereto is, Because they especially prayed for their persecutors. This is all that I can finde (no prouender for your Asse or Oxe): if you can meet with any more, let me knowe it, and you shall vnderstand my minde thereof; onely this (almost forgotten in him, though I put it home to you before), not much to your pur­pose, no [...] thank-worthy; that Saint Gregory did not dreame, as Iudas Macchabeus did, of any Intercession by dead men, but conc [...]iued it thus, that if they were then liuing, they should not preuaile with God, as they had done sometimes. Quid est ergo in difficulta­te deprecandi, Mosen et Samuel deducere, nisi apertius in­dicare, quia eius ira neque illi obsisterent, si astarent? What meaneth the Prophet to mention such difficultie, in obtaining for Moses and Samuel; but onely this, to make is cleere, that euen they should not abide or resist his wrath, if they then stood before him, as once they did?

Thirdly, Chrysostome yet striketh it further dead against you: which maketh me imagine some more aduised, who had peraduenture looked on the place, left out this testimony, though Bellarmine had ap­pealed to him. For hee commeth home against you indeed, To. 4. pa. 165. of our E [...]on Edition, [...]. [Page 221] Short, but sweet, and to purpose. Therefore if this man were now aliue, and should speake thus, hee should not for all that pre­uaile. Doe you mark? you haue wished vs to note, more then once. Were hee now liuing; Nothing to purpose, of hearing in Heauen, or vnderstanding so wheresoeuer hee were. This Text is for liuing, not dead men; for their Prayers, not Intercession of these, in opinion of Chrysostome.

Baruch 3. 4. thus wee reade: O Lord Almighty, thou God of Israel, heare now the Prayers of the dead Israe­lites (wee reade, say you, of the dead of Israel): There­fore the dead Israelities prayed for the liuing; that you, had you been efemore Iacob, might not absolute­ly turne foole. These dead Israelites must needs then bee in Limbo, when they prayed for their bre­thren. Some information there they must needs then haue had, by some Currire: but who was Hee, Qui fas per limen vtrumque solus habet, that was so imployed vnto Limbus Patrum. For, the resolution of your Schooles is, if Bellarmine doe not mis-informe vs, That because the Saints and holy men, who died before Christ came in the flesh, did not enter into Heauen, did not see God, nor could by any ordinary meanes vnderstand the prayers of such as sued vnto them; therefore it was not vsed in the old Testament to say, Holy Abraham, pray for vs: but men prayed themselues by themselues vnto God, and al­leaged the merits of Saints that were already dead, that by their merits, their prayers might finde accesse. Thus that great Vndertaker of all Protestant Aduersaries, thereby cutting the throat of Inuocation, Aduoca­tion and Intercession in the old Testament; putting [Page 222] you off from all your recited Texts at once, of Ba­ruch, Ieremie, Iudas Dream and all. And what are you Pumillo, to that great man-at-Armes? What is your word, that we should beleeue you, The dead Israelites praied for the liuing? You tould vs of Harps but euen now, out of Apoc. 5. 8. You and your Masters agree as well as Harp and Harrow, and no better, Your self are fitter for an Harrow, than a Harp, Asinus ad lyram, in these controuerted points of piety.

But touching your dead Israelites, Sir of little wit, and lesse vnderstanding, they were not dead, though peraduenture sleeping. They slept not then in the dust of the earth, beeing gathered vnto their Fathers; but dead, because like vnto the Dead; out of minde, cast off, cast out, of no reputation; in the opinion of the world, dead. Ver. 10. 11. in the same chapt. Men waxen old in a strange Countrey, accounted with them that go down into the pit, as the Prophet expoundeth his owne mea­ning. These were not Ezechias, Iosias, Dauid, Esaias, or the rest; but Ezechiel, Baruch, Daniel, Sidrach, his companions then aliue. These dead were liuing, and in case to pray, and did pray for themselues, their wiues and children, their Country-men at Babylon in captiuity.

Wee imagine so: and Baruch himself biddeth vs think so. Yet note what Theodoret saith to the contra­ry. Where note, that Theo­doret, para­phrasing vp­on Baruch, interpreteth this very place as Ca­tholiques doo. And so we will: for, it is worth the noting, if hee knew Baruch's minde better than himself. Note it we will, and subscribe it too, if Theodoret interpret this place as you doo: for, as for Catholiques, I haue not enquired how they interpret it; I need not, it is so palpable. I verily suppose, you haue pigges in your [Page 223] belly, and cry, We Catholiques (when it is but a Caco­lick, and a poor one, God knoweth, your silly selfe) interpret the place so. But haue you looked vpon Theodoret? Are you certain, hee interpreteth it so? I cannot finde it, to note it in him. This is all that I can note, in no very great Paraphrase neither; Verba clarè ostendunt immortalitatem onima: and to this, Protes­tants firmly and constantly assent, as well as any Pa­pists or Popes either: for, some of them haue scarce assented thereto; though not for this Proof of Theo­doret: which how clarè it sheweth that, I see not.

Theodoret could not hence note vnto vs the im­mortality of the soule, otherwise than because the dead doo liue: which to admit, yet is it farre enough from the exposition of Catholiques, that imagine, Inuocation may bee inferred hence. For, dead men may pray, and yet not for others. It is an idle excep­tion; If for themselues, their glory should not bee compleat. For, doth this Ignaro imagine, their glory is yet com­pleat? no augmentation to accrue vnto it, at least ac­cidentall, at the Resurrection? If he knowe not this, the Catholique Cause was very farre forlorne, when such Smatterers set pen to paper to propugn it. Se­condly, there are causes, more than one, of such prai­er. They may well pray for others, and yet not bee prayed vnto themselues, in regard of generall vnion and knowledge particularly, and remembrance, ex­traordinary knowledge and information. So this Andabatarian Catholique fighteth with his owne Now, is the Sunne more cleare, than that Saints pray for vs? shadow. Wee deny it not in these tearms, The Saints departed doo pray for vs. The Sun is not so cleer, as there is no cleer vnderstanding in him.

XXX.

WHatsouer they doo for vs, wee doo not much for them: for we say, we may not pray vnto them; contrary to our own Bibles. Beleeue it who list. Pray to them, if you will: we and our people will pray vnto the Lord, who is ready, willing, able to heare vs euery way, with­out such Aduocates or Mediators. And where are our Bibles so contrary to vs? Nay, vnderstand you the resolutions of your owne men? Sancti non sunt inuocandi, Saints are not to be praied vnto, is a Propositi­on of Father Roberts: I grant with limitation, thus; Not as Authors of diuine blessings or goodnes. But, what a Buzzard are you in the mean time, that leaue such an aduantage to your Aduersary? For, against this loose Proposition of yours, Saints are to bee prayed vnto, without his restraint, these Scriptures are plain, Psalm 83. God giueth grace and glory. Psalm 120. I lift vp my eies vnto the hils, from whence commeth my help: my help commeth onely from the Lord that hath made hea­uen and earth. And that, Iames 1. Euery good gift, and euery perfect giuing, is from aboue, descending down from the Father of lights; and such like, that send vs onely and directly to God, in the opinion and vpon the al­legation of Bellarmine.

You cannot answer these Texts of your Bible, [Page 225] contrary to your Tenet, as you set it down. Wee can answer whatsoeuer you bring against; as, Luk. 16. 24. Father Abraham, haue mercy on mee. Heere is one Saint prayed vnto. First, by whom? By Diues, a fire­brand in hell. So the Damned are directers of your doctrine; no doubt good doctrine, so wel grounded. Secondly, this was no praier vnto Abraham, if Bellar­mine haue taught vs aright: for, the Saints of the old Testament, saith hee, being then in Limbo, were not praied vnto, as not seeing God: but Abraham was a Saint of the old Testament, not of the new. Third­ly, it is a Parable; and so, not concluding farther than the scope and end: which is not this. Fourthly, Abraham is supposed, at least heer, to haue bin within hearing. Bring the Virgin Mary within my kenning, I will say vnto her, Sancta Maria, or a pro mee. Next, Send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in wa­ter, and cool my tongue. Heer, say you, or else you erre, is another Saint praied vnto. No such matter, Sir Gagger: gape wider, and stare the Text in the face: you shall see at last, if you haue not lost your wits and eies and all, that, if any be prayed vnto, it is not ano­ther, but the same Saint Abraham, to send Lazarus. Diues saith not, Saint Lazarus, come; but, Father A­braham, send. When you call to your Bottle-ale-Hostesse, to send her Maid for something you want, the Maid must so take it; you withall intreat her to go. Sure, your wits are drowned in Bottle-ale, or mu­red in a Bakers Basket. That of Iob 5. 1. for so it is, Iob 1. 5. [...] doth not answer our expectation, nor your vnderta­king. You vaunted to confound vs by our owne Bi­bles: and you are fain to go to your Bibles. In our [Page 226] Bibles we read, Call now, if there be any that will answer thee: and to which of the Saints wilt thou turn? In your Bibles it is, And turn to some of the Saints. Your flee­ing from ours vnto your owne, argueth, that in your opinion there is difference betwixt the interpretati­ons; and so there is: for, by our interpretation you are gone. Eliphas telleth Iob, It is in vain to go vnto any of the Saints: for, there is in them no help at all; an Interrogation, being equiualent to a Negati­on. Is there any can doo this? in effect, There is none that can doo it. So that you discredit your owne cause, that are fain to be recreant in your vndertaking, and flee off from our Bibles vnto your owne Bible.

Thither I need not follow you: but I will. So little are you to be feared at your own weapōs, euen vpon your most aduantage. Let it be, Turn vnto some of the Saints; yet haue you no more but opinion: and the o­pinion you most follow of new birth, hatched first by Aquinas, as may bee collected. For, as for Saint Augustines expounding it as Catholiques do, I will let the S. August. himself ex­pounds this very place as Catholiques doo, in his Annot. vpon Iob. If it had not been the com­mon custome in the time of Iob, to inuo­cate the Saints decea­sed, it had bin friu [...]lous for Eliphas to haue asked Iob, to which of the Saints he wou'd t [...]? Reader see, and then judge. One of your owne saith, Pineda on the place, Some take it spoken ironically: and so it is for your purpose; is it not? By which is meant nothing lesse. Alij seriò: others take it spoken in good earnest; but not therefore as aduising Inuo­cation. Call, saith Caietan, vnto some of the dead: let him be a man that hath liued most vnblameably: put him to de­fend thy cause. Assuredly, not any will make answer, be­cause they are not; their soules hauing di [...]d together with the bodies. Cardinall Caietan, Luther's great Antago­nist, was so farre from imagining any custome of In­uocation in the time of Iob, which Bellarmine like­wise [Page 227] denieth, that he supposeth Eliphas to haue been an Atheist, and to deny the soules immortality: and what be commeth of your custome of Inuocation, in his opinion, in the time of Iob? Eugubinus, by Saints, vnderstandeth holy men aliue; and by Call, not In­uocation, but Allocution or naming of them. And with him accord Philippus Presbyter and Polychronius, as it may be collected by your owne Pineda. Others, by Saints, mean holy Angels; but present, imployed, to bee spoken to: as apparitions were then frequent among those holy men; either Leiger, or extraordi­narily imployed Angels. Lyra runs another course; not to the Persons, but Precedents of Saints. Reuolue the remembrance of Ages past, as if Eliphas has said so: and go consider the liues & actions of holy men: thou shalt finde them discussed exceedingly all; but not impatient in affliction, any of them.

In such diuersity of opinions, and greater than this, to conclude for Inuocation assertiuely, none can, none will, but men like your self, qui [...]us anima prosale. S. Thomas alone must ouersway all, because, as Pineda confesseth, he was the first that applied it to Inuocation. Tandem sapienter D. Thomas sententiam hanc ad inuocationem pertinere voluit: After all other Expositors, saith Pineda, he would haue it belong to inuoca­tion of Saints. Therefore put vp your Pipes for Saint Augustine, singing that Catholique Song. S. Au­gustine's words are these: Indignatio, quâ quisque angi­tur, tanquam iniquè sibi aliquid acciderit, dum non cogitat vsque adeò se immundum esse coram D [...], vt innocanti An­geli non respondeant, aut se demonstrare dignati sint: qui enim hoc [...] cogi [...]at, stultus est, & irâ irrationabili interi­mitur. [Page 228] Aut idcirco Angelos non audire, non videre potest stultus, quia ir â interemptus, & à zelo occisus. Indignation, saith he, expounding the second verse, which vexeth a man as if he were hardly dealt withall, whilst he doth not remember, that in Gods fight he is so vnclean, that the An­gels vouchsafe not to appear vnto him, or giue him any an­swer when he calleth for them. He that thinketh not so, is a fool, and killed of wrath. Or thus: A fool cannot heare or see the Angels, because anger and wrath haue euen slain him.

Thus Saint Augustine, in those Annotations, brin­geth a double exposition of those words: in both (according to the Septuagints reading, whom hee followeth), by Saints, he vnderstandeth not men de­parted, and with God, as the Catholiques, since Tho­mas, doo interpret it; but Angels of Paradise. Se­condly, hee is not for calling vpon them (for, how could he, if he held Bellarmine's Rule, for Sancte A­braham?), but vnto them. How? As familiarly con­uersing with them in those daies; as often appearing and talking with them (his very words) either Guar­dians or otherwise. Let it bee so now; Saint Peter, Saint Paul appear, conuerse with, demonstrate them­selues to vs: for my part, I will speak to them, to re­member my necessities or cause to God; as I would to your self, or any other Christian, for your Praiers, or the Churches. Thus what get you by Saint Augu­stine, or your owne Bible?

I list see no more: I haue seen enough already: the See more. vtmost, I am sure, that you can say, and what I haue seen, I haue satisfied already, both in Scriptures and Fathers, elsewhere. These very places you haue na­med, [Page 229] and many others, I will not, as you vse is, actum agere: onely this, for your better direction or infor­mation in this point of Iouocation, or rather Inter­cession through Allocution, we do not, we dare not pray to Saints, that is speak to them, or intreat them to pray for vs; not for vnlawfulnesse of the act so much, as for vnaptnes of the Agent: for, we are not perswaded, nor can it be proued vnto vs by any Ro­mish Catholick liuing, that the Saints departed, and now with God, doo or can ordinarily, by any power or ability in themselues, hear, see, knowe, take notice of the wants, state, cases, or praiers of men on earth, to be mindefull of them vnto God in heauen. Nor can it bee prooued, that otherwise God doth ordinarily reueal vnto them by any means those former specifi­ed, that so they may take notice of them. This must be prooued, or it is in vain to pray to them; vnlesse a man will hazard his state and all, vpon vncertainties. It sufficeth not, that they knowe some things, at some times, in some places, of some men extraordinarily; for, so wee are vncertain, what Saints knowe what, how much, when, by what means; and so may well be blamed of folly for going about, when wee may go direct; vnto them, when we may go to God. Saue all other labour in this point, prooue but onely this, Their knowledge of any thing ordinarily; I promise you straight, I will say, Holy Saint Mary, pray for me: till then you must pardon vs Protestants, for not playing the fools with you.

XXXI.

YOu may keepe, if you will, and lock vp, if you please, in your Cabinet, or Cal­ket, or where you will, Saint Campions thumb, Saint Garnets strawe, Saint Loiolaes hayre; which cured, if I remem­ber, Michael Vasques, of I know not what: or that good­ly Relique, which at Denham once, in Sir George Peckhams house, courst the diuell vp and downe from Anne Smiths foot, ouer all her body, the Priest fol­lowing Him with his hand, vp and downe, wheresoe­uer the Spirit went. And further, take Saint Lipsius old breeches to shrine them in, and the vertue that did or might drop from them: our Lady of Sichem will perhaps lend them to so holy and deuout a pur­pose: I know no Protestant will steale them from you. But ad Textum, as Marcellinus vseth to say; your Texts of Scripture I meane.

As all the rest, so this also is contrary to expresse Contrarie to expresse words of their owne Bibles. words of our owne Bibles. This say I? but what? Why, two things are prooued, or should be: First, that Re­liques [Page 231] may be kept; Secondly, that vertue proceedeth from them. Both these must bee expresly prooued, or the man saith nothing, and may hold his peace and pen both.

In the second of Kings, or the fourth, it skilleth In second of Kings, but is the 4 by the account of Catholiques, 13. 21. not; for, our Bibles also intimate as much, 13. 21. it is written, that the bo [...]es of Eliseus beeing touched by one that was dead, they did reuiue him. Thus we graunt it is written, and we beleeue it: what then? Why This could not bee, had not some vertue pro­ceeded from them. Good: and what of that? There­fore wee that hold, No vertue proceedeth from them af­ter they be dead, are contraried by our owne Bibles. If wee did hold so: but wee hold not so. Indeede wee hold, and assuredly beleeue, that Saint Campions thumb, Saint Garnets strawe, Saint Storyes halter, ne­uer did, nor shall euer raise vp any dead man. Wee deny not, Eliseus bones, or Saint Peter's shadow, or Saint Paul's napkins, did worke wonders. Sir Addle-head, or idle p [...]te, touching vertue from dead men, thus wee hold: this is our opinion:

Vertue hath often proceeded from the bodyes, bones, garments, reliques of many holy men and blessed Saints, dead and aliue; not ordinarily, or of and from them naturally; but extraordinarily, by dispensation, as works of wonder wrought by God. But these are not euer to bee had, or seene. Such works are of voluntary dispensation; and therefore not [...], or [...], for all, from all, at all times. The red sea was diuided for Israel to passe. Iordan was driuen back more then twice, by Iosua, Elias, Eliseus: are you so wise to imagine, so ridicu­lous [Page 232] to proclaime, that all Seas and Riuers may so be serued. Go try the Thames at Trigge Staires, or Bro­ken Wharfe, that the world may take notice of you for a Frantick or an Impostor: or the Iewes send and hire you to diuide Euphrates, at their returne shortly vnto the holy Land: For by your reason, or else you ramble wide, the water should giue you way. For, marke: Eliseus bones did once raise a dead man to life; therefore they had vertue issuing from them, and residing in them: therfore all Saints bones or re­liques haue vertue that proceedeth from them per­petually, naturally, when they bee dead: and you, if you haue none, may easily borrow such Reliques at the Brokers, to serue a turn for the Catholick Cause. This is your Logick, if you remember what you haue learned: Any particular may inferre a Generall. Once it was done, it may be euer; at one time, therefore alwaies. Eliseus bones reuiued a dead man: therefore all Saints bones and Reliques can do that or the like.

Acts 15. 14, 15. And beleeuers were the more added vnto the Lord; multitudes both of men and women: inso­much, that they brought forth the sick into the streetes, and layed them on beds and couches, that at least, the shadow of Peter passing by, might ouer-shadow some of them. This is not, Acts 15 but Acts 5. But that may bee the Printers fault, not yours. Secondly, heere is no ex­presse mention of vertue proceeding; but of shadow ouer-spreading. But you answer; In our Bibles, it followeth, And they all might bee deliuered from their in­firmities. But what is that to purpose? We are to be tried by our Bibles, at your owne choice; not by yours: therefore you faile in your vndertaking. And [Page 233] as for our Bibles, they haue not that clause indeed; no more haue the Editions of Catholiques, nor the Copies vsed by Robert Steuen. The old Translator, I doubt not, found it in his Copie, and did expresse it: so would wee haue done, had we found it in ours: for wee left it not ou [...], nor doe you say so, of set pur­pose. But fourthly, let it bee added; for wee grant it true: it is not ad idem: for you propound it of the Dead, and prooue it of the Liuing. Saint Peter was then aliue: betwixt Liuing and Dead, there is a maine difference: the one may doe what the other cannot, in my learning.

Lastly, admit Saint Peter then dead, because his shadow was no substance: vertue is immanent, and emanant; and both, two waies considered. Naturally and ordinary: or by dispensation and extraordinary. It was no naturall quality in his shadow: and as for endowments of dispensation, they are particular, and restrained; now in beeing, anon, not. From no Saint departed or aliue, from no shadow or substance, doth any such virtue issue naturally? From many aliue and dead, great vertue hath extraordinarily at times, vpon occasions, for special ends, by dispensation. And what then? Therefore your Reliques can doe the like? If this be the consequence, I deny it. Else, because the Apostles could speake with tongues, our Priests and Iesuites can doe the same. Doe it, and I yeeld. But experience prooueth true, you cannot now say, Arise and walke.

What you cannot doe for Saint Peter's shadow, Saint Augustine shall help at a dead Lift to bring the Text home. Ser. 39. de Sanctis, hee saith, If the shadow [Page 234] of his body could help, how much more the fulnes of his pow­er? I will not quarrell the Authority, nor the Au­thor, though I may: how the allegation should serue for reliques, I cannot see; except the Fulnes of power bee his Relique, opposed to the shadow of his Body: and that indeed is made a Relique of Saint Peter; and it is the best that euer he left, worth all his other Reliques whatsoeuer; and therefore deserueth to bee kept charily in the Popes Wardrobe. But that is a Relique of another kinde: we speake of no such Reliques now.

Relique or not: what expresse mention? None, nor regarded. For the man hath recourse vnto con­sequence, in stead of expresse mention, and suppo­seth thus: Saint Augustine supposeth two things: The one, that the shadow of his body, beeing heere on Earth, did both help and heale infirmities: which Protestants Bible leaueth out. And so did Saint Augustines Bible, with­out doubt. For hee supposeth it, you say: which hee needed not haue done, had he found it expresse. For supposition is not [...], where words are plaine: and no maruaile if Saint Augustines Bible did so: for the Originalls did and doe so; old and new, Pa­pists Bibles as well as Protestants: neyther is it found in the Syriack Edition, nor regarded by your owne learned Commentors; onely cast in by such quarrelers, as if the Protestants had depraued the Text sacrilegiously.

The other thing supposed by Saint Augustine, is, That beeing in Heauen, hee can still help vs by his Power. And what Power? how help vs? Saint Augustine doth not; and you, I think, cannot resolue vs. What­soeuer [Page 235] it bee, what reference to Reliques? Not heer mentioned, not to be inferred: or say how. The Re­lique your men dream of heer, is plenitudo virtutis, and gratiae permanent is: which they were wont to pre­sume to be that Omnipotency of his Sea. Were you well serued, you should be turned into the Inquisiti­on, for abating or trans-planting such his Power, and depriuing his Supremacy of such a testimony in S. Augustine, of your owne. And doo you mark it, that I say, your owne: for, this Saint Augustine is none of mine. It is ser. 29. in which this passage is; not 39, as you mis-report it: which is a Counterfet vnder S. Austen's name, as the Louanists, and other your owne men, obserue.

There is a Commemoration of Saint Peter' s chain: you keep an Holi-day in memory thereof, Augusti 1: and yet Saint Peter' s Chain (as Baronius obserueth) was not found vntill Saint Augustine was dead. Had the man been as he would seem, Saint Augustine, yet might hee haue been deceiued in his collection, as wel as in somewhat else noted by Lorinus, that hither tendeth. For, de Catechis. rudib. 23. he deliuereth, that The shadow of Saint Peter, passing along in the streets, re­stored a dead man to life. Do you finde this written in your Bibles? I suppose not. S. Augustine did (with­out doubt) in his: or how is it, that he saith it? Ther­fore the Papists Bible hath left something out, aswell as the Protestants. Look vnto it, and answer it as you can.

Acts 19. 11, 12. And God wrought speciall miracles by the hands of Paul: so that from his body were brought vnto the sick, handkerchiefs, and aprons; and the diseases depar­ted [Page 236] from them, and the euill spirits went out of them. Ther­fore what? Vertue proceeded from Saint Paul when he was dead? I deny that: for, Saint Paul was then aliue, and aliues like. Therefore this is for the liuing, not the dead. And yet take mee not so, that I deny the thing. Vertue may proceed from the true Saints of God, dead and aliue. I deny your proof, and wonder at your wit, that can go ab equis ad asin [...]s so easily, as if both were fit Inmates for such an Animal as your self; Asse, Horse, & you, for such prouender.

S. Chrysostome might very well inferre, vpon the passages of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, that Christ, S. Chrysost. To. 5. cont. Gentil. quòd Christus sit Deus, in an whole Booke, proues heer­by, and by the like vertue of other Saints, that Christ their Lord and Master, is God: whose seruants nap­kins and sha­dows could do such wonders. their Lord and Master, was truely God: whose ser­uants, in his Name, and by his Power, nay, their sha­dows and napkins, did such wonders: for, Could any man do so, except God were with him? But, all this winde shakes no corn. First, this vertue was not inherent; onely incident. Secondly, it was miraculous; so, pecu­liar. Thirdly, it was Then: those Times are done; those napkins gone into Materia prima. Shew such napkins or shadows, and wee yeeld. For, no man doubteth what hath been done, or may be done: we go no further than to what is.

See more, you so direct vs: and wee had need, or else we shall see your proofs by halues: for, hitherto wee haue onely heard of vertue proceeding from the Dead; nothing touching keeping of Bones and Reliques. Now haue at them, or else neuer; and indeed neuer: for, Exod. 13. 19. Ioseph's bones were carried by Moses out of Egypt. What then? Therefore bones of holy men may, by warrant of that, be digged vp, shrined, and preserued. Happely they may in some cases, but [Page 237] not therefore: for, this was a singular Fact; which are no precedents for generall rules. One Swallow ma­keth not Summer; nor one Woodcock, Winter, but among Birds of that Bill and Feather. Secondly, as it was singular in Fact; so, speciall in Reason. There was a Tie vpon Israel, to doo that which they did. Ioseph, dying, had bound them with an oath to do so. Had our Lady so bound you for her smock or her milk, you were excused. Thirdly, they carried them thence, not to keep them, which is your Tenet; much less to shrine them or adore them, which is your pra­ctice; but to bury them in the Land of Canaan: which they did, Ios. 24. 32. Doo you in like sort, and wee applaud you with your Reliques.

So we see in this first place no more than wee loo­ked for; nothing to purpose: nor in the second, 2. Reg. 4. 8. Eliseus taketh vp Elias cloak that fell from him; and, wrapping it together, smote the waters of Iordane; which parted asunder. A Text seeming to say some­what: for, Elias cloak is Relictum, a Relique to Eli­seus; and he took it. But this is verse 14. not 8. but not yet a Relick for our purpose. For, what he did with it, is not remembred: it is like enough, Eliseus wore it out. We read not what he did with it; whether he laid it vp, and left it to posterity to be adored: vnless you can prooue this, you say nothing; otherwise, in your sense it is no Relique. For, keeping and adoring is all in all for them.

But let it be kept. Eliseus did no more than I▪ or any Protestant else, should haue done. For, you mistake vs. The Reliques of Saints are not [...] with vs: we dishonour not their garments, much lesse their bo­dies, [Page 238] hauing beene the Temples of the holy Ghost; bee­ing againe to bee raised from the dust, and be made like Christs glorious body. By and in them, at sun­dry times, God hath miraculously magnified him­selfe in his Power; as, when the body of Babylas made the Oracle mute, in despight of Iulian that Re­negado: Then especially, when there was great cause; when Paganisme, Persecution, Opposition swayed, for the manifestation of that Truth, which in them & by them had beene propagated. Shew any such Re­lique, and see what wee say vnto it. It is naturall for any man to affect the remembrance or memorials of a friend; to admire and make much of rare things, not euery day seene. Bring mee then a piece of the Crosse of our Sauiour, one of the Nailes, or some such memoriall of his Passion: shew mee Moses R [...]d, Saint Peter's Sword, I will prize them aboue all the Iewels I can haue. Will this content you? I know no Pro­testant will doe lesse then so.

Worship them I dare not. Shew them as you doe, I would not: as men do monsters in Fleet-street or Sturbridge Faire: in this you abuse them too pro­fanely, making merchandize of the Word of God. In that you profane them to Idolatry, misleading the People to adore them. This did not Antiquity, nor doe wee. In the Primitiue Church, Memoriae Mar­tyrum were in great esteem; The place where they suffred, or else where they were buried: Heere com­monly their Church-meetings were for diuine Ser­uice; for receiuing the Sacraments, with comme­moration of their Passion; and a collation to follow their noble Acts: which was seconded with this opi­nion, [Page 239] that those blessed Soules themselues, by speci­all grace and dispensation of God, took notice of that generall Act of the whole Church, and accom­panied their deuotions, with their own best assistance vnto the Maiesty of Heauen. But times are changed, mens manners altred: Those Saints, Reliques, Me­mories, and Oratories of the true Saints of God, gon, no where to be found; coozening, colluding, fraud, impiety, come in place. The miracles, memories, reliques of Saints in your Romane Church, are all of them knowne to bee iuggling tricks of deceiuing knaues: and if Saint Martin were aliue againe, hee might finde out onely one mans Reliques, but many thousands to bee the bones of theirs that died at the gallowes for their sinnes; nor of Martyrs, that shed their bloud for Iesus. Talk not then of Reliques, and keeping of them: but shew vs the Reliques, true ones indeed, and then blame vs, if wee respect them not, as Augustine, or Ambrose, or any antient Fathers did.

See your Fathers I need not. I haue seene them often, before euer I saw C. W. B. your good Benefac­tor, whose scroles you haue filched euery where: yet lest it bee thought, there is some stuffe to bee seene which wee dare not set out to view, the Rea­der shall see them, if hee will bee so idle, and haue so much leasure. Eusebius in the seauenth booke, and fifteenth Chapter relateth, that the chaire of Saint Iames, brother to our Lord, and first Bishop of Ierusalem, was kept & preserued by his successors. And what if Eusebius write thus? it is no such great wonder for a chaire to last 300 yeeres; in keeping of [Page 240] it, I know no hurt, or impiety, as I doe in your Lipsa­nolatria. For Eusebius doth not say, that they wor­shipped it, or that any vertue went out of it. Though, if you haue read the place, as I thinke you neuer did, you may remember, that Eusebius there saith, It was a custome taken vp from the Pagans, as it was indeed; and can demonstrate, if need be. But I take no excep­tion at that originall, as you would doe with vs for much lesse aduantage. Onely this I adde: It was no bone or Relique of Saint, nor had any vertue issuing from it; and therefore not to bee remembred heere.

Athanasius, in the life of Saint Antony, hath ma­ny passages; the work is of some reasonable length. Now what shall we see therein? or whereabout? you know not: for C. W. B. did not informe you: and you, poore man, are not so well prouided at home. But well fare Bellarmine, who would haue told you, had you consulted him. Hee doth informe vs: who o­therwise mought haue sought a needle in a bottle of hay, and haue giuen the hay to this beast for prouen­der. Saint Antony dying, bequeathed his cloake vnto a friend: the Legate accepteth it very kindely: an example of kindnes giuen and taken; no more. If Saint Antony could haue giuen more, he would haue done it: had hee giuen lesse, the Party would haue taken it. It is not said, He receiued it so, as hee layd it vp, kept it amongst his Iewels, and plate. Which if he did, what is that to Protestants not adoring reliques? did the man make an Idoll of his cloke? did there any vertue come from that cloke? If I knew you, were acquainted with you, I would bequeath a Cocks­combe [Page 241] to you, and you would lay it vp happly for a Relique for such fooles to adore.

Saint Basil in Psal. 115. what doth hee say? You know not: for you were not told. Let me help you. Vpon those words, Right deare in the sight of the Lord, is the death of his Saints, he dilateth touching the Persons and Passions of blessed Martyrs; preferreth them before Garlands, Iewels, and precious stones; oppo­seth the state of the time of Grace, vnto that of the Lawe. Then it was not lawfull to touch a dead body; but hee that touched it, was vncleane. But now, saith hee, Hee that toucheth the bones of a Martyr, somewhat partaketh of sanctifying power, by that Grace which assis­teth the body. This was true in those times: but those Martyrs are not: those bodies are gone: that grace is neither diffused nor effused at this day. It was of that grace which then wrought wonders; now, no where to bee found: your pretended Martyrs are scarce Christians some; few good Christians; your relicks, impostures; your miracles, iuggling tricks, lewd lies, and forgeries, Prooue them otherwise; wee will doe as they did, and giue them the respect Saint Basil did.

So wee answer you for Chrysostome and for Am­brose: let the case bee the same which then it was, our affections euery way shal be the same with theirs. But those daies are done; those Worthies gone: im­postors are euery where, in euery corner. In regard of these Iugglers, and not with reference to the He­roick times, I say with Tatian, If God had made them (hee speaketh of charmes and amulets) to the pur­pose that men employ them, hee should haue beene the Au­thor [Page 242] of some euill. But all things that God made, were very good: the diuell, in his insolency rioting vpon them, hath conuerted them vnto all purposes. From him came first this euill custome (with you, in adoring you cannot tell what): it neuer was the worke of the Perfect God. For how is it, or can it bee, that while I liue, I doe no hurt; but beeing dead, some piece, some relique of my selfe, without sense or feeling, which can doe nothing, which serueth not at all, no more then I doe, should operate, or effect any thing? How can hee that hath beene hanged himselfe, possibly saue another from the gallowes? or how can a bone of him that died of a fearfull disease, deliuer another from the same? Sir, I beleeue, Tatianus did prophecy so long agoe, so graphicially doth he describe the impostures of your Romish Mountebanks, in applying the Reliques and [...]owzie fragments of Knaues, Rake-hels, and Traitors, vnto, I know not what, wonder-working tricks of Leiger-de-maine.

XXXII.

VNtill I had read ouer the whole passage, and came at last to holy bread, holy water, holy ashes, and the like, trash and Mounte­bank wares, I marueiled, I confesse, what this man meant by his position, [Page 243] The Creature cānot be sanctified, &c. For, I know no Pro­testant, but willingly acknowledgeth the Separation and Sanctification of the creature vnto diuine, reli­gious and holy vses. I was sure, our Church maintai­ned, and many waies practised the contrary: there I Are they not therefore fooles and blind, that keepe such a [...]ooting at Holy-bread? found my error, and so perceiued what the foole meant; and whither the blind Buzzard did direct his groping, that made boyes to laugh and hoo [...] at him.

That the Creatures of God are good, we beleeue: as pro­ceeding from a totall cause, absolutely good: that no­thing ought to be refused, as 1. Tim. 4. 4. if it be recei­ued with Thanksgiuing, you rather deny then wee. That the Word of God and Prayer doth sanctifie the creature to the seueral vses, we profess willingly, and practise it accordingly in all our courses, Mat. 23. 17. we read & subscribe, that the Temple, the seat of Gods Presence, the House for his Seruice, sanctified the gold employed in the Temple, as beeing put vnto a reli­gious vse; That the Altar did sanctifie the Sacrifices offred vpon the Altar. But if the Calues of Bethel had been placed in the Temple, had they been sanctified vnto God by beeing in the Temple? The Altar doth sanctifie the gift, but so, that it bee a gift for the Altar. If a Dogge or a Cat were offred there, it would bee no more holy or sanctified, then the abomination was of desolation, which was set vp in the Holy Place. It is not the place that sanctifieth, but the true em­ployment of the thing. We neuer read it warranted, that creatures may bee abused, or ms-imployed. Are they not therefore fooles, to returne your owne words vpon your self, that produce these passages, for such stuffe as holy bread, &c? which as they [Page 244] are vsed in your Antiques, may with reason be hooted at by Boyes.

Holy bread with you, is an apish Imitation of that antient practice in the Primitiue Church, whereby a part of the consecrated Host, in and for the Sacra­ment called Eulogia, was sent vnto the adjoyning pari­shes, or diocesses, and imparted vnto strangers that came vnto them, as a signe, pledge, and assurance of mutuall loue and confederation in the same faith; a thing prohibited afterward in the councell of Laodi­cea, but re-assumed, and long time frequented in the Church: which growing at last into disuse, in the La­tine Church especially, Bread began to bee blessed in­deed, but not consecrated, for or in the Communion: which in Paulinus, Augustine, and others, is named Eulogia, or Panis Catechumenorum. The Catecumeni beeing not baptized, could not bee imparted with the body of Christ, but receiued Bread blessed by the Priest, for their vse and eating, as an assurance of that Communion, whereof in due time they were to be made partakers.

The later Church abused this practice of the An­tients, imploying it as spells or amulets to cast out di­uils, to heale diseases, to keepe men from danger; whereto nor God nor man had designed it antiently. The forme of consecrating it is this, in Burchard. Cap. 28. Lord God Almighty, vouchsafe to blesse this Bread with thy holy and spirituall benediction, that it may be­come health of soule and body vnto all, a defence and safe­gard against all diseases, and all the assaults and deceits of the enemie, through our Lord Iesus Christ, thy Sonne, the Bread of Life, who came downe from Heauen, brought life [Page 245] and saluation into the world: who liueth and raigneth with thee for euer. Was any thing thus consecrated, 1. Tim. 4. 4. Mat. 23. 17. 19? Or any water any where to the like purpose, to bee sprinkled in houses, to driue a­way Fayries and Hobgoblins? to remoue the lets and impediments which might hinder the receiuing of the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar? to put out the guilt and tainture of originall sinne? I finde no such thing in Scripture or the Primitiue times. I doe in the Rituals and Pontificals of the Pagans. Nam et sacris quibusdaminitiantur Isidis alicuius aut Mithrae. Ipsos etiam Deos suos lauationibus efferunt: villas, domos, templa, totasque vrbes aspergin [...] circumlatae aquae expiant passim. Tertullian speaketh of Pagan superstitions, and it agreeth vnto your fopperies, point by point. Such hallowing and sacring of the Creature, as of ashes, bells, and other bables, are farre enough remooued from that sanctification of the Creature in Saint Paul, vnto holy and religious, or common vses. Saint Paul neuer baptized or blessed a bell, to cleere the ayre, asswage stormes and tempests, help against lightning and thunder, driue away diuels, and wic­ked spirits, that would hinder good Christians from going to Church, or righteous soules from passing through the ayre into Heauen. Such old wiues tales I finde not in Saint Paul, nor in Saint Basil, whom we are directed to see, Lib. 2. de baptismo: but for what, or where-about, I professe my ignorance, I cannot tell, and yet I haue Basil, and haue read him. Transeat therefore: till I know what, and where I should see Basil, I must suspend my answer vnto his authority.

XXXIII.

THe man, when hee vndertook this gag­ging taske, opposed himselfe intentio­nally against our Church: in which re­gard, with what face, with what fore­head, can he thus impudently bely vs, knowing in his conscience, our Doctrine, our practice to the contrary; and that wee haue beene put to maintaine and iustifie it against schismaticall humors, not Papists but Puritans at home? In the very first Instep to the forme of Administration of Bap­tisme, wee professe, All men be conceiued and borne in sinne: wee adde, alledging our Sauiours words, None can enter into the Kingdome of God, except he bee regenerate and borne anew of water and the holy Ghost; Beeing assu­red, that as Truth hath spoken it, so it is impossible, ordinarily, for a man to bee saued, that is not bap­tized. Vpon which perswasion of that necessity of water and the holy Ghost, wee, following the vse and warrant of Antiquity, haue tolerated, practised, and defended priuate Baptisme at home, by Lay­people: and yet this shamelesse Detractor chargeth vs to hold, That children may bee saued by the Parents faith, without Baptisme, as if it were vnnecessary. One man peraduenture thought so, that the children of [Page 247] the Faithfull that were in Christ, might ordinarily be saued without Baptism. I say peraduenture: for, it appeareth not, that he held it of ordinary course, nor referred it to the Parents faith, but vnto that Coue­nant of grace, I will be thy God, and the God of thy Seed; as euen Bellarmine his Aduersary confesseth touching him; who yet is nothing vnto vs.

Touching the necessity of Baptism, there hath bin variation euer in the Church; and yet euer a neces­sity held vpon all hands, more or lesse. For, Antiquity supplied the want of water, by blood. Martyrs, not baptized, went to heauen. The ineuitable want of water, by the Spirit; in desire and assured faith, if it might bee had, in Christ the Author and End of it. For, as in little Infants, the faith of the Church, and those that present them to be baptized, is by God re­puted their owne: so the willingnes and desire of the same Church, of their Godfathers and Parents, is reputed theirs. So that no absolute necessity in opi­nion of Antiquity, and indispensable, was held of our Sauiours Asseueration, Except a man bee born anew of water and the holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdome of heauen. Which necessity, thus qualified by Anti­quity, some late Writers haue qualified further vpon other grounds; as namely, that supposed Decree of God, touching absolute necessity of saluation: which admitted, yet includeth a subordination of meanes. As Paul and his company were determinately saued from perishing by sea; yet he told them, it could not be, except the Sailers staied: so nor Gods Decree be accomplished without means, which is water and the holy Ghost ordinarily.

[Page 248] Others, it may be, haue qualified it from the state, faith, and interest of their parents: which, if it be so, is but a priuate opinion of some men; not the doc­trine of this, or any Protestant Church that I knowe. You would bee loth to maintain all priuate opinions in the Church of Rome. The most that wee haue said thereof, is, Of the will of God to impart his grace vn­to Hooker. infants without Baptism: in that case, the very circum­stance of their naturall birth may serue as a iust argument. Whereupon, it is not to be mis-liked, that men, in charitable presumption, do gather a great likelihood of their saluation: to whom the benefit of Christian parentage being giuen, the rest that should follow, is preuented by some such casualty as man hath no power himself to auoid. So that the most this Fellow can impute vnto vs, is, that In some case of ineuitable and inunicable necessity, little infants may bee charitably supposed saued by their parents faith. And so that of Iohn 3. 5. for necessity of water, will iustifiably bee answered, If it bee possible to attaine it. That of Tit. 3. 5. vrgeth no more, but that the washing of Regeneration is the ordinary entrance into life.

As for Gen. 17. 14. (to admit all paralleld in Cir­cumcision and Baptisme) all were not damned that died vncircumcised; nor all cast away, that die vn­baptized, as this Fellow himself will or must grant; but those that neglect, contemn, or omit the meanes which may bee had. As for Mark 16. 16. the very words doo support this mitigation: for, though Christ saith, Hee that beleeueth, and is baptized, shall bee saued; yet he doth not say, Hee that is not baptized, shall be damned: but, Hee that beleeueth not, shall bee damned; that being euery way of indispensable necessity; this [Page 249] sometime tolerable, the rather, because we are plain­ly taught of God, that The seed of faithfull parentage is holy from the birth; which the children of Pagans are not: these hauing an habituall interest and consecra­tion to God in their parents, which the other want. But whatsoeuer, in charitable constructions, may be thought of extraordinary courses, they are not for vs: we must leaue them to God; in whose most ri­gorous courses of constitutions, and most sharp de­nunciations, deep mercies are euer hidden: who though he bee the God of iustice, yet is hee the Fa­ther of mercies. And yet ordinary waies are for vs and our children. Ordinary way vnto life eternall there is none, but by Baptisme of water, and the holy Ghost. Gag them, Sir Goose, that teach otherwise. The Church of England is not guilty thereof.

XXXIIII.

NOT by Papists alone, but by Protestants also, is it called Bishopping or Confirma­tion; not vsed onely by them, but by Pro­testants likewise, commended, comman­ded to bee vsed. Look in the Communion-book, good Reader, and wonder at the impudent face of this leud Impostor, that dares giue the Lie vnto pub­lick [Page 250] Records, that dares tell the world, It is midnight at mid-day: for, if there be then any Sun in heauen, this imposition of hands by the Bishop alone, called Confirmation, is both maintained as necessary; vsed and commanded, as euery man knoweth, in the Church of England. Would any man but hee, or some of his Camerades, take vp the priuate fansie of euery Peddler, and expose it to view for Protestants doctrine, contrary to knowledge, to conscience? But so it is. If it were not for such courses, the poor needy Fellow would haue nothing to prate on vnto his Proselyte-gossips in Partridge-Alley. The Lie is so loud, the case so apparant for Bishopping or Con­firmation, I shall not need to say any thing, but, Blush for shame.

XXXV.

IS but a signe or figure, and no more? Strange: and yet our formal words are, This is my body: this is my bloud. This is, is more than this figureth or designeth. A bare figure is but a phantasme. He gaue substance, and really subsisting essence, who said, This is my body: this is my bloud. And yet our Catechisme in the Communion-book, authorized, saith expresly, The body and bloud of Christ taken and eaten in the Lords [Page 251] Supper; not the figure or signe of his body and bloud, which can neither bee taken, nor yet eaten. Poore Poor Prote­stant, whither now is thy figure fled? Woodcock or Catholique Cockscomb, that sendest a Protestant to seek a figure, who is as reall and substan­tiall as any Papist.

Were the peace of the Church, and vnity of faith (which is more mystically insinuated in this Sacra­ment, than else-where; in the Materials therof, both Bread and Wine) so deare and precious as it ought to bee, vnto such common Barretters of Christen­dome, as Priests and Iesuites are for priuate ends; this, and many other Controuersies on foot, might cease. For, it is confessed on either side, that Sacra­ments, which haue their Beeing from institution, are signes of Gods loue and promise, seales of his couenant and grace, and instruments and conueiances of his mercy. What they intimate, signifie, and represent, they conueigh vnto the soule. In the ordinary Catechisme alone allowed (and I would, no other were tolerated) the question beeing asked, What meanest thou by this word Sacrament? the answer is, I mean an outward and visible signe of an inward and spirituall grace, giuen vnto vs, or­dained by Christ himself, as a meanes whereby wee receiue the same, and a pledge to assure vs thereof. This is more, euen in your little vnderstanding, than a bare figure; a means and a pledge whereby &c.

Sir, we acknowledge right willingly, and professe, that in the blessed Sacrament (as you call it, of the Altar) the Body and Bloud of our Sauiour Christ is really participated & communicated; and by means of that reall participation, life from him and in him con­ueied into our soules. This wee beleeue and professe;

[Page 252] knowing, that he is able to effect it, who hath spoken it, by that mighty working, whereby hee is able to doo whatsoeuer he hath said. We are not sollicitous for the manner how he worketh it; not daring to pry into the secret Counsels of the most High. We haue learned, that Reuealed things are for vs; secret things are for God. Therfore we wonder, why the world should be so much ammused at, and distracted with, those vnexplicable Labyrinths of Con-substantiation and Trans-substantiation, which onely serue to set the world in diuision; nothing to piety, nor yet informa­tion. As we therefore condemn that presumptuous definition of Trans-substantiation, in the Laterane Councell: so wee doo not like nor yeeld assent vnto that jejune and macilent conceit of Zwinglius and Oe­colampadius: whereby men account of this Sacra­ment, but onely as of a bare shadow, emptie & void, and destitute of Christ; but ingenuously profess, that by this Sacrament Christ giueth vs his very body and bloud, and really and truely performs in vs his promise, in feeding our soules vnto eternall life. As for the manner how, [...]: This inexplicable, that vnutterable: it is faith onely that can giue the resolution. Trans or con, we skill not of.

Iohn 6. 51. The bread that I will giue is my flesh; which I will giue for the life of the world. Therefore his flesh is bread, the Bread of life. Most true; but not therefore his flesh by Trans-substantiation. You finde not that in the Gospell, or any where else. Life, begun in Bap­tisme by the Lauer of Regeneration, is confirmed and sustained in the holy supper by his body and blood. How? I cannot explicate. How should I, that can­not [Page 253] tell how (who can doo it?) my body is nourished by the ordinary meat and drink I take? yet is that fa­miliar, and in vse euery day. When Christ gaue it, he said, This is my body. Saint Paul, repeating the In­stitution, saith, This is my body. It was neuer denied to bee his body: it is affitmed still, to be his body. Mad Papist, that imputest to poor Protestants, an Idoll, a Chimaera of thy owne brain; that The bread is but a fi­gure, and no more, of Christs body. Protestants say it not: they neuer said it. As commonly it happeneth, that all Reformations or Innouations are vpon and into extremes: so some happely haue, that depar­ted long since from the Church of Rome. But what is that to our Church, that publiquely, priuately, all and som, directly maintains the clean contrary? Your great Aduiser, C. W. B. hath said enough, could he see what himself hath said, or you vnderstand what hee alledgeth, to stop the mouth of such Gabblers as you and he for euer, in the cōtrary assertions of the Pro­testants. But, the diuell bred you in a Faction, and brought you vp in a Faction, and sent you abroad to do him seruice in maintaining a Faction: otherwise acknow­ledge, there is, there need bee, no difference in the point of reall presence.

See your Fathers if I doo, I shall doo more than See Fathers that affirm the same. S. Ignat. in his Epist. ad Smyr. you haue done: for, I auow it, you neuer read Igna­tius for this. Read that Epistle ouer, vnto the Smyr­neans, and see if you finde any such thing there: if you doo, then trust not mee again: if you doo not, what descrueth that impudent imposture, S. Ignat. in his Epist. ad Smyr. But I can shew you better euidence for Bread and Wine out of Ignatius, pag. 125. edit. Paus. [Page 254] Maestrei. The flesh of our Lord Iesus Christ is one: His Bloud, one, which was shed for vs: also one Bread was bro­ken for all: one Cup distributed vnto all, Bread and Wine after consecration: Both distributed to all, against your halfe Communion. And againe, pag. 261. [...]; Breaking one Bread, which is the medicine procuring Immortality. Thus I finde nothing in Ignatius for you: this I haue, and happly more could against you, were I desirous with you to maintaine a faction.

Iustin Martyrs testimony I acknowledge in the end Iustin Mar. Apol. 2. ad Antoni­num. of his Apologie, and willingly make his words our owne: For wee doe not receiue these things as common Bread, or common Drink: but, euen as our Lord & Sauiour Iesus Christ, by the Word of God becomming flesh, had flesh & bloud for our sakes; so are we taught, that the food which was blessed by him, in the Word and Prayer, through which food, beeing altered and changed, our flesh and bloud is sus­tained becommeth the flesh and bloud of him, that Iesus, who took our flesh in his Incarnation. Thus that antient Fa­ther, not fully represented by your director: who saith not any thing that Protestants deny: For they confesse, They eat the flesh of the Sonne of God and drink his bloud: they are one with him, and hee with them; but commeth not home to the Papists Resolution, that wee eate it and drink it by Transubstantiation; but the contrary: for, but foure lines before, hee calleth it Bread and Wine after Consecration. Those, saith hee, whom wee call Deacons, doe giue to euery one that is there present, part of the Bread, Wine and Water conse­crated.

Saint Cyprian, Serm. 5. de lapsis. Now good Sir [Page 255] Gagger, can you tell how many Sermons de lapsis Saint Cyprian wrote? ignorant Asse, and yet bold Bayard! Saint Cyprian wrote no Sermons de lapsis: hee wrote a booke de lapsis, diuided into sections by some or other. But Reader, see the audacious Dun­sery of this Ignaro. C. W. B. had, in his Catalogue of the Fathers of the third Age, for transubstantiation, cited Cyprian thus; Ser. 5 de lapsis, for Sect. 5. de lapsis (vnlesse he also took his Authors by tale vpon trust) and Ser. de coena Domini. This blunderer stumbled vpon the first, false or true; to purpose or not, all was one to him; and set it downe: the second quota­tion hee left out: yet that is it which hee should haue taken: for in the first, Sect. 5. de lapsis, there is nothing; in the second, Ser. decoena Domini, as he will haue it, though it bee no Sermon, Sect. 6. there is, thus: The Bread which our Lord reached vnto his Disci­ples, beeing changed, not in appearance, but in Nature, by the omnipotency of the Word, is made flesh. Saint Cyprian said as much as this once or twice before. No man denyeth a change, an alteration, a transmutation, a trans­elementation, as they speake: no man otherwise belee­ueth, but that the naturall condition of the Bread consecrated, is otherwise then it was; beeing dispo­sed and vsed to that holy vse, of imparting Christ vnto the Communicants. Stay heere: be contented with That it is, and doe not seeke nor define How it is so: and we shall not contest or contend with you. Hoc Sacramentum aliquando corpus suum, aliquando carnem & sanguinem, aliquando panem Christus appellat, portionem vitae aeternae, cuius, secundum haec visibi [...]ia, corporali com­municauit Natur [...]. Panis iste communis in carnem et san­guinem [Page 256] mutatus, procurat vitam et incrementum corpori­bus: ideoque ex consueto rerum effectu, fidei nostrae adiuta in­firmitas, sensibili argumento edocta est, visibilibus sacra­mentis inesse vitae aeternae effectum, et non tam corporali, quàm spirituali transitione Christo nos vniri. Thus the same Saint Cyprian: so we: we confesse it: we beleeue it: we cannot comprehend it.

Saint Ambrose saith no more then wee will sub­scribe, Lib. 4. de sacramentis. Before consecration it was Bread; common, ordinary, meere Bread: but after consecration, it becommeth the flesh of Christ, because then the Sacrament is consummate. But doth Saint Ambrose tell you how it is so made? That I finde not, that I ex­pect, that I must finde, or I finde nothing to your purpose.

One Father yet you adde. Saint Remigius saith, but you cannot tell where: your Director told you, it was in his comments vpon the 10. Chap. 1. ad Corinth. The flesh which the Word of God took in the Virgins wombe, and the Bread consecrated in the Church, are the same body. And yet, beeing consecrated, he calleth it Bread. How can your Saint Remigius make that good? Hee should haue said, for doubtlesse hee meant so, The Bread which was beeing consecrated in the Church, is tran­substantiated into that flesh which the Word of God took in the Virgins womb, and becom the same body. This Remigius saith not; a great signe hee meant not. And indeed hee did not meane it: hee goeth no further then Reality: he determineth not modum praesentiae at all. And yet this Remigius is not, peraduenture, the man you would haue him; namely, Saint Remigius, Arch­bishop of Rhemes, who conuerted King Clouis of [Page 257] France to the Christian Faith, who liued within 500 yeeres after Christ, though he died about 544. This man wrot nothing, that I can heare of, eyther in Sido­nius, who liued at that time, or Hinckmarus, or Flodo­ard, or Sixtus Senensis, or Bellarmine, or Chesneu, or any other. Hee that wrote the notes vpon Saint Paul's Epistles, taught indeed at Rhemes, as appeareth by Flodoard (and thence grew the error, I suppose, of those who took him for Saint Remigius Bishop of Rhemes): but hee is called Remigius Antisiadorensis, because hee was borne at Auxerre. Of him we read in Sixtus Senensis, that hee wrote on Saint Paul's Epi­stles. He is of a much later date; liuing vnder Charles the bald, about 880. Howsoeuer, we are not touched by him, or any of the rest: for wee neither beleeue, nor say, that the Bread of the Supper is but a bare figure of the body of Christ, not his Body: we professe, wee re­ceiue the Lords Body, and drink his bloud, in com­memoration of his Death and Passion, as hee hath appointed. If you say otherwise, we haue done with you.

XXXVI.

WEE ought so indeed: nor is it sufficient to administer the Communion, as the Romanists now doe, vnder one kinde. This is the authorized and receiued, and iustifiable Doctrine, and Orthodox prac­tice of the Church of England. Artic. 30. thus we reade: The Cup of the Lord is not to bee denied vnto the Lay-people. For, both the parts of the Lords Sacrament, by Christs ordinance and commandement, ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike. And in the Communion book it is expresly said, That the chiefe minister, if there bee moe present, as it often hapneth, in Colledges espe­cially and Cathedrall Churches, shall receiue it first himself, and then deliuer it to other Ministers, and so to the People in both kindes. This is our practice and our profession: for which I ioyne issue with all Pa­pists liuing; that it is the prime, originall institution of our Sauiour; which giueth Birth and Beeing to a Sacrament; that it is Sacriledge to alter it there­from; that it neuer was otherwise vsed in the Church of God, for aboue 1000 yeeres after Christ. Let all the Papists liuing prooue the contrary, and I will subscribe to all Popery. As for this poore fel­low, hee can say no more then hee findeth ready to [Page 259] hand, or is put into his mouth: his Camerades were conscious to themselues of nouelty and innouation: for in a point so notorious, so scandalous, of such consequence, wee are not sent, as accustomed, to see any Fathers.

It is manifest, saith Cessander, a man professing him­selfe a Romane Catholique, though of wonderfull modesty, moderation, and learning, that in administra­tion of the sacred Sacrament of the Eucharist, the Vniuersall Church of Christ vntill this day, and the Westerne or Ro­mane Church, for more then 1000 yeeres after Christ, espe­cially in their solemne and ordinary dispensation of this Sa­crament, did exhibit and giue vnto all faithfull Christians, not one only, but both the kinds of Bread and Wine: as is most cleere and euident out of innumerable testimonies of the old Writers, both Greeke and Latine; which I can make good, and of some will giue a taste.

Ignatius in his Epistle to the Philadelphians. [...]: One Bread is broken vnto all; and one Wine giuen to the whole mul­titude. This man was Saint Iohn's Disciple. Martia­lis, as you say, one of the 70 Disciples: Epist. 1. Sect. 3. Nunc autem multò magis sacerdotes Dei honoratis, qui vitam vobis tribuunt in calice et viuo pane: and he spea­keth, you see, to the people. Dionysius Areopag. S. Paul's Disciple, pag. 157. [...], &c. for hauing discouered the couered & vndiuided bread, and diuided it into many parts, and distributed to all, the Vnity of the Cup, hee consummateth in those Symbols and signes, the Vnity of the Church: and so in many other places. S. Cle­ment, Saint Peter's Disciple and Successor, in his Masse hauing set downe the order and forme of con­secration, [Page 260] cometh to participation thus: Let the Dea­con giue the cup; and when all haue receiued, men and wo­men, let the Deacons carry the remainder into the Reuestry. So Saint Mark in his Liturgie, another Disciple of Saint Peter. So Saint Peter himself in his Liturgie, or Masse as you call it. So the rest.

Iustin Martyr, in the end of his Apologie, descri­bing the seruice of those antient Christians, saith, [...]: They whom we call Deacons, giue to euery one present, part of the consecra­ted Bread and Wine. Irenaeus in lib. 4. cap. 33. prooueth the Resurrection, because we participate of the body and bloud of Christ. And lib. 5. cap. 11. speaking of a Christian man, he saith, that de calice, qui sanguis eius est, nutritur; & de pane, qui est corpus eius, augetur. That railing Feuardentius, in his Notes vpon Irenaeus, was not able to produce one Testimony for half Com­munions, though he vaunt, it was a practice in the A­postles time. Tertul. in de Resurrect. speaking of all Christians in generall; Caro corpore & sanguine Christi vescitur, vt & anima saginetur. And because these Pa­trons of a desperate cause, contrary to all art and rea­son, conclude negatiuely, The cup was not commu­nicated, because the bread is alone sometime remem­bred; we may inferre alike, The bread was not giuen, but the cup, because Tertul. in depudicitia, remembreth onely the cup thus: Aqua & aliis initians, cui ille si fortè patrocinabitur pastor, quem in calice depingis, prostitutorem & ipsum, Christiani Sacramenti, mento et ebrietatis idolū, & moechiae asylum post calicem subsecuturae, de quo nihil libentius bibas, quàm ouem poenitentiae secundae. The man [Page 261] was then, I yeeld, a Montanist: but that hinders not his credit from relation of truth and vniuersall prac­tice on foot, though he oppugn it.

Clemens. Alexandrinus, Stro. 1. p [...]. 117. [...]: For which cause, some men, when as they distribute the holy Eucharist, as the custome is, permit euery man of the common people to take a portion. And what he meaneth by Eucharist, himself explaineth, 2. Paedag. 2. cap. [...], &c. The mixture of both in one, that is, of Wine and the Word, is that which wee call the Eucharist: whereof the Faithfull when they participate, are sanctified in soule and body both. Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, in Euseb. Hist. lib. 7. cap. 8, writing vnto Xystus Bishop of Rome, relateth of an antient Christian, no Priest, but a Lay-man, that vpon occasion supposed he had not been well bapti­zed. Of him he writeth there, that long before, and often, hee had been partaker of the body and bloud of Christ; not of his body alone, but of his bloud also, in expresse words.

Saint Cyprian, in moe places than one, Epist. 63. Ta­men quoniam quidam vel ignoranter vel simpliciter, in Ca­lice Dominico sanctificando, & plebi ministrando, non hoc faciunt quod secus Christus, &c. The Cup of the Lord communicated to the Laity. And again: Quomodo possumus propter Christum sanguinem fundere, qui sangui­nem Christi erubescimus bibere? By which reason of Saint Cyprian, no Roman Lay-Catholique can shead his bloud for Christ, that neuer drank the bloud of Christ. Which argument he vseth in another place, Epist. 54. Sect. 2. With what ground can we teach or exhort [Page 262] them to shead their owne bloudin confessing the Name of Christ, if, putting them forth vpon that seruice, wee denie them the bloud of Christ? or how can wee dispose and fit them to drink the cup of Martyrdome, vnlesse wee first ad­mit them to their right of communication, in drinking the Lords cup in the Church? Let our good Catholiques answer this, who so punctually, forsooth, and precise­ly follow the steps of Antiquity without any swar­uing. These are all within 300 yeers after Christ, and all expresse for the Cup.

Athanasius, in his second Apologie, being accused for breaking a Chalice, writeth thus: What manner of cup? or when? or where was it broken? In euery house, in euery shop, there are many pots: any which if a man break, hee committeth not sacriledge. But if any man willingly break the sacred chalice, he committeth sacriledge: but that chalice is no where but where there is a lawfull Bishop. This is the vse destined to that chalice; none other: wherein you, according to institution, do drink vnto and before the Laity. This was the custome in Athanasius time; this, in all the Fathers times, as I could deduct almost out of e­uery one. This is euery where the custome in all the world vnto this day, but in the Roman exorbitant Church, as Cassander saith; and was not quite aboli­shed in that Church, till about 1300 yeeres after Christ; and by much art, colluding, and fine forgery, was retained from being cast out of that Church, in the late Conuenticle of Trent, onely kept-in for a faction, but mightily opposed by learned, honest and conscionable Catholiques.

For why: who can alter Christ's Institution? who dare change that which he hath ordained? Sa­crificium [Page 263] verum & plenum tune offert in Ecclesia Deo Pa­tri, si sic incipiat offerre, secundùm quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse, saith Saint Cyprian. But saith he again, and we knowe it is true, Constat Dominum obtulisse cali­cem in commemorationem Passionis. Et quia Passionis eius mentionem in sacrificijs omnibus facim [...], nihil aliud quàm quod ille fecit, facere debemus. Why? Because otherwise wee offer not the Sacrifice as wee should. Nec sacrifi­cium Dominicum legitima sanctificatione celebramus, nisi oblatio et sacrificium nostrum responderit Passioni: and that cannot be without powring out of wine, that repre­senteth the sheading of his bloud. But your Church hath altred it; presumptuously done. Who gaue your Church such authority? Heare Saint Cyprian again. Quare si solus Christus audiendus est, non debemus attendere quid alius ante nos faciendum putauerit, sed quid qui ante omnes est Christus prior fecerit. Neque enim ho­minis consuetudinem sequi oportet, sed Dei veritatem. Nam si Iesus Christus, Dominus & Deus noster, ipse est summus Sacerdos Dei Patris, & sacrificium Patri seipsum primus obtulit, & hoc fieri in sui commemorationem praecepit: vti­que ille sacerdos vice Christi verè fungitur, qui id quod Christus fecit, imitatur: & sacrificium verum ac plenum tunc offert in Ecclesia Deo Patri, si sic incipiat offerre, se­cundùm quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse. You doo not this: therefore, in Saint Cyprian's iudgement, your sacrifice is neither full nor true. Much more in that Epistle, Saint Cyprian hath, and also elsewhere, vnto the purpose.

But you haue Scriptures for the nonce; expresly in our Bibles, contrary to that we teach and practice; to iustifie what you practise and teach touching this [Page 264] sacriledge and perfidiousnesse in altering Christs institution. Maruell you should haue Scripture a­gainst Scripture, Christs institution beeing so direct, for Drink you all. Produce your Scriptures, Ioh. 6. 51. If any man eat of this Bread, hee shall liue for euer. And the Bread which I will giue, is my flesh. Heere is eating of Bread; and that same Bread, Christs flesh: but heere is no such matter, as wee ought to receiue Bread onely; or, that Bread alone sufficeth. Yes: for, Lo euerlasting life attributed by our Lord himselfe, to eating onely vnder one kinde. I grant: for doe they in your countrey vse to eat vnder two kindes? Is Wine eaten with spoones there? I haue heard of communicating and recei­uing vnder one kinde; but neuer till now, heard talke of eating vnder one kinde. Goe learne to speake, and then write. In the Interim I take your meaning. Christ, that mentioneth onely eating, doth not ex­clude drinking; doth not say nor meane, eating onely sufficeth. Bread is not exclusiue heere, no more then where our Sauiour went to eat Bread with a Pharise: at which time, in your Learning and Logick, he did not drink all dinner-time, or supper-time, because he went onely to eat Bread. But Sir, your wisdome must knowe, that hee which eateth Bread, according to the Scripture phrase, drinketh also; Bread importing ne­cessaries for mans life: and to eat Bread, is both to eat and drink; as to eat his Body, is as well to drink his bloud. So anon the same Euangelist: Vnlesse you eat the flesh of the Sonne of man, and drink his bloud, you shall not haue life in you. Lo heere euerlasting life, not had without drin­king. Looke you to this, if you looke to haue euerlasting life.

[Page 265] Iohn 4. 14. Christ promiseth Water to drink; of which water whoso tasteth, shall thirst no more: therefore, say you, He promised no Wine: therefore, say I, By your reason hee gaue not Bread. Therefore, if needs you will haue one kinde, and no more, haue it in Wine, not Bread. Againe, hee telleth his Disciples else-where, that hee would drink no more of the fruit of the vine, vntill hee drink it new in the Kingdome of God: hee maketh no mention of any Bread. Therefore in Heauen, belike, Wine is drink, and onely Wine drunk: but they eat no Bread there. And yet wee read of An­gels food: which I can tell you, who take it literally. I might say, our Sauiour speaketh heere of Bread, and not of Wine, in regard of that fore-going occasion, which was the first motiue vnto this his Discourse, namely, his miraculous feeding 5000 men with fiue loaues: so that hee kept him to the Subiect and occasion. But this wise mans obseruation is cleane cashierd by our Sauiours Epexegesis afterward, ver. 53, 54. hee plainely and expresly maketh it plaine, that hee meant not to exclude bloud, speaking of flesh; nor shut out Wine, where he mentioned Bread. Euer­lasting life, to returne your owne words vpon your self, is attributed by our Lord, not to eating onely vnder one, but both kinds; Except you eat the flesh of the Sonne of man, and drink his bloud, you haue no life in you. Lo, with­out drinking, no life euerlasting: then, poore decei­ued Papists, what will become of you? you shall perish in your sinnes, though your bloud shall bee required at the hands of your ignorant or rather deceitufll guides, that thus mis-leade you from Christs Institution.

[Page 266] Luk. 24. 30, 35. Christ at Emmaus communicated his dis­ciples vnder one kinde. Two things are insisted on out of these words, as it appeareth by the laying downe. First, that this was actio sacra, a Communion of the Body of our Sauiour; then that it was done vnder one kinde: this is taken as granted, because there is no mention of drinking of Wine, there is made men­tion of breaking the Bread. Ignorants and wilfull take things amisse: an ordinary Hebrew phrase it is in the Scriptures, to eat bread, to break bread, for to eat and drink, to take a refection, or repast. This man imagineth, that all their meales were sicca conuiuia; al­together without any liquor, nor Wine nor Water vsed, though in hot countries. Such a foole would haue no other answer made vnto him, but as Arisotle would haue made to him that should deny motion; or that hee should neuer drink at his meales: the best answer could possibly be made vnto him.

That it was actio sacra and not communis, our Saui­our did celebrate the Communion of his Body and Bloud: though I know it is controuerted, for my part I will not contend at present. I know it is held so by Augustine, Theophylact, and I adde too Beda, and Hierome with others: but take heede of the Prece­dent: for if hee communicated onely Bread, then I know not what vse of Wine at all there will bee in the blessed Sacrament. For these were, peraduen­ture, of his Apostles; but without all question, of his Disciples, and so had interest in the Cup, if any had at all.

See more wee cannot, Acts 2. 42. then we haue seene already; mention made of breaking of Bread, [Page 267] which is not exclusiue from drinking of Wine: no more then, 1. Cor. 11. 13. drinking doth exclude ea­ting at all. Poore shifts for Sacriledge and impiety, of late made an Article of faith in the Church of Rome. He that instituted the one, ordained the other, ioyntly both, and at the same time, with all circum­stances alike: if any aduantage is, it is for Drink not for Eat. For, Drink you all of this, saith the Author of the Sacrament: hee saith not expresly, Eat you all of this; as foreseeing that impiety, which in time, hu­mane presumption should bring-in vpon and against his owne institution, fulfilled in the Church of Rome at this day.

XXXVII.

VSe it, if you will: wee hinder you not, nor much care or enquire what effects ensue vpon it: but obtrude it not on vs, or vnto the Church, as in Censu of the Sacraments of the time of Grace, as Baptisme is held, and the Lords Supper, Visible signes of inuisible Grace; Powerfull instruments ordained by God, to work in our Soules eternall Life, by conueighing the meanes thereof vnto them.

Sacramental vnction call it, if you please, so farre as [Page 268] in the writings of the antient Fathers, all Articles peculiar vnto our Christian faith, and beliefe, are sometime called Sacraments: all duties of religious piety vnto God; all diuine and Ecclesiasticall ceremo­nies, are named Sacraments: in which sense you might reckon not seuen, but seuenscore, if you were dispo­sed to make a search for Sacraments.

In the Apostolicall and Primitiue Church, it was a custome to anoint the sick with oyle, to pray ouer them, and so commit them vnto God. This Saint Iames remembreth, 5. 4. Is any sick among you? Let him call for the Elders of the Church, and let them pray ouer him, anointing him with oyle, in the name of the Lord. The Apostle doth not call it a Sacrament; Sa­cramentall vnction, as the Thesis proposeth, and which is that should bee expresly prooued. Our Bibles say, the sick were anointed: but not our Bibles nor theirs doe say, that this anointing was a Sacrament. And Fathers wee are not sent to see, that proue it: so the place is not to purpose, as it is proposed.

Mar. 6. 13. is a Text defacto. They anointed with oyle many that were sick, and healed them: but de iure there is not a word in that Text, whether yea or no this Anointing should bee a Sacrament. The Master of controuersies confesseth himselfe, that it is not ac­corded whether in this Text or not, Sacramentall vnction was instituted: and himselfe is of opinion, that it is not; grounding on the resolution of the Councell of Trent: to which, all Papists are tyed to subscribe and yeeld; and how dare you bring this as a proofe?

Now, say the truth, Sir Goose, and shame the diuell. Now, say the truth, and shame the Diuell: are not they sick in their wits, which will oppose such plaine Scrip­tures? [Page 269] How plain are these Texts, that set your great Direc­tors together by the ears! Where were your sick wits, that did not aduise you? Take heed of falling foule with the Councel of Trent, the cynosura of your faith. Sure, they were made of the pappe of an apple; so easily they squeeze themselues out to nothing▪ your great Dictators haue found hitherto but one direct Text, Iames 5. 4. can we think your sharp sight should spy out three more? a Fox or a Fearne-bush: some­what or nothing? for, Mat. 16. 18. Acts 28. 8. nor oyle, nor vnction is remembred; bare imposition of hands vpon the sick, and diseased: so that wee stand in some possibility heerafter, to haue added an eightth Sacra­ment to the former seauen.

XXXVIII.

THis indeed is contrary vnto the expresse words of our Bible; and therefore directly contrary to our Opinion, Doctrine, and Practice. Can this fel­lowe bee so ignorant, as not to know; or rather so impudent, as to deny, that in giuing of holy orders, we vse those memorable, formall words of our Sauiour, Receiue the holy Ghost? Was euer man made Minister in the Church of England, but in that [Page 270] sort, with that forme? Can hee deny, that wee not onely practise it, but propugne it, command it to bevsed, enquire of, and punish the neglect, opposi­tion and contempt thereof? What shall wee say to such a base detracting Varlet, as shameth not, in view of heauen and earth, to deny the Sun shineth at noone-day? Romane Catholiques, I admire your patience, that suffer such Hog-rubbers to leade you by the nose, and make you beleeue the snowe is black. Poore deceiued Soules, trust no such Mer­chants, that would sell you to the diuell for a morsell of bread, and make you stand out vpon tearms of Separation, for their owne aduantages, against the Church, as Schismaticks, in which you liue and haue beene baptized.

XXXIX.

TOuching marriage of Ministers, this is our Doctrine, resolued, maintained, and iustifiable, Article 32. Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by Gods Lawe, eyther to vow the estate of single life, or to abstaine from marriage. Therefore it is lawfull also for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their owne [Page 271] discretion, as they shall iudge the same to serue better vnto godlinesse. I finde no vow mentioned in this Article, nor leaue giuen to marry, notwithstanding vow: it is your addition, to scandalize the Doctrine which otherwise you durst not touch.

Marriage is honourable amongst all men. This you doe not deny: that single life is essentiall vnto the Clergie, and indispensable, none of your side affir­meth, that I know, but nonus Dogmatistes in Italiâ, as Cassander calleth him, Francisco Tunia [...] the Iesuite. It is but an Ecclesiasticall sanction, this both you and we set downe. It is not deined, but notwithstanding that generall licence to all, the Church may restraine marriage vnto some, at some time, vpon some oc­casions, as wee vse in our Colledges at this day: which is no restraint, but a condition tendred; Leaue your fellowship if you marry.

The Primitiue Church vsed, I deny not, this con­ditionall restraint in some cases, to some men, vpon some occasion: they might so doe, without tax or blame: and so may you or wee, for ought I know, with moderation or discretion. So the question is not, Whether Priests may marry? but, Whether it bee conuenient for them so to doe? You say no, neuer, at no time. Wee deny this rigor, and leaue it indifferent to their owne discretion; resoluing, that at some time, for some causes, it is conuenient, and to bee permitted: to some men, at some time, for some con­siderations, it may be denied to marry.

Your Church, for reasons best known to her selfe, though apparant enough to all, hath a long time doa­ted vpon single life of Priests, for I cannot say chaste; [Page 272] and the better to secure her selfe of that state, hath laid a tye of conscience, a band by oath vpon them; admitting none to holy orders, but such as first solemnly take that vow: which hath many times & often filled your Churches with knaues and dun­ses abundantly; honester men, and discreet Scholars, refusing such a tye.

Wee aduise you not to break your vow, perswade not your selues so: we counsell and aduise you by all meanes to keep it, & liue honest: marry freely, if you be free; if not, we say not to you, Do as Alexander did with Gordius knot; Cut it in pieces, when you cannot vndo it. It was ill to vow so vnaduisedly; worse, to force you to it on no necessity, yet worse to break it securely with presūptiō: butworst of all, adhinnire af­ter fresh maidenheads, or neighbors beds cōtinually.

We say, you did ill to vow absolutely, that which was not in your power to performe: a mischief past, that cannot bee remedied, must bee relieued what it may. If you haue vowed, keepe it on Gods name: it is sinne to breake it, I make no question of it, which was deliberately, discreetly, possibly promised, in things not against nature, common right or reason; for euen in a bond, a condition euill, impious, or im­possible, is voyd and bindeth not, they say.

I deny not vowes in the new Testament, they may bee meanes vnto, and parts of Gods worship, as well in the new Testament as the old. So Gregory Na­zianzen imposed a vow vpon himselfe, not to take the name of God in vaine, and kept it: So haue ma­ny other lawfully and profitably done: doe you so, and we commend you for it.

[Page 273] The Texts you produce, doe not one of them Deuter. 23. 22. Psal. 66. 13. Psal. 19. 11. 1. Tim. Math. 5. 12. speak of the marriage of Priests or religious persons, or any other that vowed chastity vnto God: of vowes they speake, and of vowes to be kept: but Quid haec ad Bacchum? Your promise was, your vndertaking is, to prooue by expresse words of our owne Bibles, that the vowes of Priests and religious persons touching single life, should bee kept: and yet neyther doe wee deny the one; nor you prooue the other. See your honesty in this also, and insufficiency to per­forme.

XL.

FAsting, is abstaining from all meates; or from som certaine meates: the first istruly Fasting, which must bee limi­ted and confined to a time, for so to­tally to fast is impossible. The second is dieting rather then fasting; and yet is that which this man principally meaneth by Fasting, as speaking ac­cording to the tongue of Ashdod, in the Church of Rome, that is more for appearances then true sub­stances.

Fasting is manifold obiectiuely, as it hath beene [Page 274] practised by Iewes, by Pagans, by Christians. This man should speak of the Christian Fast onely; but huddleth all altogether, without distinction. Fasting is distinct, subiectiuely. Among Christians there is or may be vnderstood a naturall, a morall, an ecclesiasti­call Fast; for necessity, for remedy, conueniencie, policy, piety. This addle-headed Fellow cares not to put a difference between the kindes, nor to adde quantity to his position, that men might know where to haue him, and finde what he should say.

He cannot be ignorant, that we commend Fasting, as a profitable help vnto deuotion and piety. Hee cannot chuse but knowe, that wee command it, not onely for ciuil, but religious ends, and vse it in times of speciall note, for fitting dispatches of principall alloy; In our Ember-weeks, for giuing of Orders; in our Lent, to humble our selues against Easter; vp­on the Vigils of Saints, and other set daies: which we ground vpon Scripture, and vse to this purpose, To cause spirituall good.

So Scriptures and Fathers serue to no purpose, be­ing brought to proue that which is not denied. We ground it on Scripture, but not that alleaged of the Rechabites. We haue warrant sufficient from Chri­stian Ier. 35. 5. Therefore it is grounded, &c. practice and direction. We need no addresse to Iewish, either Nazarits or else Rechabites, for exam­ple: and if we should, yet what haue we to do with this pretended? They drank no wine at all; none of them for euer: as the Icthyophagi of Aethiopia eat no flesh; a generall custome, no Fast. They did it out of a politick respect, because they were strangers in the Land. Wee must haue a religious example to serue [Page 275] our turn. And lastly, they were yet vnder the Law: the Vow of the Nazarite might as well bee pleaded; and all Iewish Ceremonies, for obseruation vnto Christians. So ignorant is this Idle-pate.

Otherwise wee ground Fasting vpon holy Scrip­ture, and could adde many moe places of Fathers to be seen: the true end and intent whereof is double; [...], to bee anointed with the holy Ghost, and [...], to bee washed and rinsed from our sinnes: but it needs not. It suffi­ceth onely, we confesse most willingly the ground of Fasting to be diuine, the vse of Fasting to be singular. So these goodly proofs touch not vs at all. Vse them against those that vse not Fasts: for, lastly, it is our practice.

XLI.

AProposition of two feet, neither relying vpon either: The soules of the Fathers might not bee thence deliuered, though Christ descended into hell; and Christ might very well go down into hell, and yet not deliuer any Fathers thence; as finding some other work there to doo; and, hauing other causes of his descent, finding no Fathers to deliuer.

[Page 276] For the former part of this Position, that Hee went not into hell; with what face, what fore-head, can this Fellow shew wee teach it, when in our Creed wee professe, that He went down into hell, and haue pub­liquely defended it against opposition! Nay, wee more beleeue it, than the Church of Rome doth; and are more punctuall in it, than are they.

They quarter out hell into foure Regions; Hell of the Damned, Purgatory, Limbus Infantium, and Limbus Patrum. This diuision, without warrant of holy Writ, be it granted them; into which of these Quar­ters, into all, or into some, did the soule of our Saui­our, separate from his body, descend? Say they, In­to the hell of the Fathers onely, really; into the other parts, virtually, or by effects. Thus Thomas: and who dare deny him? Thus the Current of their Schools. This is their Tenent, and no otherwise.

Wee professe and beleeue, that Christ went into hell, that is, that the humane soule of our Sauiour, in the Interim of separation from the body, did essenti­ally and really go downe into hell, the place of the Damned, and of the Diuels; not alone into Limbus of the Fathers, which was not there; not to suffer a­ny thing there at all: for, all suffrings ended vpon the Crosse. In the Land of darknes, and shadow of death, began the first step of his exaltation; that, free among the Dead, he walked where he would, not being con­sined to any place; that he took reall possession of a part of his Kingdome, and presented his person vn­to those his vassals; hauing beaten his enemy in his chiefest hold, chased him out of the castle of his strength, triumphed ouer him in himself, and prea­ched [Page 277] confusion vnto his foes, that would not enter­tain his mercy in time of life, nor partake of grace offred them vnto repentance. This is our belief con­cerning his descent into hell; if not orthodox, anti­ent, and receiued, let this wrangler shew where, how, and we will yeeld vnto better discretion from Anti­quity.

It is idlely supposed, that, the descent granted, we must needs inferre withall a Limbus Patrum, or deli­uerance of the Fathers out of hell; there being alled­ged (not contrary to Scriptures, nor Analogy of faith; not inferring impiety, impossibility, impro­bability, absurdity, or contradiction) so many true, good, and catholick reasons of our Sauiours descent thither, beside this.

The Fathers he meaneth, are the Patriarchs and Prophets, and righteous men, that liued and died before Christ came in the flesh; that expected the Promises, and beleeued in hope, but enioyed not the fulnesse which we doo since. Being dead, they are considered two waies; in regard of state, in respect of place. For place, the Scripture runneth in gene­rall tearms: In the hands of God; In Abraham's Bosom; With their people; and such like; thus affirmatiuely de­termining no certaine place: negatiuely resoluing, they were not there whereas now they are, in the highest heauens, and glorious, where the Body of Christ resideth, exalted aboue all Powers and Prin­cipalities.

For, He first entred into the most holy place by his owne bloud. They without vs were not to bee perfect; standing the first Tabernacle, the holiest of all was not yet opened. [Page 278] The way was new, which he prepared for vs. The gates to be opened were eternall gates, neuer opened since they were gates; but gates, and eternall shut gates together. Therefore wee professe with holy Saint Ambrose, euery day in our Liturgie, When thou hadst ouercome the sharpnes of death, thou didst open the King­dome of Heauen to all Beleeuers. This, we acknowledge, is the receiued opinion of the fathers, and (for ought I knowe) of Protestant Diuines not a few.

Though they were not in heauen, in regard of place; yet were they in happinesse, in respect of state. The soules of the Righteous, said he, before Christ came, are in the hands of God: and no kinde of torments shall once touch them. This is also the consented doctrine of Anti­quity. If no kinde of torment, then not losse, nor paine; then not in hell: for, I neuer heard of hell without all manner pain. So it followeth not, in opinion of the Antients, the soules of the Faithfull were not in heauen aboue properly; therefore they were in hell properly. Gods hands, in which they were, are not so shortned; his Kingdome is not so narrowed, but that hee might well haue moe places than one; Re­ceptacles, Repositories, Resting-places, for the righ­teous, where hee would dispose them, enow, could we be content.

Curiosity will not stay heer, but proceed to en­quire, Where were they then? In what place of the world was their abiding? I answer, I cannot resolue that: for, the Scripture hath not determined it. Nes­cire velle, quae Magister maximus docere non vult, erudita est inscitia: It is learned nescience, Not to knowe what our grand instructer will not teach. It is enough to knowe, [Page 279] they are in better case now, than they were then. With Christ they entred into his Rest. Euer they were in the hands of God, though not euer in like distance or proportion with God. So what need we wrangle about the place, if the matter bee agreed touching state? See how contrary to our owne Bibles.

Ephes. 4. 8. out of Psal. 68. 18. When he ascended vp Contrary to their owne Bibles. on high, he led Captiuity captiue, and gaue gifts vnto men. Christ, in his Ascent, led Captiues along. The Que­stion is, Who these Captines were? No, Sir: the que­stion should first of all bee, What this Ascent was? You take it of his Resurrection. It plainly is referred vnto his Triumph into the heauens, in his Ascension, both in the Prophet, and Apostle, and by all Inter­preters, but your self.

But to follow you in your follies; Be it as you These freed Captiues can­not bee the soules of the Saued, which no man in his right wits, can call Cap­tiues: nor of the damned; for, so the di­uels should be brought a­gain into hea­uen. Therefore they were the soules of the Fathers which Christ deliuered out of hell. would haue it, of his Resurrection: must these freed Captiues needs be the soules of the Fathers which Christ deliuered out of hell? Yes, no nay; no other possibility. For, they were not the soules of the Saued, nor the Di­uels; therefore the soules of the Fathers. Sir, can you finde no mo but these, Diuels or Saued? Iustin Martyr could: and he is ancient, pag. 57. edit. Rob. Steph. with him in his opinion: and I think hee was in his right wits. We are those Captiues, that since the Ascension of our Sauiour, by the preaching of the Gospell of peace, are captiued vnto truth, being freed and deli­uered from error. Irenaeus, in his wits too, I suppose, goes not far from this meaning: for, hauing remem­bred the Text whcih he referreth to the Passion, hee inferreth thus; Dominus per passionem mortem destruxit, [Page 280] & soluit errorem, corruptionem (que) exterminauit, & igno­rantiam destruxit. Tertullian was also in his right [...]its; who, in 5. against Marcion, writeth thus: Ascendit in sublimitatem, id est Coelum. Captiuam duxit captiuitatem, id est, mortem, vel humanam seruitutem.

See then Fathers expounding it of nor Diuels, nor Saued: and yet this confident Ignorant, that scarce euer read Father, it is probable (but, who so bold as blinde Bayard?) pronounceth, that These freed Cap­tiues heer, could bee no other than the soules of the Fathers whom Christ deliuered forth of hell, because they were nor Diuels nor Saued, in his opinion.

They were not Diuels; very magisterially spoken, and pro Imperio; because this learned Theologue saith, They were not. Athanasius saith, It was the Diuell that he captiued; [...], hauing made captiue the Tyrant of captiuity, To. 1. de saluta­ri aduentu Iesu Christi: and yet Athanasius neuer feared to be challenged for bringing back the Diuels into hea­uen; vnto whom God Almighty had sworne in his wrath, They should neuer more return into his Rest. Might he not lead them along the aire, and shut them our, cast them off at heauen-gates? Captiuity is ac­tiuely or passiuely taken; Those that held in captiuity, or such as were held. Christ led them both, death and damnation; the Diuell, the graue, the Chief and Principal in the dwellings of Ham, the Commanders of the Prince of darknes: of whom hee made a shew o­penly, and triumphed ouer them in his flesh. They might be the Righteous, the Saued, though you deny it, that were formerly in captiuity vnto their enemies, and now freed & deliuered to serue Christ Iesus; which [Page 281] the Fathers call, if you euer read it, a better captiuity: whether you hould them in their right wits, or no, I knowe not. I am sure, your wits and wisdome are far asunder, though no great substance in either.

Very farre; or could it haue dropped from your penne, They cannot be the soules of the Saued; and yet, Therefore they were the soules of the Fathers whom Christ deliuerd out of hell? who peraduenture were not saued, but cast into another hell, being taken thence. Goe learn to speak and write, Sir giddy Goose-gagger, and then vndertake to stop the Protestants mouthes. You must not look to prate and talk idlely to them, as you doo to your Proselytes, poore fooles, that are hood-winked willingly by each Buzzard, to blinde obedience. You may let these freed Captiues be these or those, deliuered, saued, so or so: you cannot in­ferre, they were deliuered by Christ, therefore they were freed out of hell. Let them not haue been in heauen before our Sauiour: I deny it necessary, they were therefore in hell. Hell is one thing, saith Tertull. lib. 4. against Marcion, Abraham' s bosome is another thing. For, Abraham saith, A great depth is betwixt these two Regions; which permitteth not any to passe to and fro. Neither could the rich man haue lift vp his eies, but to places aboue him, and farre aboue him, by reason of that infinite di­stance betwixt that height and that depth. That Region, then, I call Abraham' s bosome, which, though it be not hea­uen, is yet higher than hell.

Thus hee, vpon warrant of our Sauiours words, who placeth Abraham farre aboue that place of tor­ment; and so the one no part of the other. And so likewise resolueth that profound Diuine, Saint Au­gustine, [Page 282] in his 99, the memorable Epistle to Euodius, instantly rehearsed by the Discourser: Non vtique si­nus ille Abrahae, id est, secretae cuiusdam quietis habitatio, aliqua pars inferorum esse credenda est: Then, without doubt, the Bosome of Abraham, which is an habitation of secret rest, cannot be thought to haue been any part of hell. You dare oppose Saint Augustine: dare you not?

It is true which that illuminate Doctor auerreth in the same Epistle: None but an Infidell, will deny Christs Acts 2. 27. Which very words Saint August. ap­plieth to the paint of Pur­gatory, and addeth, Who but an Infidel will deny Christ to haue descen­ded into hell? Ep. 99. ad Euodium. descent into hell; and as true, that none but an Asse or an Idiot will say, that therefore necessarily hee went thither to fetch vp the fathers that were there in hel. Saint Augustine denieth them to haue been there: it is plain, and not denied by your Masters. Indeed it is answered, that Saint Augustine did not knowe what the besome of Abraham was; but that hee applieth that Text, Acts 2. 27. to the pains of Purgatory, is but a coniecture at the best. S. Augustine saith, that Christ deliuered some from the pains of hell; and interpre­teth himself, not to mean That of those holy soules that were in the Bosom of Abraham; nor of the souls of the Damned that were in hell-torments, out of which is no redemption. Heerupon you think wise­ly, he must needs mean the pains of Purgatory, and no other. It is the doctrine of your owne Schools, that such as were raised at any time from death to life, were not certainly doomed, nor confined into their stations: but, in regard GOD foresaw they should liue again, extraordinarily he suspended their determination, this way or that way irreuocably. Why might not Saint Augustine mean some such thing? Without doubt he did not mean it of Purga­tory. [Page 283] For, Saint Thomas, 3. p. q. 52. ar. 8. resolueth, that the soules of Purgatory were not freed nor deliuered by Christs descent thither; his merit extending vnto eternall deliuerance, and vnto no partiall or tempo­rall freedome. But, somewhat you would say, though poor man you be to seek, in the manifold labyrinths of Purgatory, Limbus, and Hell: out of which, wiser than you cannot winde.

The word Hell is ambiguous in the Writings of the Fathers. Sometime it is put for the state and con­dition; sometime, for the place and receptacle of soules; and that in a different manner, in opposition to a twofold heauen. For, earth is respectiuely called Superi, and the state of men liuing, by the selfe-same name: and so in opposition, any Dead are Inferi; and their place and receptacle, Infernus. Secondly, Supe­ri is the highest heauen: and they that do liue there, are so stiled. In opposition heerto, the name of In­feri hath a two fold interpretation. First, for a place or state contrary to the state and place of the highest heauen: this is hell properly, or of the Damned. Se­condly, for a state or place negatiuely opposed, and not contrary to heauen: and so euery place and state which is not that highest in the highest heauen, is called Inferi; and may so be, as Pamelius hath obser­ued vpon Tertullian, lest you take it for a Protestant deuice.

This Fellow perchance knew not this before: and therefore wheresoeuer the Fathers speak of Christ's descent into hell, and carrying thence the Fathers in­to the highest heauens, hee faineth Limbo vnto him­self, euen as the Bell tinketh whatsoeuer the foole [Page 284] thinketh; when the Fathers meant nothing lesse then so, but alteration of state, and place. See then as many places as the booke will hold. They may prooue the descent of Christ into hell; which, as an Article of our Creed, wee willingly embrace. The descent to Popish Limbus they doe not prooue: the which no Father euer dreamed of, in that sort as our Masters tender it vnto vs to bee beleeued at this day.

XLII.

NOt resolued of by Antiquity, out of Scrip­ture; nor determined by Scripture, olde or new, as certaine, and necessarily to be beleeued. You say, Yes: therefore we contrary the expresse words of our owne Bibles.

1. Cor. 3. 13. The fire shall try euery mans work of what sort it is. Is this so expresse in your opinion, Sir Gag­ger? It seemeth not; for neither haue wee your Therefore, &c. for the conclusion, nor your ordinary expresse words; but barely thus: Contrary to their owne Bible. Your conscience checked you: or did Bellar­mine stumble you? or what is the cause you faint in your Euidence? Bellarmine confesseth, it is one of the hardest places in Scripture. And such are not expresse [Page 285] Directors, or Concluders; therefore no good proofes in points of faith, without euident conspi­ring of some more perspicuous place. For, points of faith must haue manifest assurance: to proue obscu­rity, by more obscurity, your Logick can tell you, if you haue not forgot it, is a fault. Wee doubt, and make a question vnto you of Purgatory. Your Euidence for it, is from that of which wee more doubt, at leastwise as much as wee doe of Pur­gatory.

For, beside the confession of the Master of contro­uersies, and the diuers senses, and expositions by him confessed and produced, the latest, I think, I am sure one of the learnedst of your owne expositors, Estius, both confesseth as much, and resolueth against your intent for Purgatory out of this place. The Fire, saith hee, which the Apostle in this discourse hath named three seuerall distinct times, is variously expounded by diuers men. Augustine and Gregory vnderstand it of the afflictions of this life: as in the 65. Psal. We haue passed through fire and water. Others take it for Hell fire. Some, for Purgatory. Some, for the fire of Conflagration, which shall eyther proceed or accom­pany Christ the Iudge at the day of Doome. Others imagine a threefold fire answerable vnto fire thrice named by the Apostle. The first, that fire of Confla­gration. The second, the fire of Gods seuere Iudgement. The third, of Purgatory: an absurd interpretation, saith your owne Estius: the fire is the same in all places, saith hee. That fire is eyther that of Conflagration, or Gods seuere Iudgement, or both, according to the opinion of Cai [...]tan (no Protestant), in his owne opi­nion, [Page 286] rather that of Conflagration, which shall set the world on fire at the last, which hath a threefold effect vpon three different sorts of men: for probation vpon the throughly cleane: for Purgation vpon the yet defiled: for reuenge vpon the cast-awayes & vngod­ly. For which exposition, hee citeth Basil in three se­uerall places; Hilary in second Canon vpon Mathew, Ambrose, Lactantius, Eucherius and others: but in no case your Purgatory fire, because Purgatory recei­ueth men after Iudgement particular, and is vtter­ly amolished before the generall Iudgement fini­shed. Secondly, because Purgatory trieth no mans worke, but punisheth the euill works of such as shall bee saued. If such men, your owne, bee not resol­ued for it, nay, resolued against it, would you haue vs instantly professe a Purgatory, because you say Saint Paul meant so, and cannot prooue it?

Prooue it you can, out of Saint Ambrose, Ser. 20. in Psal. 118. & Bellarm. saith, that Idem habet, on the place Saint Am­brose, Ser. 20 in Psal. 118. Saint Hierome vp­on 4 of A­mos. Saint August. vp­on the 37 Psal. Saint Gregory lib. 4. Dial. ex­plicate this very place of Purgatory. of S. Paul, in his Commentaries: and Estius, Ser. 3. vpon the same 118. Psal. Which testimony hee al­leadgeth, for, against the Conceit of Purgatory extracted hence: so that, if these testimonies are all one, Ignis Conflagrationis is intended, at the end of the world to beginne; not the fire of Purgatory, which is to bee consummated at the worlds end. Post consummationem saeculi, are Saint Ambrose words, missis Angelis qui segregent bonos et malos, hoc futurum est Baptisma; quando per caminum ignis Iniquitas exuretur: vt in regno Dei ful­geant iusti sicut Sol, in regno Patris sui; et si aliquis vt Pe­trus sit, vt Iohannes, baptizatur hoc igni. This is a pur­ging fire as well as a proouing and consuming fire, as [Page 287] your Estius hath well obserued. In which sense Saint Ambrose speaketh, vt per ignem purgatus fiat saluus. So you bely Saint Ambrose, for explicating this very place of Purgatory in your sense.

Secondly, you prooue it out of Hierome, vpon the fourth of Amos, 11. You were as a firebrand plucked forth of the burning: where what Hierome hath for Purgato­ry, I would willingly vnderstand of your Gagger­ship; for I professe my disability to conceiue. Hierome compareth that place of the Prophet, with the other of Saint Paul; and onely compareth it, no more: Hierome doth not determine Fire in eyther place, to be your Purgatory fire: all that can bee collected is, That by fire, Saint Hierome meant, the seuere Iustice of God. Cùm subuer si fuerint ob similitudinem criminum So­domae et Gomorrhae, pessimaque in ijs aedificia diuinus ignis exusserit, ipsi liberentur, quasi torris raptus de incendio. Et quomodo Lot, Sodomâ pereunte, seruatus est, amittens sub­stantiam, et partem corporis sui, quam intelligimus vxo­rem: sic omnes isti Sodomorum diuitias amittentes, euadunt nudi, iuxta illud quod in Apostolo legimus, Si cuius opus arserit, &c. Si ergo saluatur per ignem, quasitorris de in­cendio rapitur. If there bee no fire but that in Purga­tory, I confesse, this fire must bee that of Purgatory: but if there bee many fires beside this of your Imagi­nation, it is rather any fire then that of Purgatory. For I neuer yet heard, that an Heretick dying an He­retick, may haue his Heresie purged in Purgatory; and so leauing that there, as a snake her slough, him­selfe may stie vp to Heauen: but without all contro­uersie, out of that fire in Saint Hierome, Hereticks be saued into Heauen. Postquam in eo opera arserint, in [Page 288] antiquum restituatur locum. See the place, Reader, and tell mee thy opinion of this Gagger.

Saint Augustine cannot possibly vnderstand this place of your fire of Purgatory, except hee will and doe contradict him: For by your owne confessions, Saint Augustine conceiued it of the Tribulations of this life; therefore not of Purgatory after this life. The words you meane in Saint Augustine vpon 37. Psal. are, It is said, Hee shall bee saued, yet as it were by fire. And because it is said, Hee shall bee saued, there­fore that fire is not regarded. No maruell: and yet that fire is more vnsufferable then any torment which a man can possibly vndergoe in this life. Heere (no doubt) the game is vp for Saint Augustine. Fire after this life, and yet not eternall: therefore of Purgatory, no questi­on. Yes, Sir, a question. Indeed no question what Saint Augustine meant. For first, he calleth it plain­ly Emendatorium ignem, fire that correcteth men, and maketh them better. Purgatory is not so: it is pe­nall onely. There is no merit in Purgatory: soules cannot sinne nor deserue there, in the resolution of your owne men. Secondly, the fire which Saint Augustine meaneth, doth then, in his opinion, per­forme that office, when the sheepe are separated from the goates; that is, when your Purgatory, in your owne opinions, is no more for euer. Thus the ordinary Glosse vnderstood Saint Augustine. Wee read, saith the Glosse, of two fires that shall come. The one eternall, which eternally shall torment the reprobate: This fire is to insue the Iudgement. The other fire shall goe before, which shall burne vp the surface of this world, and shall amend them that haue builded wood, hay, and stubble. [Page 289] But such as haue builded gold & siluer, end precious stones, shal be secure & safe from eyther fire. And in like sort doth Salmeron conceiue of Saint Augustine: and Augustine could not meane your Purgatory in Saint Paul. For such as build gold, &c. come not within your Verge at all; but into Saint Paul's Fires, as saith Saint Au­gustine, commeth both one and other: Ignis de quo lo­cutus est eo loco Apostolus Paulus, [...] debet intelligi, vt ambo per cum transeant: id est, et qui aedificat supra hoc fundamentum aurum, &c. et qui aedificat lignum, &c.

Lastly, Saint Gregory doth explicate this very place of Purgatory, Dial. 4. and to help you out, for you could not tell, Cap. 39. sed tamen are his words, de quibusdam leuibus culpis esse ante iudicium, purgatorius ignis creden­dus est. And to this sense hee saith, that Text of the Apostle may be applied. But, Sir Gagger, this Gre­gory, the Author of the Dialogues, is no authenticall writer with mee. I doe not hold him for the man whose name hee beareth. But at this time I will not question him for your sake, though I owe you little. Hee telleth vs of a purging fire. Good: but euery purging fire, is not that you dreame of, which hath made the Popes Kitchin smoke so much heereto­fore. Saint Augustine acknowledgeth another: so do many of your owne men. And this of Saint Gregory is no other then that of Fire, which goeth before the Iudge: Ante iudicium, saith your Author: which wee deny not, and helpeth you nothing. Saint Augustine led Saint Gregory the way: Videtur euidentius apparere, saith hee, in illo iudicio, quasdam quorundam purgatorias poenas futuras. No such matter then in their opinion, [Page 290] for the present. Many trying Fires there may bee: there are both literall and metaphoricall, which will clayme interest in Saint Paul's meaning, 1. Cor. 3. 13. before your Purgatory can find admittance there.

Toby 4. 17. Powre out thy bread vpon the buriall of the iust: that is, Offer for those which are in Purgatory; no doubt: For Saint Chrysostome, Hom. 32. in Math. vnderstandeth this very place of Purgatory. Vnderstan­deth? And what of that? Vnderstanding will not serue our turne: we must haue expresse words in our own Bibles for it: else, Olle, quid ad te? Purgatory and Bu­riall are all one with you: or Purgatory will not ap­peare hence. As for your warrant from Saint Chry­sostome, you bely Saint Chrysostome, and your Author both. I say it, because the man you would remem­ber, is not Saint Chrysostome: but the Author of the Imperfect worke vpon Saint Mathew: who indeed was wont to goe vnder Saint Chrysostomes name, but is acknowledged by euery Smatterer amongst you, not to bee Saint Chrysostome. Did you not knowe this? I pitty then your case, which hath such poore companions for Patrons. Did you knowe it? the more to blame you, that would not distinguish him from Saint Chrysostome: who in his 32. Homil. hath not any thing looking that way. You might haue beene challenged for forgery euery way, had I not found you out; as you may for folly or ignorance, or dissolute security, beeing found out.

But neither doth your Saint Chrysostome that is the Author specified, so vnderstand or talke of the place of Toby. For, Homil. 26. not 32. vpon 41. verse of the tenth of Mat. hauing expounded these words of To­by [Page 291] not ill, telleth vs a tale out of Clemens, concerning Saint Peter, and this Doctrine deliuered by him out of Tradition. Sed audi mysterium, &c. But heare a se­cret, and mysticall meaning, giuen by Saint Peter, remem­bred by Clemens. If any beleeuer shall doe a good work, it is profitable vnto him in this world, by deliuering him from euill, and also in the world to come, to attaine the Kingdome of heauen; rather there in that world, than in this. But if an vnbeleeuer doe a good worke, it will profit him heere, by deliuering him from euill, and God will returne vnto him good for his worke: But in that world to come, his work will profit him nothing. For neither is hee ranked, for that his worke, with other beleeuers, and that deseruedly, because hee did that good, out of naturall good motions, and not for Gods sake. Wherefore hee receiueth his reward, both in and for the body, not in or for his soule. Also if a Christian shall giue vnto no Christian, hee shall therefore receiue no great reward, because hee gaue it not vnto a Christian, nor as vnto a Christian; Toby saying, Poure out thy wine vpon the sepulchers of the iust, and giue nothing vn­to the sinner. Whoso giueth a little to an vnbelieuer, hath his reward: but he that giueth any thing to a beleeuer, hath a double reward: first, in as much as hee is Gods Creature; secondly, because hee is iust before God. But whosoeuer giueth vnto an vnbeleeuer, hath onely a single reward; in as much as the vnbeleeuer is Gods Creature, though in will opposite vnto God. If a Christian doe receiue no Christian, but an Infidel in the name of a Christian, haue his reward notwithstanding appointed for him hee shall; because, as much as lieth in him, he receiueth indeed no Christian, but as a Christian. It was necessary I should, as I haue done, set downe the whole place at large, both that the [Page 292] Pamphleter may direct mee to that passage, or those words; in which, or by which, Saint Chrysostome vn­derstandeth this place of Purgatory: which I pro­fesse, such is my dulnesse, I cannot see nor imagine: As also that I might deale vprightly in the cause, and sincerely with him that dealeth honestly in nothing; and lastly, that the Reader may pick out, if hee can, where or how hee may ground Purgatory; or if hee cannot, may see and knowe, and take notice of a for­lorn cause, so vpholden by false shews and collusion. Finde Purgatory fire, or not fire; prison, or not pri­son; state, or not state of the deceased in expiatory torments or pains heer, and I will instantly professe and beleeue Purgatory without more adoo.

1. Cor. 15. 29. Else what shall they doo, which are bapti­zed for the Dead? Vpon this Text the Gaggers Glosse is, An euident place concerning the succour which the souls departed receiue by the assistance of the Church. To ad­mit it euident, and concerning succour which soules departed receiue, and that by the assistance of the Church; yet first, I say, you go from your word: no such contrariety heer, as you pretend. Secondly, you are a poor Ignaro, that think soules must needs be in Purgatory, that receiue assistance from the Church. It may be, your poor vnderstanding will wonder at it: but knowe, Sir, I can admit Praier for the Dead, and deny your Purgatory. I can giue you reasons to pray for the Dead, and yet keep farre enough from your Purgatory. But for that some other time. At present I answer, You are a silly man, that call this an euident place; one of the hardest in all Scripture. Quid sit baptizari pro mortuis, obscurum est, & ab Authoribus [Page 293] variè exponitur, say your owne men; which is true: For till this day, it is not agreed what is the meaning: no man can say, This is the sense; and yet our Blun­derer saith, It is euident.

Doo you knowe, that some take pro mortuis, for the Dead, that is, for sinnes, because men die through sinnes; and the works of sin are called Dead works? And so men are baptized to be deliuered from sinne. These men dreamt not of Purgatory. That others vse pro mortuis, that is, doo represent the Dead, be­cause we die to sinne in Baptism, and are buried vnto corruption? And not much differing hence, that o­thers take it, Into the death of Christ? which of these thought vpon Purgatory? Again, some take Baptism for affliction: men afflicted vnto death, what shall they doo, if the dead rise not again? Some referre it vnto a Iewish custome; by which, if a man had died polluted, another was clensed and washed for him; that so beeing dead, hee might get aduantage by it. This Iewish Fable may happely look vpon your Purgatory: and much good may it doo you. Yet farther, Chrysostome relateth vpon this place, that when any of the Catechized among the Marcionite Heretiques died, a liuing body was laid vnder the Beer; and the question proposed vnto the Party, If he would be baptized? for you knowe, the Catechu­meni were [...], vnbaptized. The Party answered for the dead man, Yes, I will: and so was hee bapti­zed for him. And thus they expounded Saint Paul's meaning. Tertullian, by dead, vnderstandeth the body of man. If there be no Resurrection, to what end is the body baptized? Epiphanius lastly, and most men, [Page 294] commonly take it for the baptizing of the Clinici, as they called them. Men in those times vsually defer­red Baptism vntill their death, and in extremis would be baptized. So to be baptized for the Dead, is to be baptized, when men are ready to dy: which they not doe, but vpon hope of the Resurrection. In such variety, and greater than so; yet saith this fellowe, An euident place. To come home to the assertion, It is plaine and euident, the Apostle speaketh not of any succour that soules departed receiued from the Suffrages of the Church (which were it granted, no necessity of Purgatory would ensue), but of comfort that men receiued from that mayne point of our most holy faith, the Resurrection of the Dead; the mayne Subiect of that Chapter, as euery child with vs can tell.

See more: for wee haue seene but little hitherto, 2. Tim. 1. 18. where That day is transmued into Purga­tory. For Saint Pauls words are, The Lord grant vnto him, that he may find mercy with the Lord at that day, that is, may bee deliuered out of Purgatory at the day of Iudgement. So wheresoeuer God sheweth mercy, there is Purgatory; or, All that finde mercy at the day of Iudgement, come out of Purgatory. Vnlesse this bee his meaning, let him tell me what he would haue with Saint Paul here. If this bee his meaning, I wish him well: for sure, hee is in no right wits; be­cause so, no man liuing can escape Purgatory by this inference. For no man but findeth mercy with God before that time, and then. No man but needeth Gods mercy then, [...]; In that fearfull and terrible day, [Page 295] when wee stand in need of great mercy indeed, saith Chry­sost. who neuer dreamt of any Purgatory; nor would haue sent Onesiphorus thither, had hee fancied any such thing: for euen according to your owne Doc­trine, his good deeds had not onely aboundantly merited for himselfe, sufficiently satisfied for his Peccadilloes: but his Indurances, ouer and aboue, layd somewhat vnto the Church-treasure. And what hath Purgatory to do with such a man?

Esay 4. 4. the Prophet speaketh of the Spirit of bur­ning, and of Purging, thus: When the Lord shall wash the filthines of the daughter of Sion, & purge the blood of Ierusa­lem out of the midst thereof by the Spirit of iudgement, and by the Spirit of burning: then, without all doubt, Pur­gatory burneth apace; the rather because Saint Au­gustine expoundeth it of Purgatory, Lib. 20. de Ciuit. Dei, Cap. 25, saith Bellar. You left vs to seeke. Cap. 21, say others, so your selues are to seeke, I meane, for any such thing in Saint Augustine. For hee is belied in both places: which touch not vpon Purgatory at all, but manifestly designe the last Iudgement. In the 21. he professes himself, that his discourse was wholly therof, à primo Saluatoris aduentu, vs (que) ad vltimū Iudiciū, de quo nunc agimus. And more euidently, Cap. 25. Vi­detur euidentius apparere in illo Iudicio quodam quorundā futuras Poenas purgatorias. Purgatory paines are by S. Augustine put off and adiourned vnto the last Iudge­ment; then to begin when yours end: and this but in opinion, not resolution. Now Sir, what aduantage haue you by Saint Augustine, who speaketh opiningly of Purgatory, but excludeth your Purgatory.

And to as much purpose is Saint Basil, expounding [Page 296] the place of Esay, 9. 18. of Purgatory, you say. The text is, For wickednes burneth as a fire, it deuoureth the briers and thornes, and will kindle in the thick places of the For­rest, and they shall mount vp like the lifting vp of smoke. Basil in his exposition nameth purging fire. I grant it: but this purging fire is in life, not after death: in this world, not in the world to come: and God himselfe is this purging fire; who abolisheth and consumeth iniquitie by Repentance, being detected by confessi­on, as any man may see, that will but looke vpon the place; and the same Father vpon the 10. of Esay, more plainely explicateth his owne meaning: Pandit hic na­turam ignis, quia lustratiuus est et purgatorius. Sanctifica­bit enim ipsum quasi in igne ardenti. Quomodo autem san­ctificat ignis? Quia comesturus est syluam tanquam foenū. Sanè ex quo Deus noster ignis consumens est, consumet syluā et vitia, quae à syluā, siue materiâ promanant animae quae non degit in spiritu sed in carne. Strange conceits; that if any Father name purging fire, hee must needs bee a fa­uourer of Popish Purgatory.

Your second of Macchab. 12. 44, 45. you may make your friends with: your Catholike Readers may passe it for currant: but your protestant aduersaries admit it not. And if they did, you gained nothing thereby: I told you before, that Praying for the dead doth not inferre Purgatory. There are other causes for that practice, beside the opinion of Purgatory: And were there none, this text doth inferre but a meer opinion, no decision or point of faith. Beleeue Purgatory, if you will: for my part I hinder you not, so you leaue it to me to beleeue it, or not, & not force me to con­sent against my knowledge & resolution. But lastly, [Page 297] I answer, The authour of that story did intend no more, but to set out Iudas vnto vs as a Pharise, not a Sadduce: hee thought of the Resurrection, which the Pharises beleeued; but was denied by the Sadduces: for these factions were then on foot: and Hyrcanus, in whose time the book was written, was a Sadduce, de­nied the Resurrectiō: which his Vncle Iudas did not: so much this writer would infinuate, & so tax the im­piety of his owne times. For good Sir, how could Iu­das dream of any Purgatory ex animi tui sentētiâ, whē as al the fathers & godly that died before Christ, wēt into Limbus Patrū? But were their testimōy euidēt, as it is not, yet the book was neuer vsed for dogmaticall cōclusiōs of faith, farther thē cōfirmd by the Canon.

Math. 5. 25. 27. no, it is 26. which you would haue: Hee shall not come out thence, vntil he haue payd the vtmost farthing. Therefore at last hee shall, payment being made; but not out of hell, therfore out of Purgatory, Nay, as much and as soon out of hel, as out of Purga­tory. This place wil as soone conclude, the Diuels & Damned shall be saued, as any deliuered out Purga­tory. Our Sauiour meaneth, That he shall neuer come out, because he neuer can pay the vttermost farthing. Hee speaketh of a Reprobate and castaway for euer: Such haue nothing to do in Purgatory. For All in Purgatory are at length saued, by your owne Rules. This is no Protestant fiction: your owne Maldonate put it into my mouth. Quod autem dicit, nos inde non ex­ituros donec vitimum quadrantemper soluamus, non signifi­cat exituros postea, vt ait Augustinus, and you with him, sed nunquam exituros: Quia qui in Inferno sunt, cum semper debitas poenas soluunt, quia pro quolibet mortali [Page 298] peccato, infinitas poenas debent, nunquam persoluunt. Vntill then is neuer: as where the Euangelist saith, He knewe her not, vntill shee brought foorth her first Son: that is, He neuer knewe her: although Maldonate there mistooke Saint Augustine, vnlesse his words were mistaken by the Printer, and transposed. What you mean by Iohn 22. I can not tell: when I knowe, I shall tell what to say.

To conclude: there is not any Resolution publike or priuate for Purgatory for 600. yeeres, in the Church; where it is, your selues are not resolued; what it is, you cannot tel, whether fire or none; and if fire, whether corporall or not; nor can you resolue how it tormenteth soules. You can not tell, who are executioners of Gods wrath there; who and what manner men are sent thither; how long they are to continue there. Dominicus à Soto played the foole in broaching such a dangerous conceit as this, No soule abideth there aboue ten yeeres. There being such vncer­tainty on all hands in euery point, what Reason haue you to tender it as de fide, and propose it, as an Article of my Creed? Beleeue it if you will: I must see bet­ter euidence, before I beleeue it.

XLIII.

THose that held it so vnlawfull, meane, It is not lawfull for men, of themselues, out of their owne voluntary motion to make them: they neuer intended, that God could not dispense with his owne mandate, or a man might not make them at his com­mand. That Text, Exod. 25. 18. therefore doth not contrary the opinion of those such Proposers: for God there commandeth it to bee done, by speciall warrant, and in a retyred and reserued place. So, this place, though expresse, is not to purpose. Nor that of 1. Kings 6. 35. which was done by warrant of the former direction, and according to patterne in that direction. Salomon did, as Moses was com­manded, make Cherubins in the Holiest Place.

But the truth is, this Andabatarian Fencer fighteth with his owne shadow. No Protestant euer said, that it was vnlawfull to make or to haue Images. No Protestant but hath, or hath had in his house, closet, study or the like, Pictures and Images, many or few. That which Protestants mislike and condemne in Papists, is not the hauing, but adoring and worship­ping of Images; the giuing them honour due vnto God; as the ignorant doe, that goe to it bluntly and [Page 300] downe-right: the giuing them the honor due vnto the Prototype, as the learned amongst them perswade vnto: as much honour to a woodden Crucifix, as to Christ Iesus himself in Heauen, at the right hand of his Father: this they mislike. Heb. 9. 1. 5. Lo, Saint Paul calleth the pictures of the Cheru­bins which Salomon made, an Or­dinance of diuine Ser­uice, which Protestants call the ma­king of Idols: who now shall we beleeue, whether S. Paul, or a Protestant? When pain­ting and gra­uing of [...] ­tures is so farre from beeing Idola­try, that it is prooued to be a Science di­uinely infused by God him­self.

This is no diuine ordinance, but a prohibition to do it: a curse vpon the maker and adorer of it. S. Paul called, Heb. 9. 5, 1. amongst other things in the first Tabernacle, those Cherubins wee spake of but now, diuine Ordinances, and so doe wee. It is an impudent slander, that Protestants call those Cherubins, Idols: those Images which the Protestants call Idols, are Images made, abused to adoration in the Church of Rome. Doth hee that calleth the Image of our Lady of Lauretto, an Idoll, call the Picture of Baronius, or Bellarmine, Idols? then hee that calleth Will Summer a foole, calleth A. Pe. the Priest (what he is I know not) a foole too, because he hath the figure of a man as Will Summer had, though he be indeed as very a Look-like-agoose as he was, peraduenture.

See more, you say, 1. Kings 7. 36, 42, 44. Numb. 21. 8, &c. and doe so, Reader, and thou shalt see so many testimonies of Malice, of Ignorance, of Collusion. Neuer man thought, much lesse euer said, that pain­ting and caruing of Pictures was Idolatry: but lawful trades, excellent skill, sciences, not infused, but gi­uen by God to the vse of man, the glory of Gods name, the commendation of the parties therewith­all indowed. Images haue three vses assigned by your Schooles. Stay there, goe no further, and we charge you not with Idolatry. Institutionem rudium: Com­monefactionem historiae: et Excitationem deuotionis, you [Page 301] and wee also giue vnto them.

See Fathers that affirme the same. What doe they affirme? This man cannot tell, for hee knoweth not what, nor where they affirme. Hee sendeth vs to Tertullian in his second book de Pudicitia. The poore Ignorant that talketh thus of Fathers, knoweth not that there is but one book of Tertullian of that argu­ment and title: and lo, he sendeth vs to see the second book. It is well he told vs not in what Chap. we might finde it. Such Roters as these, are the men that talk of Fathers amongst their Gossips, and Proselytes; and yet are so stupid, as not to know what works a com­mon Father hath written. Besides, had Tertul. wrote such a second book, or sayd any such matter in that second book, a Protestant of but meane reading, could tell him, Tertullian wrote that book, beeing lapsed into Montanisme; and so of no authority in the Church for resolution, though for relation. But the truth is, the man did but vse Tertullian's name for a cypher, to fill vp a number, & make a fair dumb shew of a Shepheard with a sheepe on his shoulders, on a Chalice, which is the picture he looked at in Tertul.

But I can send him to Tertullian, to learne how like a Woodcock hee remembred those Texts of Scrip­ture, for the Cherubins. Sic et Cherubin et Seraphin, aureâ in arce, figuratum exemplum, certè simplex ornamen­tum accommodata suggestut, longe diuersos habendo causas, ab Idololatriae conditione, ob quam similitudo prohibetur, non videntur similitudinum prohibitarum Legi refragari: non in eo similitudinis statu deprehensa, ob quem similitudo prohibetur, Lib 2. con. Mar. 22. This commeth home to the reason why God ordained them, and answereth [Page 302] your Cauill to the full. As for your Images, take his description in the like, de Praescript. cap XII. Igitur si statuas et imagines frigidas mortuorum suorum simillimas non adoramus, quas milui, et mures, et aran [...]ae intelligunt, nonne laudem magis quàm poenam merebatur repudium agniti erroris? Hee thought not then very honorably of Imagines, whom wee are bidden goe see, for I know not what, engrauing on the Chalices.

For Gregory Nazianzen: I did much maruaile what it was wee might see in him, concerning Ima­ges, who writeth onely a deprecatory Epistle in be­half of the Inhabitants of Diocaesarea, vnto Olympius the Emperours Lieutenant. For I could finde no­thing tending vnto Images, but onely this, [...]: It is not much if the Statuae bee demolished and cast downe, though it be indeed a pitty to haue such a thing done. And what is heere to bee seene any way to purpose? This man, I beleeue, had read, or rather heard of Billius note vpon the place, this, Hic obserua Gregorij quoque tempore, aedes sacras statuis & imaginibus ornatas fuisse; and hauing heard of it, made much adoe about it: whereas Nazianzen doth not so much as mention Churches, nor Chappels: the statues hee speaketh of, were publique Ornaments of the City: and as for worshipping of them, it came not within the com­passe of his thoughts. Billius meant well to the Ca­tholique cause; and out of his affection, set downe that which hee would haue had Nazianzen speake, but not what he did say: for Nazianzen not so much as squinteth that way. More may any man maruaile at his trifling with Saint Basil, on Barlaam the Martyr: [Page 303] What shall I call thee, O valiant Souldier of Christ Iesus? Shall I call thee a Statue or Image of brasse? why, it is not so solid or substantiall as thou art, for Fire doth melt it: but fire could not cause thee pluck forth thy hand. This is not that passage peraduenture intended, but that which insu­eth, Exurgite nunc athleticorum gestorum pictores, mutilam ducis imaginem, vestro illustrate artificio, et obscurius à me depictum, coronatum athletam, vestrae industriae coloribus conspicuum reddite; not with a pencill (conceiue not Basil to haue beene a Painter) but with a penne. So that Homers describing Achilles, Vlysses, in this mans construction, is painting in a table with colours and portraiture to the life. None but a Statue would thus discourse, or one more senslesse than a block.

What Basil and Nazianzen could not doe, Augus­tine shall supply; who witnesseth, that in his time Christ was to bee seene painted in many places, betwixt Saint Peter and Saint Paul. So is hee in many Churches with vs, betwixt the blessed Virgin and Saint Iohn E­uangelist. So was the holy Virgin by Saint Luke, you say. So let them be euery where, if you please. Not the making of Images is misliked: not the ha­uing of Images is condemned; but the prophaning of them to vnlawfull vses, in worshipping and adoring them.

XLIIII.

IGnorant Blunderer, whither wilt thou? Sure, the man is not wel in his wits, that challengeth the Protestant vpon these termes, No man at any time hath seene God. Is it not plaine, expresse Scripture, that, Ioh. 1. 18. No man hath seene God at any time? Exo. 33. 20. Thou canst not see my face. For there shall no man see mee, and liue. No man hath, no man can in this life: no nor in that which is to come. So Saint Paul, 1. Tim. 6. 16. Whom neuer man saw, nor yet can see. The reason is rendred by a Pagan, [...]: Mor­tall men haue mortall eyes, and God inhabits Immorta­lity: and yet this Gagger thinks to gag the Spirit of truth, by opposing Texts of Scripture to the contra­ry; that a man may see God.

Gen. 3. 8. Where God appeared vnto Adam, walking in the Garden of Paradise, in a corporall forme. Accursed Glosser, to corrupt the Text! There wee read: They heard the voyce of the Lord God walking in the Garden in the coole of the day. So, Hearing and Seeing is all one with this man, that hath lost both Hearing and See­ing, & vnderstanding too. A voice, in his Philosophy, is a corporall forme: and so to heare one speake, is to [Page 305] see one go: and Moses said he knew not what, Deuter. 4. 12. You heard the voice of words; but saw no similitude, saue a voice. A whip for a fool, rather than an answer to his folly.

Gen. 28. 12, 13. God appeared vnto Iacob, standing a­boue the Ladder, whereon the Angels ascended and descen­ded. In what shape did he appear? can you tell? The Lord stood aboue it, so are the words, and spake. Hee might there stand and speak, as hee did in Sinah; and yet, as saith the Scripture, they see no shape. So that yet wee haue nothing but belying of Scripture, and de­prauing the Text, to countenance Idolatry in conse­quence.

Exod. 33. 11. To Moses He spake, face to face, as a man speaketh vnto his friend. Your great Prophet S. Thomas shall stop your mouth, 1. 2. q. 98, ar. 3. Secundum opi­nionem populi loquitur Scriptura: The Scripture speaks according vnto popular opinion; who thought, that Moses talked face vnto face with God, cùm per subiec­tam creaturam, id est, per Angelum & Nubem, ei loque­retur & appareret; where as indeed God appeared vnto and talked with him by the meanes of creatures, an Angell in a cloud: Or if not so, and this answer will not serue, by face to face, the Scripture meaneth a certain eminent and more familiar kinde of apparition, goe answer Saint Tho­mas.

And your Masters can tell you, that whereas it is related in the old Testament often, that God appea­red vnto men, the Doctors of the Church are not re­solued, whether God appeared at any time personal­ly, or wholly by the Ministery of Angels. Your men, the Iesuites, Victorellus, Vasquez, and the rest, nay, all [Page 306] later Diuines, saith Vasquez, but Clictho [...]us, affirme, that God neuer appeared but by the Ministry of An­gels. So that your expresse testimonies are in a wise case; and your self an Ignorant or a Confident, that knew not this, or dare oppose your Yea vnto their Nay.

Therefore, Esay 6. 1. he that sate vpon the Throne, and he that, Dan. 7. 9. is described, was not God, but some Angell; or if God, yet the second Person: the Father neuer appearing vnto any. Therefore, as Vas­quez himself confesseth, that great Vpbearer of Ro­man Idolatry, Henricus quodlibeto 1. Abutensis in 4. Deuter. Durand. in 3. d. 9. q. 2. ad 4. Martin Aiala de Tradit. 3. part. doo teach it as well as Caluin, that it is vtterly vnlawfull to picture or represent the Trinity, or God, otherwise than as in Christ hee took our flesh, and was found among vs as a man. These were nor Hereticks, nor Protestants, that did teach so: and yet we see it ordinary amongst our good Catho­licks, to represent the picture of the Trinity moe waies than one, which neuer appeared in humane shape, as yet to any. Impious Artificers, not onely vain, that make the most blessed and most glorious Trinity a certain Geryon; or, as Tertullian phraseth it, Sororem vasculorum: [...]: A thing not onely contrary vnto reason, but to the despite and contumely of God: whose glory being such as cannot be vttered, and shape such as cannot be expressed, is denomina­ted from, and represented in base and corruptible things, that haue no permanency without supply. So feelingly com­plained [Page 307] Iustine Martyr of your Camerades, the Idola­ters of those times. Such Images Hesselius a Papist, Professor at Louain, wherby God the Father is repre­sented in an humane shape, vtterly himself disliketh, and iustifieth his dislike out of the Fathers; that not onely Protestants may bee the mislikers of such im­piety, but Papists of better spirits, and more solid learning.

XLV.

TWo seuerall questions, as often confu­sedly propounded in one Proposition, which are of different natures, of vne­quall extents, of diuers and disparated approbation. The latter, that It is not lawfull to giue any honour to any dead or insensible thing, is a false imputation cast vpon vs, an horrible lie, against common sense, refelled in the ordinary practice of Protestants; who giue honour and respect, though not adoration, to many dead and insensible things, as this Fellow, liuing in a Protestant State, cannot choose but knowe, vnlesse with Bartimaeus [...]ee were borne blinde, and withall hath continued deaf from his mo­thers womb.

[Page 308] This he cannot prooue by expresse words, that we deny, nor yet any consequence thereupon. It is con­trary, he telleth vs for fashion sake, vnto the expresse words of our owne Bible. What is contrary? that It is not lawfull to worship images? or to giue any honour to dead things? Two distinct Assertions, not of necessa­ry consequence or dependance; and so, not necessa­rily inferred, one vpon the other. Besides, where is that expresse place of our Bible, which is contrary to that Assertion? This place was forgotten through Contrary to expresse words of their owne Bible: and he said, Draw not nigh hither, &c. too much haste. I will supply the defect, and designe the place which the man intended when he ouer pas­sed it.

Exod. 3. 5. Iosua 5. 15. Put off thy sho [...]es from thy feet: for, the place whereon thou standest, is holy ground. This may prooue, that at some time, by speciall pre­cept, vpon some occasion, some insensible thing may be honoured; which no Protestant euer went about to deny: but the inference they doo, and most iustly Lo how cleer a place is pro­duced heer a­gainst Prote­stants: where an insensible [...]reature, without rea­son, was com­manded by God himselfe to be honored may, as hauing no reason of illation; Therefore an i­mage, representing vnto vs an holy thing, may be worship­ped, say, and not honoured: for, of honour we contend not: our difference is about worship onely.

But take it of honour, and see the handsome conse­quence. God said, Some ground was holy: therefore all Images may bee worshipped. What an Image of Rie-dough is this Cods-head! To as good sense it might be spoken, Ierusalem was called The holy Ci­ty: therfore the Iewes might worship Images: Or, The Temple was an holy place: none but Israelites, and those also clean, might enter there: the Priests and Leuites did wash their feet, being to doo seruice [Page 309] there: all common people wiped off the dust from their feet, when they entred therein: therfore Ahaz might erect his Altars there; Manasses prophane it with Idolatry; Antiochus set vp the abomination of de­solation there. Had not the Beast cause to low thus; Lo how cleer a place is heer produced against the Prote­stants; wherein an insensible creature, without reason, was commanded by God himself to be honoured: for, the refrai­ning to tread vpon it, was the doing of honour to it? There­fore an Image, &c.

Of Honour be it, but not Worship. Honour and wor­ship differ more than latria and dulia doo. Without sense. I grant, and life too. The earth hath neither life nor sense. The earth was made to tread vpon. It was not great honour, To inhibite this course of kinde. Honour was done, not Worship; not to the place, but to the Holy place. The place was holy, not in it self; not made so by man, but from the personall presence of the most High. Make an Image so holy, and then so honour it. This honour was not (you were asleep, man) in refraining to tread vpon the earth: for, where stood Moses and Iosua, when they talked with God? in the aire, or no-where? or in the fift imagi­nary body? But the honour was, In refraining to tread on it with their shooes on: as when men come into the Church, but vncouer the head at their en­trance into the Church.

And for the honour in kinde or correspondency; what similitude betwixt that & yours, to an Image? You fall down vnto an Image, at least, before it. You honour the Image with the same honour that the Representee is honoured withall; at least acciden­tally, [Page 310] in your relatiue worship. Did Moses or Iosuab so honour the ground? Fell they downe vnto it? Put they their shooes off to it? for the grounds sake, and not rather for the presence of God there; whom, without any relatiue worship at all, they honoured immediately in himself? Any thing, I see, will serue a Priests turn. No matter what you prate, so that you prattle. Happy men that haue so pliant Proselytes, that so easily beleeue whatsoere is told them, though it be a tale of a Tub.

There is a respect due to all the works of God; as good, as his, as arguing the art and excellency of the Maker: so all of them are honourable in their kindes. Doo you therefore adore them? make them Images, as well you may, and farre rather than a carued piece of wood? by them giue relatiue honour vnto God? This you cannot digest by any means: for, then your Idolomanie in Images, with stocks and stones, were clean dashed. And yet, if dead and insensible things bee to be honoured, you cannot auoid the sequell, doo you what you can, Liue things may be much more honoured.

Vpon the same ground, we are sent to adore the foot­stool of his feet, Psal. 99. 5. as common in your mouthes for Adoration, as Ergo with boies in the schools: as if an Image were Gods Footstool, and so must be wor­shipped. Indeed, [...], an Image may bee for him to trample and tread vnder foot; as he will doo, in iust anger, the Image, and adorer of the Image, that giueth his glory to a stock, a stone. So wee well may take you at aduantage, if we will: but wee take you at best, as your self will. Footstool you expound in the literall sense, to be the Ark of Gods Testament, [Page 311] as 1. Chron. 28. 2. not as Saint Augustine; by Scripture too, for the Earth; or by anaiogic, Christs body, after Saint Ambrose, as I remember.

Be it the Arke: worship and adore it, if you can finde it; worship any thing like it, any Image for it, if you can bring so good warrant for your so doing, your adoring thereof, as is this, Adore the footstoole of his feet. Tu Prophetam imitare, nee adores imagines, nisi tibi Deus iusserit. Do as the Prophet willeth; Adore no Images, vnlesse God command. If God had commanded Israel, notwithstanding that Precept of Eternall Morality, Thou shalt not bow downe to them, nor worship them, to make Cherubins, and to adore them, Israel might haue done it; yet could not you haue followed Is­raels example, without sacriledge. For, peculiar pri­uiledges and dispensations take away no generall right, nor reuerse an eternall lawe. Adore you I­mages, and spare not, if you shew me such a Text, as, Adore the footstoole of his feet, if it were an Image.

I adde, If that footstoole be the Arke; what is Mountayne, ver. last? for as ver. 5. we reade, Adore we the footstoole of his feete, so ver. 9. we also reade, Adore we his holy Mountayne. What Images were in that ho­ly Mountaine, can you tell, for which we are willed to adore it? Some there were, some there must bee, your reason is no reason else: thus, Now the principall reason why the Arke was worshipped, was in regard of the Images that were vpon it. So that, no question, there were Images vpon that holy Mountaine, otherwise the Prophet would not haue sent vs to adore it. We read, Adore his holy Mountaine: we doe not read of Images vpon it; therefore a Reason, no reason, much lesse [Page 312] principall, is alleadged, and fathered vpon S. Ierome.

But indeed that is a reason, a principall one too: Now the principal rea­son why the Arke was worshipped, was in re­gard of the Images that were vpon it, which as S. Ierom saith, the lewes did worship, in his Ep. ad Mar­cellan. the same in both places: could you squint vpon it. v. 5. For he is holy, verse 9. For the Lord our God is holy. Which reason held before in putting off Moses shooes; The place is holy ground; Holines of the Lord. The presence of God communicated this Holines vnto that place. Adore his footstoole, for he is holy: Adore his Mountaine, for he is holy: Toward the Mountain, where hee dwelleth: Before his Footstoole, where hee treadeth; or in his Arke, as in his holy Mountain, as your owne Bibles, if I mistake not, read the place. So take it as you will, or as you can, out of Arke will proceed no Image­worship; nor yet from vpon the Arke, any Images.

The Iewes did worship Images vpon the Ark. That is no warrant for you to do so; nor yet precedent to take it so. They worshipped Baalim, and the Hostes of Heauen, Milcom and Moloch. Will you doe the like? They burnt their children in the valley of Hinnon. Would you be contented to be serued so? I would I had the pow'r to dress you so, to make you low a little louder, out of that bul. Such a wise collection as this, Because there were Images vpon the Arke: and because the Iewes did worship those Images, therefore the Prophet tooke vp that admonition, Adore the foot­stoole, &c.

You bely the Iewes, they did not worship them. For they could not come to worship them. The Arke was reuestried in the most holy place: No Isra­elite came thither to adore it: onely the High-Priest had accesse thither: He onely once, but one day in the yeare, and but one time in that day. And for any [Page 313] thing I yet know, Saint Hierom saith it not: in his E­pistle to Marcella doe you meane, or some other? S. Hierom wrote many Epistles vnto Marcella: in which of them all doth Saint Hierom say so? Did you suppose that hee wrote but one? It is more then probable you thought so. Or if moe then one, may we intreate you to tell vs in which of his Epistles hee saith so? But I may mistake, for I cannot tell what to make of in his Epistle to Marcellan. When you speake more plaine, I shall bee able to giue you a fuller answer: till then, I proceed.

From Images, to, I cannot tell what to giue vnto it, but it is, the name of Iesus, somwhat strangely car­ried vnto Adoration, Philip. 2. 10. That at the name of Ie­sus euerie knee should bowe, of things in Heauen, things in Earth, andof things vnder the earth. Vpon which pre­mises the conclusion is. Therefore Images are to bee worshipped. So the name of Iesus is become an Image; a strange kind of Image to my vnderstanding, that a mans name should bee his image. Imago is quasi Imi­tago, you say: which is not, saith Sanders, with Vasques approbation, any similitude whatsoeuer, but onely that which is expressed to represent the thing, as the Picture of a long-eared beast doth an Asse. Iesus prin­ted, or painted on a wall, is no Image of our Sauiour: much lessethe word pronounced, conueighed to the eare: which at least is, if not the intire, yet principall meaning of S. Paul. Names are notes of things. But names pronounced, are but transeunt: and names painted, no Image. Your Bottle-ale-wife ca [...]el you so much, that a Bottle, is not the Image of a bottle; and your Baker, that his basket, no representation of himselfe.

[Page 314] But to point. Your vndertaking is for expresse words in our Bibles. What expresnes, in bowing the knee at the name vnto an Image, made of what you will haue it? Beside, the name of Iesus is so farre from being expresse to proue it, that it is not resolued what is meant by the name of Iesus heer.

By that name is meant the Glorie and Power of Iesus [...], saith Chrysostom: because al things are subiected vnto him; as, There is no other name giuen vn­der heauē, by which we may be saued; no Power, no means beside; or the name of Iesus, is Iesus himselfe, that is, that at his name, in effect, vnto him euery knee should bowe, as He that calleth vpon the name of the Lord: that is, he that calleth vpon the Lord shall besaued; but we grant the name of Iesus, to bee Iesus named; and when wee heare that sweet name of our Sauiour named, accordingly do, and are inioyned by Canon to do reuerence with our bodie. Heere it doth not insue, wee may worship Images: there is text for the one; none for the other. Shewe it, that vnto the Image os Iesus euery knee should bowe; Difference in the one, from the other. Images are resemblances, which in vse and application, may in naturall proportion haue such a relation vnto the Prototype, that they sup­ply the roome thereof, insinuating the forme and fa­shion thereof; which the name thereof cannot doe, insinuating onely that being thereof. So there is rea­son for the one, none for the other: lesse reason of alleadging this text of Saint Paul for ratification of Image-worship.

In the Brazen Serpent there is more resemblance. It may be a warrant for making an Image, no warrant Num. 21. 8. [Page 315] for worshipping an Image made, nor for making ordinarily: because that was made by speciall direc­tion to a speciall end, against a generall practice vpon precept, Thou shalt not make any grauen I­mage. God may so dispense with his own Law, where, when, in what sort, and to whom hee will; but not wee.

The first obseruation then, out of this Text against Hence are euidently prooued di­uers things against Pro­testants, &c. the Protestant, that God commanded the making of this Image, is idle: neuer Protestant made question of it: nor of the second, that it was set vp for a signe: nor the third, that the lookers vpon it should receiue health: nor the fourth, of exempting the practice comman­ded, from the breach of the first Commandement. These they confesse, they plead, and bid you shew the like for your Images, for making, erecting, behol­ding, reuerencing any Image of God, or Saints in this sort, and they yeeld.

This Serpent was beheld, not adored by those that looked on it, though it had a reference vnto a great mystery, and was a Rememoratiue of saluation extended by the Sonne of God. Vnlesse it were ado­red, it is to no purpose alleaged. For making is one thing: this may be done. Adoring another thing: that is vnlawfull. Therefore Saunders, and Catharine, and Saunders, and Bellarmine doe maintaine, adorati­on was giuen vnto it. Vasques denieth it, and that iustly: for when they began to adore it, the good Ezechiah brake it in pieces. But yet Vasques must yeeld it was adored, or else, that it is alleaged to no purpose to prooue Adoration.

To conclude, no Text of Scripture doth expresly [Page 316] say, nor by consequence inferre, that euer Images were worshipped with countenance or commen­dation of God, or any holy man in Scripture. Saint Ambrose saith no such thing as is pretended, that Ima­ges lawfully may be worshipped. Hee saith, Whosoe­uer See Fathers that affirme the same. Saint Am­brose, Ser. 1. in Psal. 118. crowneth the Emperours Statue, crowneth the Emperor, that is, honoreth him: and whosoeuer dishonoreth the Emperours Statue, dishonoreth him. What then? Whosoeuer dishonoreth Gods Image, disho­noreth him. I grant. And what of that? Therefore, honour is to bee giuen some Images. No man de­nieth it. Therefore all Images are to be worshipped. Away with that; no such consequence. Honor is one thing, Dulia, if you will, Latria is another: worship, I am sure. First, What is Gods Image? Then, How farre Gods Image? Then, What ho­nour is due vnto Gods Image? And lastly, Whe­ther the honor giuen be not more, or other honour then is due vnto an Image?

Saint Augustine in his third booke de Trinit (You might haue added cap. 10. as well as the book, out of Bellarmines) nameth the brazen Serpent expresly in the ranke of such things, as, tanquam religiosa honorem haberepossunt. And so doe wee: and many things of that nature; as the Sacraments of the Church: of the which very things hee speaketh: and it had beene better he had sayd nothing of them. For hee demo­lisheth that Idol of Transubstantiation, in adding, Stuporem tanquam mira habere non possunt. Which could not haue passed from his pen, had he beleeued Tran­substantiation. This place of Saint Augustine is to no purpose: for there is not a word of Images there.

[Page 317] Saint Gregory is of later date then Saint Augustine, and of lesse credit by much in controuerted questi­ons. Images in his time were much improoued: and yet not vnto Adoration. Honour, Reuerence, and respect was giuen then, to bee bookes for the sim­ple and ignorant people: to bee remembrances of things by representation. Hold you heere, and wee blame you not. As for Damascene, he was a childe, in respect of those Heroes of the Church; Postnatus, and a party in that Image quarrell in the Easterne Church: exception against him may lie as partiall & interessed: and yet hee saith no more, (though what hee saith, cannot bee prooued) then that the honoring of Images, was a Tradition Apostolical. You or Damascene proue this, and I yeeld. I maruaile none euer said so before Damascene, who yet had good occasion to a­uow it, if it had beene so.

They had, you say, and did auow it: for Saint Ba­sil against Iulian, hath the same, that it was deliuered from the Apostles. Some body told Pope Adrian so, and hee beleeued them: for, facile credimus quae fieri volumus. Adrian related it in the second Synod of Nice: and you take it for Gospell. It Saint Basil said it, Ile subscribe it: shew it in Saint Basil, and no more a­doe. I maruaile, Saint Basil should euery where for­get this Tradition, remembring so many as he doth: especially in his booke de spiritu sancto. Basil is not the onely man belyed in that ridiculous Synod: nor the onely man forged in that Epistle of Pope Adrian, whence the Rhemists, and Harding, and Bellarmine had it, from whom you took, whatsoeuer you haue, impudent Plagiary as you are!

[Page 318] Saint Chrysostom's Masse is not intirely his: many things haue beene added in tract of time: no man will deny it, that knoweth any thing: this bowing to the Image is one of those additions: and yet in some editions there is no mention of any Image: if there bee, it doth not come home, to iustifie that in the Church of Rome, whereby worship is giuen to stocks and stones, and such worship as indeed is Gods pe­culiar.

Images and Idols may be two things: these pro­phane and impious, neuer tolerable: those not vn­lawfull, and sometime profitable, especially resem­blances of Stories: Images were vnlawfull vnto the Iewes at all, the very ordinary and ciuill vse and ma­king of them, except by speciall warrant, in some place: as in the Temple, vpon the Ark, which though perhaps not obserued, yet is true, and apparant to any man that aduisedly shall read Philo and Iosephus. Vnto Christians they are not vnlawful, for ciuil vses: nor vtterly in all manner of religious imployment. The pictures of Christ, the blessed Virgin, and Saints may be made, had in houses, set vp in Churches: the Protestants vse them: they despight them not. Res­pect and honour may be giuen vnto them: the Pro­testants doe it: and vse them for helps of piety, in re­memoration, and more effectuall representing of the Prototype. But quatenus? In tearmes there is not much difference: you say they must not haue Latria: so we. You giue them Dulia. I quarrell not the terme, though I could: there is a respect due vnto, and ho­nour giuen relatiuely vnto the picture, signe, resem­blance, monument of great men, friends, good men, [Page 319] Saints, Christ. If this you call Dulia, we giue it too. But whatsoeuer you say, howsoeuer you qualifie the thing with gentle words, wee say, In your practice you farre exceede, and giue them that honor which is Latria: a part of diuine respect and worship. So not wee. Let practice and doctrine goe together, wee agree. So that the question is not, What may bee giuen them? but, What is giuen them? You must then change the state, and prooue, that what you doe, is not any way, any iot or part of diuine honour, but meerely ciuill respect, Dulia. This you cannot doe, so long as your people go to it with down-right adoration, and your new Schooles defend, that the same respect is due vnto the Representee, as must be giuen to the represented. So that the Crucifix is to bee reueren­ced with the self-same honor that Christ Iesus is. A blasphemy not heard of, till Thomas Aquinas set it on foote. Cleere these enormities, and others like these, then come, and wee may talk and soone agree concerning honor and respect vnto Reliques or Ima­ges of Saints, or Christ: till then, we cannot answer it vnto our Maker, to giue his honour vnto a Crea­ture.

XLVI.

BLessing or signing, what is that? Doubtlesse the man meant signing with the Crosse, vpon the fore­head: otherwise, the fellow is more then impudent, that fathers this vpon any Protestant, that blessing is not [Page 320] founded vpon Scripture. And yet this hee would haue his Proselytes beleeue: to this his two first Texts are addressed, to prooue that Protestants vse no blessing at all, in any action diuine, morall, or ciuill.

For Mark. 10. 16. wee read, Hee took them vp in his armes, put his hands vpon them, and blessed them: with­out any signing in the fore-head: therefore hee must needs meane this: That Protestants neuer blesse any thing, or man whomsoeuer: and yet they doe their children euery Morning and Euening; and yet they doe their meates euery meale: yet in many other actions, nothing so frequent as this. The like is that, Luk. 24. 50. For there is no signing added vnto that blessing: onely, Reuel. 7. 3. there is mention of sealing, or signing, take whether you will, in the fore head: and that happly was with the signe of the Crosse.

But Sir Maleuolo, know, we vse Blessing as much as you; in as many lawfull things as you, and more piously than you. Wee vse signing with the signe of the Crosse, both in the Fore-head, and elsewhere: Witnes that solemn form in our Baptism: for which we are so quarrelled by our Factious. Caro signatur, vt anima muniatur, saith Tertullian: and so doo wee. They vsed it in Baptism, all the world knoweth it. They signed their Fore-heads, Cyprian, Epist. 56. and many other places of his Works: vpon their hands. [...]. Their whole body and bed, Tertul. 2. ad vxorem, 5. ad omnem motum & ha­bitum, the same Tertul, de corona milit. 3. Whereupon, the old Christians were named, Religiosi Crucis: and yet they neuer adored the Crosse. In the Greek Litur­gie, [Page 321] the signe of the Crosse is frequent. The worship of the Crosse is not found. Not any of the Fathers auerre that: the vse of the Signe they doo all. And if you will thank me, I will adde as many more. Ignat. Epist. 5. pa. 48. Clement in constit. VIII. XII. Martial in Epist. ad Burdigal. iustin. Mart. pa. 285. & 58. & 92. Euseb. de vita Constant. lib. 3. 47. and conclude with that of Athanasius: [...]: By the signe of the Crosse of Christ, all Magick Spels are disappointed, witch­craft and sorcery cometh to nothing, all idols are abandoned and forsaken. For the reuerent vse of signing with the signe of the Crosse, I knowe no such cause of distra­ction or dis-affection. Our Church alloweth it, vseth it, and commandeth it: and I could tell you some experimented effects of it.

XLVII.

A Strange imputation; so false and slanderous, as euery child that can read, knoweth it is a Lie: for, in our Liturgie and publique Seruice, the Lords Prayer is repeated many times. In our Letany, how many repetitions of the same thing! insomuch as that we cannot escape reprehension for it. But this Fellow, that set himself to quarrell, and whole opus is, to maintain a faction on foot, raketh vp the retri­menta of each priuate, singular, contentious spirit, and tendreth them as publique receiued doctrines of the [Page 322] Protestants; who hold it neither superstitious, nor yet superfluous, to repeat one and the same Praier often­times: for, [...], good things may bee remembred once and again: and if to man decies re­petita placebunt, some things cannot bee repeated too often to God. It cannot any way discontent God, who loueth affection aboue all: and we can haue no surer signe of affection, than repetition; when a man desireth to dwell vpon a thing, and not willingly to leaue it, as Psal. 18. 1.

But take wee the Fellow according to his fansie: Where first, our Lord ha­uing taught his owne Dis­ciples that excellent Prayer of all praiers, which hee would haue them to offer to him, the Pater noster or our Lords Praier; hee afterwards, in many o­ther places, willeth them to pray al­waies, as Luke 18. 1. he was not well prouided to prooue a truth by Math. 7. 9. compared with Luke 18. 1. Luke 21. 36. There our Sauior taught his Disciples a set form of Praier, as Iohn Baptist had taught his. There hee wils them to pray continually; to pray, and cease not. This idle fellow inferrs heerupon, How is it possible to perseuere in so short a form of praier, except we often repeat the same? I grant, not possible to continue in praying that Prai­er, without often repetition. And who findeth fault with repeating it often? Repeat it, on Gods Name, again and again, so often as you haue fingers & toes; but your repetition will haue no warrant heer: for, Christ doth not bid them, either Luke 18. 1. or 21. 36. repeat the Lords Praier often, pray that Praier only, and no other often. As the matter & occasiōs, so the form and manner, he leaues to themselues; and nor there, nor elsewhere, [...]ieth them to any. If he did, how can the Catholiques answer it to God, who haue so many and diuerse set form of praiers, beside the Pater noster?

The Angels Trisagium is more to purpose; where The Angels in the Pro­phet Esay, E­say 6. and the beasts in the Apoc. Apo. 4. which rest neither d [...]y nor night, do thrice repeat, &c. Holy is repeated thrice by them: and yet short ejacu­latory [Page 323] Praiers doo differ from long-contriued Ori­sons, and are much fitter for repetition than these. Tertullian saith well: Dominus prospector humanarum necessitatum, seorsimpost traditam orandi disciplinam, Pe­tite, inquit, & accipietis, & sunt quae petantur, pro circum­stātia cuius [...] praemissà legitimâ et ordinariâ oratione quasi fundamento, accidentium ius est desideriorum, ius est super­struendi extrinsecus petitiones. It was neuer heard of till now, that the Lords Prayer should be the onely Pray­er a man ought to vse vpon occasion. It is a contrary Extreme, It was not giuen to be vsed at all. The An­gels in heauen, the soules of the Righteous, Christ Iesus in the garden, the three children in the fiery furnace, vse repetitions of their praiers. A sanctis pete perfectis exemplum. Vse them, a-Gods-name. Do as they haue done. A good thing cannot be repeated too often. I doo not knowe any Puritan will dislike it. I haue knowne as great Puritans as any were, vse the Lords Praier twice at euery Sermon, in the be­ginning, at the end: and yet I knowe, it was the Puritan opinion at first, that The Lords Praier was not so often to bee repeated, as it is in our ordinary Seruice. T. C. wrote this, lib. 1. pa. 136. What reason is this, we must repeat the Lords Praier oftentimes, therefore oftentimes in half an houre, and one in the neck of another? Doth your Proposition driue at this? Driue, a-Gods Name, till you driue it down: we go with you. For, it is a singular, vpstart, nouell, Puritan quarrell; as, infinite other are against the Church in all Ages, a­gainst the doctrine and discipline of the Church. But what is this to Protestants? Against Protestants your Gag is directed, not Puritans: and yet all your ad­dresses, [Page 324] well-neer, are against Puritan Positions, ma­litiously imputed to Protestants: and yet your selues among your selues make a difference betwixt Prote­stants and Puritans; professing, If it were not for the Protestant, you would not esteem what the Puritan could say: and truely. For, the Protestant commeth vp to you on your owne grounds, and vndertaketh you at your own weapons; so that you haue no help against him, but to bely him with your Proselytes. So you began, so you continued, and so you end this petty Pamphlet. For, otherwise you may knowe, that this very point of often repeating the Lords Praier, hath by vs been maintained against Puritan detraction, more than by Papists; especially by those two Worthies of their time, the most reuerend Lord Archbishop, Whitgift, of blessed memory; and that incomparable Hooker: concerning whom I may much rather say, than of his Works, of whom it was said and made by Paulus Thorius:

In whose words I conclude to this babbler. Twice we rehearse it ordinarily, and oftner, as occasion requireth more solemnity or length, in diuine seruice; not mistrusting, till these new curiosities sprāg vp, that euer any man would think our labour heerin mis-spent the time wastfully consumed, and the office it self made worse, by so repeating that which otherwise would more hardly bee made familiar to the sim­pler sort; for the good of whose Soules, there is not in Chri­stian Religion any thing of like continuall vse and force, throughout euery houre and moment of their whole liues. I meane, not onely because Prayer, but because this very Pray­er [Page 325] is of such efficacy and necessity. Know this, Sir Gag­ger, that this is our opinion o [...] repeating Prayers; this our doctrine touching the Lords Prayer, repea­ted, or to bee repeated. That giddy conceit, taken vp by the Puritan faction sometime, is none of ours, as the faction it self is none of ours: no more then Donatists, Meletians, or Nouatians, were antiently the Catholique Church, or their fooleries to be im­puted to the Church. The Factionists would, were the innouating humor predominant in them, perad­uenture prescribe a forme of Religion to Christ Ie­sus himself, were he on earth againe, though but to last for a day: vnlesse happly they disagreed, which fancy should haue precedency. For euery Crow thinketh her owne bird fayrer then the neigh­bours.

But to conclude with your Fathers, that affirme God knoweth what: you are to prooue, which yet wee desire you not to doe, for there is no such neede against vs; that It is not superstitious, nor yet superfluous to repeat one and the same Prayer oftentimes. For this Lactantius is, cited lib. 4. de diuinâ institut. cap. 28. but might haue beene spared. In that Chap. he disputeth against that deriuation which Cicero gaue, of supersti­tiosus; That they were called superstitiosi, qui totos dies immolabant et precabantur, vt sui liberi sibi superstites essent. For saith hee, Quid mihi afferet causae, cur precari pro salute Filiorum, semel religiosi, et idem decies facere, superstitiosi esse hominis arbitretur? What reason can Cicero giue mee, why it should bee counted religious piety to pray once; and superstition, to pray often? Si enim semel facere, opti­mum [Page 326] est; quanto magis saepius? Which testimony is di­rect as may be, for praying often, but not for saying the said prayer often: yet this should be proued, not that. This is after the Puritan Cut, not that. Howso­euer, it may touch our Factionists, who regard n o Fathers: it concerns not vs, who respect the one, & vse the other: who profess, with the same Lactantius, Multiplicata obsequia demerentur potius, quam offendunt.

The next is S. Amb. lib. de Sp. sanct. cap. 20. Howso­euer you haue playd the Idle-pack, Addle-head, Ig­naro, or Negligent in the course of your book: yet, as good Orators in a bad cause, lay the strength they haue or can make, in the beginning, and latter end, so should you: but who can haue more of a cat, then her skinne; of a Blunderer, then that which is next hand? Saint Ambrose wrote three bookes to Gratian the Emperor, de spiritu sancto. This poore Innocent knew no such matter; supposing, hee had wrote but one; nor caring, vnto whom hee wrote it. Saint Ambrose lib. de spiritu sancto, cap. 20. saith, Who can tell what? I say, Who can tell? For, the first booke hath 20. Chapters iust: in the 20. nothing is that tendeth this way. In the second book there are but 12. There can bee nothing in any 20. Chapter there. The third hath chapters 23. but nothing touching repetition of Prayers, or Prayers at all. The truth is, beside these bookes, there is in some editions another tract with­out Chapters at all; a very very short one, de spiritu sancto; by some supposed, a fourth book to be added vnto the other three; by others, a seuerall, headlesse discourse, none of Saint Ambrose doing: howsoeuer it be, whose-soeuer, it should seeme the book which [Page 327] the man would designe. For, not farre from the end, hauing recited that text of Esay 6. Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Sabbath, hee inferreth the custome of the Church for the Trisagium in their ordinary Letany; Vnde etiam tractum est, per omnes fere Orientales Ecclesias, et nonnullas Occidentales, vt in oblationibus sacrificiorum quae Deo patri offeruntur, vna cum sacerdote, voce populus vtatur, id est, Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus, Dominus Deus Sabaoth. Which very words wee vse in our so­lemnizing of the holy Communion thus: Therefore with Angels, and Archangels, and the company of Heauen, wee laud and magnifie thy glorious name, euermore pray­sing thee, and saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts, Heauen and earth are full of thy glory. Glory bee to thee, O Lord, most high. Can this Goose gaggle against this?

Augustine is next, lib. 1. de Serm. Dom. in Monte, cap. 5. in whom I finde no such diuision, nor any thing to purpose. And lib. de doct. Christ. cap. 7. againe; As if there were but one booke, there being foure, and no such matter in any 7. Chapter. Who can brooke such an ignorant or negligent companion, in a point of controuersie and imputation? Which is also ob­serued by him in Saint Gregory. Saint Gregory is to be seene, lib. 1. Moral. cap. 28. in which booke there are not so many Chapters; nor in the Chapters which are, any such thing. The truth is, that which was meant, is lib. 29. Moral. vpon the 38. of Iob, the same in effect with Saint Ambrose before. Esais quo (que), cùm Laudem Trinitatis aperiret, Seraphini voces exprimens, ait, Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus: ac ne tertiò Sanctū nominās vni [...]atē diuinae substantiae scindere videretur, adtūxit Dominus [Page 328] Deus Sabaoth: which, almost word for word, is re­peated, Homil. 16. and not 19. as we find it cited vpon Ezechiel. To which hee might haue added Psal. 67. Benedicat nobis Deus, Deus noster: Benedicat nobis Deus; and that in Rom. XI. For, of him, and by him, and in him are al things: to him be praise for euer, Amen. These are his Fathers that should affirme the same, videlicet, that it is nor superfluous, nor superstitious, to repeat one & the same prayer oftentimes. They repeat nothing: they affirm nothing: they only speak what was done. That which they speake, wee doe. That which they are supposed to affirme against vs, if they did affirme any thing, needed not: For we affirme, vse, propose, and maintaine the same, priuately, publiquely, in our Liturgie, and Seruice of the Church. To conclude, Sir Gagger: bring mee any one Place of Scripture, any practice resolued of the Catholicks, any decision of the Church representatiue, any determination of the Church collectiue, in a particular approued Sy­nod; any Saying of any one Father of Credit, dog­matically resolued for 500. yeeres and better after Christ, to the end of the Councell of Chalcedon, a­gainst any thing established in the Church of Eng­land; that is, in the Communion-booke, the booke of Articles, the booke of Consecrating Bishops, and orde­ring of Priests and Deacons; and I will subscribe. Heer is scope enough to ramble in. Gagge me, if you can. As for priuate opinions, I am bound to none, no not vnto my owne. Quis (que) abundet in sensu suo, so be it hee trouble not the Church therewith.